politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left hope it

They can say what they like about electoral reform in 2020, but if Corbyn is still Labour leader there will again be a Tory majority - under PR it would be a Tory/UKIP landslide.

Would those wanting to make the change to PR without a referendum also support withdrawal from the EU without a referendum if the Tory/UKIP majority put it in their manifestos too?

No! That won't get the old dears out to vote - the prospects of a Lab-Lib-SNP-Green alliance!

Perhaps Farron reckons the Lib Dem brand is so trashed allying it with Corbynite Labour can't do any harm?

Nice to know.....

THE SNP's shadow leader of the House of Commons says he and most of the party's 115,000 members are “relatively relaxed” about not seeking a mandate for an independence referendum in May.

Despite many activists wanting a swift second vote, Pete Wishart, one of the party's most senior MPs and chair of the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Select Committee, said the coming Holyrood election would be about good governance, not the constitution.

The No vote in 2014 was “decisive” and should be respected, he told the Sunday Herald....

“We’ve had that referendum, we got a decisive result, and we said that would be a once in a generation referendum.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14226379.Wishart__I_m__quot_relaxed_quot__about_no_manifesto_commitment_on_Indyref2/

An AV thread! With the Tories still winning! Oh TSE, you spoil us!

"Frank Field and Nicholas Soames warn that the potential rise in migration has been severely underestimated. The joint chairmen of a cross-party group of MPs call for an end to the “open-door policy”, which they say poses a risk to “social cohesion”. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, they warn that the migration crisis might make it “extremely difficult” for Mr Cameron to win the referendum."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12117890/Europe-the-gloves-are-off-as-Tory-rift-widens.html

A Beckett whitewash?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

OT BETTING POST. The other day I wrote this. (The odds at the time were 12/1).




'The Big Short'. Shortlisted for Best Picture.

1. It explains the '08 crash so any idiot can understand it
2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it
3. Entertaining. Anyone involved in banking will enjoy it in the way photographers liked 'Blow Up'
4. WONT WIN. Too misogynist and the suspect morality was made far too alluring"




It now seems the odds are likely to drop sharply and it's now a real possibility for "Best Picture". The fact that the only time you see women they are stupid /naked/and or lap dancers might have put some in the academy off now it's 2016. Apparently not.

FPT

Somebody was asking about surprise wins for the conservatives. They had undoubtedly given up on Cannock Chase. We had one national mail shot, one 'insert name her' candidate shot, no canvassing by phone or door to door, and just two posters - one of Miliband in Salmond's pocket, and one saying 'vote Milling' on the wall of the local funeral parlour.

Yet they still won with an average swing against a Labour campaign that was so hyperactive you would have sworn all its activists were on speed. Admittedly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to campaign on 'Save Stafford Hospital', but in the end I don't think it made any difference.

This tells me 2 things:

1) focus groups are a waste of money.

2) in the end, it looks as if the campaigns made no difference - people voted on national issues, e.g. Miliband's hopelessness and Labour's track record, or tuition fees.

That leads inexorably to a third conclusion;

3) Labour are facing major losses in 2020.

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Yes - this constant attempt to pretend by our friends on the Left that the charge against Brown was that 'he caused the US sub-prime bust' is transparently ineffective (which is why its never worked)

Until they face up to the 'yes, we may have spent a little more than was wise in hindsight, but we couldn't see into the future - can you?' then they wont get a hearing.

I thought one of the defining moments of GE2015 was the audience reaction to Miliband's straight 'no' to 'did you spend to much?' - a combination of sharp intake of breath and groan - very British. And deadly.

AndyJS said:

I live near this seat and I always thought the Tories had a good chance of holding it, due to the demographics being in their favour. Virtually every small town Midlands constituency swung from Labour to Conservative.

I live in this seat, and I assure you the Tory hold was a massive surprise. Neither Rugeley nor Cannock fit the stereotype of the small town (Cannock is in any case a large town). They will tend Conservative over time with new developments and the improvement in transport links to Birmingham, Manchester and London, but at this election a half-decent national or even local performance, coupled to Burley's disgrace, should have made this an easy win.

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

They both have larger banking sectors than Greece or Italy, although admittedly they do not have the Euro. Moreover, you would have thought the close links of Canada's banking system to America's plus its small size would have left them more exposed, not less, making their escape even more impressive.

The others you mention - well, Barings was the victim of fraud, not a systemic blowup. Don't know anything about the others so can't comment.

The point about Brown's silly remarks is of course unfortunately unanswerable.

This is the height of arrogance by politicians who don't think they can win.

There was a referendum on electoral reform (albeit one system) which was comprehensively rejected.

If you want to change to a different system, fine. But you have to ask the public, not just impose it especially - presumably - as a partisan measure that is not supported by the other major party.

Who do they think they are?

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The FSA's actions were not irrelevant. The FSA had a very good opportunity in early 2007 to stop the RBS takeover of ABN but failed to act, despite evidence that some of the behaviour by various players involved was, how can I put this?, less than optimal. That failure - and note that this was happening long before the autumn of 2008 when everyone thinks the crash started - was one of the factors that led to the problems the UK suffered.

The full story of this period has yet to come out.

Good morning, everyone.

I said Farron was a muppet.

As Mr. Eagles observes, Corbyn is horrendously unpopular and diametrically opposed to the majority of the electorate on many small issues, such as the nuclear deterrent, democratic freedom [Falklands], migration, shooting terrorists before they can kill people and whether or not we should have an army.

Any kind of alliance with that, with a Labour Party that may have moved on from dreaming of axing their leader and is now content with wailing and gnashing of teeth is insane.

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

Canada and Australia (at least pre-commodity downcycle) have some of the best capitalised banking systems in the world. RBC/BOM/NAB etc are some of the few banks with decent credit ratings.

BCCI and Barings were clear cases of fraud - and neither of them became systemic. The secondary banking crisis was more serious - but well handled by the Guvnor's eyebrows - and was 40 years ago.

Sub-prime lending - and more particularly the financial instruments built on top of that (and yield chasing by the Landensbanken) was the proximate cause of the financial crisis. Some of our credit institutions were poorly managed - the usual issues of bad lending or bad funding - but the regulatory system was absolutely ineffective and the regulators were asleep at the switch.

Brown didn't cause the financial crisis - but he should have spotted the imbalances that were building in the global economy (he was warned on multiple occasions) and we were wholly unprepared when the storm arrived. Additionally - as has been talked about ad nauseum - he behaved as if the tax revenues from the City were permanent not cyclical and inflated spending well beyond the capacity of the tax base, leaving the UK with one of the worst structural deficits in the West

At last the much awaited AV thread!

The Lib Dems have found a way to get some publicity. That's getting steadily harder for them.

I'm very wary about that ERS table. It's very dangerous to extrapolate from results under one system to results under a different system, especially when those systems are as different as First Past The Post and STV.

Deborah Mattinson, Gordon Brown's polling guru, thinks that Beckett report is hogwash or nonsense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

"Yes, she picked up on the economy, but there actually was no analysis. It's reduced down to one bullet point in the report."

Ms Mattinson said voters "didn't trust Labour to manage the economy" and they "categorically" blamed the party for the 2008 financial crisis.

She also said people did not see Labour leader Ed Miliband as "prime ministerial".

"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.

Peter Brookes' summed it up quite well in his Times Cartoon, with a speech bubble emanating from Miliband's arse.

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The point about Brown's silly remarks is of course unfortunately unanswerable.

Didn't stop Brown trying to re-write history:

Brown has talked specifically about the end of Tory boom and bust, but to suggest, as he did in the Mail interview, that it was always the mantra seems faintly ludicrous to anyone with an internet connection and the inclination to trawl through his public statements and speeches.....

But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

Anyone who claims to have abolished the business cycle is riding for a fall.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I said Farron was a muppet.

As Mr. Eagles observes, Corbyn is horrendously unpopular and diametrically opposed to the majority of the electorate on many small issues, such as the nuclear deterrent, democratic freedom [Falklands], migration, shooting terrorists before they can kill people and whether or not we should have an army.

Any kind of alliance with that, with a Labour Party that may have moved on from dreaming of axing their leader and is now content with wailing and gnashing of teeth is insane.

I concur with my learned friend. Just because the Labour Party has acquired political rabies, that is no reason for the LibDems to want a mad dog of their own too. They have a sizeable vein to mine as the sensible centre-Left, a ground the Corbynistas have left to them. Instead, Tim Farron goes chasing cars with the Bat-shit Crazy Left.

dr_spyn said:

Deborah Mattinson, Gordon Brown's polling guru, thinks that Beckett report is hogwash or nonsense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

"Yes, she picked up on the economy, but there actually was no analysis. It's reduced down to one bullet point in the report."

Ms Mattinson said voters "didn't trust Labour to manage the economy" and they "categorically" blamed the party for the 2008 financial crisis.

She also said people did not see Labour leader Ed Miliband as "prime ministerial".

"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.

Peter Brookes' summed it up quite well in his Times Cartoon, with a speech bubble emanating from Miliband's arse.

I think actually we've seen the scale of Labour's denial this morning. They insist it was not their fault what happened, that the blame game is a 'Tory myth' and are incredibly frustrated when their narrative is dismissed and ridiculed.

In a sense, the fact that their narrative has some truth in it is irrelevant. They were in power, they made policy mistakes, they get blamed, as did Major and Lamont over Black Wednesday. Until they accept that, deal with it properly and start to work in a meaningful way to regain public trust, they will still struggle because they look like a bunch of whiny children who are unfit to be given major responsibilities.

That's not important while Corbyn is leader, of course, but it will matter greatly to whoever replaces him.

Mr. Doethur, a fair point, I do apologise to muppets.

I'd vote for Kermit or Gonzo over Corbyn any day.

Mr. Mark, precisely. With Labour careering over to the Mad Even In The 1980s left, there's a wide open ground in the centre-left. But Farron appears more interested in throwing away an electoral system the public backed in a referendum a couple of years ago, without troubling to consult the electorate.

AndyJS said:

I always thought the Tories had a good chance of holding it, due to the demographics being in their favour. Virtually every small town Midlands constituency swung from Labour to Conservative for the same reasons.

ydoethur said:

FPT

Somebody was asking about surprise wins for the conservatives. They had undoubtedly given up on Cannock Chase. We had one national mail shot, one 'insert name her' candidate shot, no canvassing by phone or door to door, and just two posters - one of Miliband in Salmond's pocket, and one saying 'vote Milling' on the wall of the local funeral parlour.

Yet they still won with an average swing against a Labour campaign that was so hyperactive you would have sworn all its activists were on speed. Admittedly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to campaign on 'Save Stafford Hospital', but in the end I don't think it made any difference.

This tells me 2 things:

1) focus groups are a waste of money.

2) in the end, it looks as if the campaigns made no difference - people voted on national issues, e.g. Miliband's hopelessness and Labour's track record, or tuition fees.

That leads inexorably to a third conclusion;

3) Labour are facing major losses in 2020.

I have just spent a couple of days in the East Midlands, and was taken with how much the local economies seem to be moving forward. Places that were marginals no longer feel like places you would expect Labour to get much of a hearing, whichever wing of the party is talking to voters.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, a fair point, I do apologise to muppets.

I'd vote for Kermit or Gonzo over Corbyn any day.

Mr. Mark, precisely. With Labour careering over to the Mad Even In The 1980s left, there's a wide open ground in the centre-left. But Farron appears more interested in throwing away an electoral system the public backed in a referendum a couple of years ago, without troubling to consult the electorate.

During the AV referendum many people were saying they would vote against AV because it was not proportional.

Great article TSE.

I can only conclude that Farron is desperate.

Actually, instinctively reading those numbers, the STV result seems the fairest.

AndyJS said:

The BBC's Jon Sopel believes Trump will be the GOP candidate:

"Let me say that again. Unless there is a seismic shift in polling, Donald Trump stands to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the 2016 general election. Potentially the first ever president who has never held elected office or been in the military."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292

I'm going to wait until the results of Iowa and NH before I call that, to confirm that the primary election results are confirming the polls, but I really do think he should be at evens or below now.

dr_spyn said:

Deborah Mattinson, Gordon Brown's polling guru, thinks that Beckett report is hogwash or nonsense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

"Yes, she picked up on the economy, but there actually was no analysis. It's reduced down to one bullet point in the report."

Ms Mattinson said voters "didn't trust Labour to manage the economy" and they "categorically" blamed the party for the 2008 financial crisis.

She also said people did not see Labour leader Ed Miliband as "prime ministerial".

"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.

Peter Brookes' summed it up quite well in his Times Cartoon, with a speech bubble emanating from Miliband's arse.

Mattinson -- at least as quoted -- does not add materially to Beckett's analysis but just restates it.

Theresa May breaking bread with Liam Fox:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6879167/Is-Theresa-May-ready-to-show-UK-the-door-over-EU.html

Cyclefree said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The FSA's actions were not irrelevant. The FSA had a very good opportunity in early 2007 to stop the RBS takeover of ABN but failed to act, despite evidence that some of the behaviour by various players involved was, how can I put this?, less than optimal. That failure - and note that this was happening long before the autumn of 2008 when everyone thinks the crash started - was one of the factors that led to the problems the UK suffered.

The full story of this period has yet to come out.

As someone who was actually doing work inside ABN in that period, the idea that anyone would want that bank on anything other than a firesale basis was absurd.

The FSA didn't do anything apart from demand that everyone (and his dog) had a photocopy of his/her passport lodged with HR and had clicked through a couple of online tests which you could get the dog to do for you.

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

The BBC's Jon Sopel believes Trump will be the GOP candidate:

"Let me say that again. Unless there is a seismic shift in polling, Donald Trump stands to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the 2016 general election. Potentially the first ever president who has never held elected office or been in the military."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292

I'm going to wait until the results of Iowa and NH before I call that, to confirm that the primary election results are confirming the polls, but I really do think he should be at evens or below now.

Ted Cruz is at almost 8-1 right now.

That's ridiculous considering that his voters in Iowa are previous known caucus goers, unlike Trump's higher headline number that may or may not show up.

Also if Cruz wins Iowa, does it REALLY boost Marco Rubio in New Hampshire. That's a stretch of logic too far for me. More likely it boosts Ted Cruz as the stop Donald candidate (Rubio and Cruz are both very Conservative, so no reason they shouldn't take each other's voters)

If Trump wins Iowa he may well run the table, and perhaps should be sub Evens. But if he doesn't win, it is Ted Cruz and not Marco Rubio that is nationally in second place. Their Betfair odds are completely the wrong way round.

Right now Cruz and Trump are a 53% book. It must be heavily odds on one of them wins it, shorely.

Dutch them if you haven't already, or back Cruz if you're long Trump.

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Lib Dems have found a way to get some publicity. That's getting steadily harder for them.

I'm very wary about that ERS table. It's very dangerous to extrapolate from results under one system to results under a different system, especially when those systems are as different as First Past The Post and STV.

I agree, if we had had a PR system fewer people would have voted UKIP if they thought that they might share power. Also the Tories might well have steered clear of any coalition that involved UKIP. Labour would have had fewer losses to the SNP and the Tories image of Miliband in the pocket of the SNP leader would have had less effect.
However if the election results did give UKIP a sizeable breakthrough at Westminster then that should be respected, it would be what people had voted for and it would be up to politicians to try to make the result of the electorate's verdict work.
If parties come to an agreement before the election to reform the electoral system and put it in their manifestos then of course it would be fine to implement it once in government.
I suppose that the best result for the opposition parties would be for an agreement to be made with Labour about the introduction of PR and then for Corbyn to step down or be replaced befioe the GE.

I think more people would vote Green and UKIP if we had PR, because they wouldn't have to worry about wasting their vote or letting the other side in.

I think it would affect quite a few peoples votes.

Any PR election pact should get over the leftie love-in that was the AV referendum and get UKIP on board. If there was such a deal between Farron and Farage then I would be impressed that this was a genuine call for fairness rather than some stitch up.

I would favour a system like Holyrood, where PR seems to work reasonably well.

Just seen this flagged up by Philip Cowley, on Why Labour Lost.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413988/Why-Labour-REALLY-lost-Margaret-Beckett-whitewash-secret-party-report-reveals-Britain-voted-Tory-Ed-Miliband-disaster-just-couldn-t-trusted.html

Have only scanned through the article.

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Roger said:

2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it

Yes and no. It did start in the U.S., but it affected us particularly badly because of Brown's ineptitude. We had nine financial institutions go bust - Canada and Australia had none between them. This was because Brown's tripartite system failed to enforce basic capital requirements and gearing ratios. He also waved through a number of disastrous mergers, e.g. RBS/ABN, Lloyds/HBOS, which turned a major drama into a systemic crisis.

Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The FSA's actions were not irrelevant. The FSA had a very good opportunity in early 2007 to stop the RBS takeover of ABN but failed to act, despite evidence that some of the behaviour by various players involved was, how can I put this?, less than optimal. That failure - and note that this was happening long before the autumn of 2008 when everyone thinks the crash started - was one of the factors that led to the problems the UK suffered.

The full story of this period has yet to come out.

As someone who was actually doing work inside ABN in that period, the idea that anyone would want that bank on anything other than a firesale basis was absurd.

The FSA didn't do anything apart from demand that everyone (and his dog) had a photocopy of his/her passport lodged with HR and had clicked through a couple of online tests which you could get the dog to do for you.

There were reasons why that bank was put in play but they were not the publicly stated reasons and would have required the FSA and others to have done a bit of digging. And it's not as if there weren't people telling them where to look. But the FSA couldn't have taken the skin off a rice pudding in that period.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The point about Brown's silly remarks is of course unfortunately unanswerable.

Didn't stop Brown trying to re-write history:

Brown has talked specifically about the end of Tory boom and bust, but to suggest, as he did in the Mail interview, that it was always the mantra seems faintly ludicrous to anyone with an internet connection and the inclination to trawl through his public statements and speeches.....

But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

Anyone who claims to have abolished the business cycle is riding for a fall.

The degree to which the business cycle had the slightest connection to the global financial meltdown has yet to be established.

Brown's faulty belief encouraged him to overspend, resulting in a massive structural deficit when the boom-fuelled cyclical tax revenues evaporated

DecrepitJohnL said:

richardDodd said:

"The Room" should also get a nomination at the Oscars

Room is up for Best Picture and Best Director and a couple of others.
http://oscar.go.com/news/home-featured-content-list/oscar-nominations-2016-the-complete-list-of-nominees

I saw the Revenant this weekend. A fairly gruelling film, with great landscapes, but I don't think either the best film or actor of the year. Best Cinematography or supporting actor maybe. There wasn't much nuance in DiCaprio's performance.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

The BBC's Jon Sopel believes Trump will be the GOP candidate:

"Let me say that again. Unless there is a seismic shift in polling, Donald Trump stands to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the 2016 general election. Potentially the first ever president who has never held elected office or been in the military."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292

I'm going to wait until the results of Iowa and NH before I call that, to confirm that the primary election results are confirming the polls, but I really do think he should be at evens or below now.

Ted Cruz is at almost 8-1 right now.

That's ridiculous considering that his voters in Iowa are previous known caucus goers, unlike Trump's higher headline number that may or may not show up.

Also if Cruz wins Iowa, does it REALLY boost Marco Rubio in New Hampshire. That's a stretch of logic too far for me. More likely it boosts Ted Cruz as the stop Donald candidate (Rubio and Cruz are both very Conservative, so no reason they shouldn't take each other's voters)

If Trump wins Iowa he may well run the table, and perhaps should be sub Evens. But if he doesn't win, it is Ted Cruz and not Marco Rubio that is nationally in second place. Their Betfair odds are completely the wrong way round.

Right now Cruz and Trump are a 53% book. It must be heavily odds on one of them wins it, shorely.

Dutch them if you haven't already, or back Cruz if you're long Trump.

I agree Rubio is way too short, and for not dissimilar reasons to why Bush was last year.

NEW @JeremyCorbyn tells @FaisalIslam @UKLabour too defensive on immigration record and refugees in Calais should allowed to come to Britain.

Another astute announcement by Corbyn

AfD support: 17% with men, 2% with women.

http://www.all-in.de/nachrichten/deutschland_welt/politik/Emnid-AfD-wird-fast-nur-von-Maennern-gewaehlt;art15808,2177927

@gsoh31 Scottish VI (Holyrood constituency, Panelbase): SNP 50%, Lab 21%, Con 17%, Lib Dem 6%.

@gsoh31 Scottish VI (Holyrood, regional list): SNP 48%, Lab 19%, Con 17%, Lib Dems 7%, Greens 5%.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Erm, no. It affected us badly because we had a very large financial sector. Canada and Australia do not. Financial regulation had nothing to do with it, and despite the nostalgia on here, the Bank of England as sole regulator had been unable to prevent, to name but three, BCCI, Barings, or the secondary or fringe banking crisis. This is not to defend the FSA; merely to say its actions or inactions were largely irrelevant in the face of the global economic meltdown.

The point about Brown's silly remarks is of course unfortunately unanswerable.

Didn't stop Brown trying to re-write history:

Brown has talked specifically about the end of Tory boom and bust, but to suggest, as he did in the Mail interview, that it was always the mantra seems faintly ludicrous to anyone with an internet connection and the inclination to trawl through his public statements and speeches.....

But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

Anyone who claims to have abolished the business cycle is riding for a fall.

The degree to which the business cycle had the slightest connection to the global financial meltdown has yet to be established.

Brown's faulty belief encouraged him to overspend, resulting in a massive structural deficit when the boom-fuelled cyclical tax revenues evaporated

Overspending by what criterion other than hindsight? Not by international comparison, historical comparison, or even by what the then-opposition was saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2879143/IMF-implores-Brown-to-cut-his-borrowing.html
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051

Greetings from a very cold and wet Hong Kong.

As far as I remember neither the LDs nor the Tories promised to change the voting system to AV in their 2010 manifestos, so clearly a referendum was necessary - especially as the Tories actually opposed it. If a group of parties have an overall majority in the Commons and all propose the same new voting system in their manifestos, I cannot see the problem - they would have the mandate to make the change. It would be deliciously ironic, though, if between them they got under 50% of the vote :-)

But it's not going to happen. Corbyn is electoral poison and under him Labour will get a worse result in 2020 than they did last year.

Labour are fecked

THE comedian Eddie Izzard is being touted by Labour moderates as their secret weapon in the battle to wrest control of the party back from Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-left supporters.

Izzard, 53, is a long-standing Labour activist and will be approached by senior MPs to stand for the ruling national executive committee (NEC) this year.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/homeV2/article1659822.ece

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

richardDodd said:

"The Room" should also get a nomination at the Oscars

Room is up for Best Picture and Best Director and a couple of others.
http://oscar.go.com/news/home-featured-content-list/oscar-nominations-2016-the-complete-list-of-nominees

I saw the Revenant this weekend. A fairly gruelling film, with great landscapes, but I don't think either the best film or actor of the year. Best Cinematography or supporting actor maybe. There wasn't much nuance in DiCaprio's performance.

I always think the best judge of a film is how much of it stays with you after a week or so. It gets rid of the superficial. 'The Room' and 'The Big Short' are certainly up there. 'The Revenant' is mainly landscape and photography as you suggest