but it doesnt stop the crisis and the crisis will be bigger since its unexpected
Was the crisis smaller and more expected by dividing the BoE's responsibilities?
Groupthink is bad but division and a lack of accountability can lead to even more groupthink since it encourages a beaucratic box ticking line rather than anyone looking at the big picture.
did the joined up regulation in the US stop the crisis there ?
I would contend the crisis was more of a group think bubble - the new economy, lower risk etc - than purely regulatory. The regulators fell in line with the mood around them.
In a way: yes.
The US dealt with the issue much quicker and came out the other side much quicker than the UK or EU did.
Remember everyone: After Brexit ,........... CORBYN.......... Oh how we will all laugh
I could see Corbyn opening up the UK's borders and asking for towns to take migrant quotas, and possibly even billeting.
The modus operandi of the far Left is to have no respect for private property, and for force to be used against their opponents.
This discussion came up in one of my WhatsApp groups recently. Someone posted this:
I don't know the source, but it is obviously from 4chan or Reddit. Still an amusing (and NSFW) read.
It's from /pol/ I believe.
This is one of the reasons why I am so pro-crypto, despite the whole scene being in a bubble. Taking money out of the hands of the banks, where it can easily be confiscated, and making it easy to transport across borders - technically you can email it to yourself - hopefully means money can't be confiscated in this way ever again.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
Long may she be the Chancellor.
Well, since I'm fairly sure her madness directly tipped the scales in favour of Brexit, I agree with you. Long may her thousand year reign continue...
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
Today has been brutal.
We share our birthday with the Emperor Tiberius and Sir Oswald Moseley among others.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
Long may she be the Chancellor.
Anyone who thinks that Germany could have sent the refugees “back” has such little geopolitical nous that their PB posting rights should be revoked.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
Long may she be the Chancellor.
She has the deaths of thousands of migrants on her hands. That remarkable statesmanship persuaded tens of thousands more refugees to try the crossing of the Mediterranean and many of them died as a result. She is a despicable woman.
Cuba is the example I'd use, but it's a poor example overall.
Kerala has done alright under Communist governments.
But Corbyn and McDonnell are not Communists, except in the fevered brains of PB Tories.
I would tend to the view that communists are simply socialists who have come by the power to avoid having any elections.
West Bengal elected successive Communist governments for almost 30 years.
I don't know much about West Bengal; I remember studying Kerala for my Development MSc and their communitarian model does have a lot going for it. The communists in Nepal is another possible 'better' example that comes to mind.
Remember everyone: After Brexit ,........... CORBYN.......... Oh how we will all laugh
I could see Corbyn opening up the UK's borders and asking for towns to take migrant quotas, and possibly even billeting.
The modus operandi of the far Left is to have no respect for private property, and for force to be used against their opponents.
This discussion came up in one of my WhatsApp groups recently. Someone posted this:
I don't know the source, but it is obviously from 4chan or Reddit. Still an amusing (and NSFW) read.
It's terrifying.
Those that vote for Corbyn will rue the day.
It's ridiculous. Part of the reason people like Corbyn have got to power is because the right have so demonised thoughtful and moderate policies to fight rising inequality. They are the boy that cried wolf. Now a genuine left wing extremist has come along and people shrug their shoulders at hearing the same vitriol that was levelled at Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland are excellent adverts for high taxation and social support.
Happiest people in the world !
Actually Norway is the happiest country in the world. Denmark is indeed second whilst Sweden is only 10th behind Canada, Australia and New Zealand none of which are particularly well known for being high tax and social support countries.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland are excellent adverts for high taxation and social support.
Happiest people in the world !
Correct except in a way the left doesn't comprehend here. Scandinavian nations are excellent adverts for highflat taxation and social support.
Scandinavian top rates of income and payroll tax are actually lower in most areas than in the UK. Don't forget to include in the UK's rate National Insurance and Employers National Insurance and do the equivalent in Scandinavia.
The difference between us is not that that Scandinavian nations have higher taxes, they have flatter and simpler taxes. Flat, simple taxes that are broad and consistent work.
Remember everyone: After Brexit ,........... CORBYN.......... Oh how we will all laugh
I could see Corbyn opening up the UK's borders and asking for towns to take migrant quotas, and possibly even billeting.
The modus operandi of the far Left is to have no respect for private property, and for force to be used against their opponents.
This discussion came up in one of my WhatsApp groups recently. Someone posted this:
I don't know the source, but it is obviously from 4chan or Reddit. Still an amusing (and NSFW) read.
It's terrifying.
Those that vote for Corbyn will rue the day.
It's ridiculous. Part of the reason people like Corbyn have got to power is because the right have so demonised thoughtful and moderate policies to fight rising inequality. They are the boy that cried wolf. Now a genuine left wing extremist has come along and people shrug their shoulders at hearing the same vitriol that was levelled at Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
Partly that, but also I suggest the greater willingness (indeed desire) of voters on the wrong end of the post-2008 financial settlement to support more radical solutions, given the failure of gradualist policies to do much to tackle the crises, particularly in wealth inequality and housing. Typically when people vote for more radical politics they are driven by dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs and don't spend much time evaluating whether a more radical approach might succeed or, critically, what its side effects might be. It becomes a simple choice: status quo v change. History suggests people don't worry much about what the change might look like until it is way too late.
Tories need to stop complaining about Corbyn, scratching their heads and requesting a different electorate. They'd be better off asking themselves what they've done to make him viable and why to some, compared to this government, he looks like a competent safe pair of hands.
(FWIW the centrists need to answer the same question)
Sweden, Denmark and Finland are excellent adverts for high taxation and social support.
Happiest people in the world !
Correct except in a way the left doesn't comprehend here. Scandinavian nations are excellent adverts for highflat taxation and social support.
Scandinavian top rates of income and payroll tax are actually lower in most areas than in the UK. Don't forget to include in the UK's rate National Insurance and Employers National Insurance and do the equivalent in Scandinavia.
The difference between us is not that that Scandinavian nations have higher taxes, they have flatter and simpler taxes. Flat, simple taxes that are broad and consistent work.
In Sweden and Denmark tax = 45% to 50% of GDP. UK starts fretting if it is above 40%.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
Long may she be the Chancellor.
It may well have been the moral, proper decision, let us say that it is - it wasn't very good statesmanship, since it she ignored allies and bullied her way through, causing difficulties later.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
On another forum I was compared to an architect of the Final Solution for defending Cameron on this issue.
I read somewhere (it could have been here) that the difference between now and the 1930s is that we took in the Jews, not the Germans. I thought it was an interesting point. I have heard a lot of stories about persecution of Shia in refugee camps.
Tories need to stop complaining about Corbyn, scratching their heads and requesting a different electorate. They'd be better off asking themselves what they've done to make him viable and why to some, compared to this government, he looks like a competent safe pair of hands.
(FWIW the centrists need to answer the same question)
Agree with this. We need to give people a reason to vote for us, not against our opposition.
Tories need to stop complaining about Corbyn, scratching their heads and requesting a different electorate. They'd be better off asking themselves what they've done to make him viable and why to some, compared to this government, he looks like a competent safe pair of hands.
(FWIW the centrists need to answer the same question)
More a question of what they haven't done. TBF May demonstrated, when she took office, that she does at least have some understanding of the problem. Unfortunately she was less successful in identifying any appropriate solutions, too boxed in by her party to break out of traditional conservative thinking, and now too weak to make any headway whatsoever.
Merkel should be praised for a hundred years for remarkable statesmanship. What should she have done ? Sent them back on trains to Greece ? I wonder what would have been the newspaper headlines then ? Germany has history as a burden. She did well, very well !
Long may she be the Chancellor.
If she was a remarkable statesman she could have provided REAL help and support where it was needed most: in the makeshift shanty towns propping up across all the border areas around Syria where people were truly destitute and desperate. Like Cameron did.
Merkel grabbed good headlines but kept her pursestrings tight shut which encouraged those fit and desperate enough to try their luck.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland are excellent adverts for high taxation and social support.
Happiest people in the world !
Correct except in a way the left doesn't comprehend here. Scandinavian nations are excellent adverts for highflat taxation and social support.
Scandinavian top rates of income and payroll tax are actually lower in most areas than in the UK. Don't forget to include in the UK's rate National Insurance and Employers National Insurance and do the equivalent in Scandinavia.
The difference between us is not that that Scandinavian nations have higher taxes, they have flatter and simpler taxes. Flat, simple taxes that are broad and consistent work.
In Sweden and Denmark tax = 45% to 50% of GDP. UK starts fretting if it is above 40%.
Have you factored in things like National Insurance and Employers National Insurance in your maths? They are income tax by another name.
As I said before, the Tory party are not seen as a credible voice among many in this group, and until they are it doesn’t matter what the Conservative campaign says or does to show them how terrible Corbyn is.
What we do know is that the Conservatives were polling strongly at the start of the campaign and that poll lead plummeted after the Dementia Tax was unveiled and it fell again after the U turn (which is actually quite consistent, as it shattered the 'strong and stable' message).
You can cherry pick data all you want and so can I, we can be here until the cows come home on this one.
Page 8 here from YouGov has some very telling stats on the dementia tax:
Notably, the dementia tax changes were opposed by:
33% (18-24) 38% (25-49) 43% (50-64) 41% (65+)
And interestingly it was opposed by
43% (ABC1) 35% (C2DE)
From this we can surmise the people most worried about the dementia tax were a) relatively well off and b) (marginally) more likely to be the _recipients_ of an inheritance than the pensioners who would be 'paying' the tax.
It was also much more likely to be opposed by Labour voters (54%) compared to Conservative voters (29%).
I would suggest that this supports my theory that Corbynism is, in part, a middle class rebellion by ABC1s aged somewhere between 30-65 who were expecting to receive an inheritance.
Of course, it's not the whole picture, and May's authoritarian tendancies do turn my stomach somewhat. However, I voted Conservative because I am in absolutely no doubt that the "free jam" on offer with Labour has to be paid by someone. Unfortunately that is a point very badly communicated by the Tories at the last GE.
I didn’t claim that no one within the age groups you mention was against the dementia tax - I’m my twenties and I disagreed with it! Although so didn’t vote Labour at the GE. However, those group being against the dementia tax (something which I think was acknowledged atm IIRC) doesn’t actually support the argument that the only/main reason they were put off the Conservative party was the dementia tax. As I said in my previous post, there is an generally negative image of the Conservative party among these groups, but the dementia tax was merely only part of that, not the total cause and effect.
Morrissey must be an enormous disappointment to many of his fans.
"'I want Germany to be German' Morrissey attacks Merkel for destroying nation's identity
Controversial Smiths frontman Morrissey has hit out at Angela Merkel for “throwing away” the country’s culture in a furious tirade against immigration."
Comments
The US dealt with the issue much quicker and came out the other side much quicker than the UK or EU did.
Cuba is the example I'd use, but it's a poor example overall.
This is one of the reasons why I am so pro-crypto, despite the whole scene being in a bubble. Taking money out of the hands of the banks, where it can easily be confiscated, and making it easy to transport across borders - technically you can email it to yourself - hopefully means money can't be confiscated in this way ever again.
Long may she be the Chancellor.
Happiest people in the world !
But Corbyn and McDonnell are not Communists, except in the fevered brains of PB Tories.
Those that vote for Corbyn will rue the day.
For now maybe but over time obviously not. And all the soft power and influence that having those agencies in our country gave us will be lost.
Scandinavian top rates of income and payroll tax are actually lower in most areas than in the UK. Don't forget to include in the UK's rate National Insurance and Employers National Insurance and do the equivalent in Scandinavia.
The difference between us is not that that Scandinavian nations have higher taxes, they have flatter and simpler taxes. Flat, simple taxes that are broad and consistent work.
(FWIW the centrists need to answer the same question)
Merkel grabbed good headlines but kept her pursestrings tight shut which encouraged those fit and desperate enough to try their luck.
NEW THREAD
But if she did not increase the offer the remainers will accuse her of taking us off the cliff edge.
Now is the time for her to get the deal to go on to trade talks and show leadership