BBC BLOGS - Newsnight: From the web team
« Previous | Main | Next »

Monday 11 April 2011

Sarah McDermott | 09:59 UK time, Monday, 11 April 2011

The Independent Commission on Banking - set up by the government to review UK banks after the financial crisis - says the retail arms of banks must be protected against risks taken by their investment arms, but has stopped short of recommending forced separation.

Tonight our Economics editor Paul Mason will be considering if the ICB really can do anything to prevent another banking crisis and if its recommendations go far enough. Plus we'll be joined by US economist Irwin Stelzer, Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott and Labour's John Mann MP to debate what the UK could learn from the US.

Our Diplomatic editor Mark Urban is in Libya and will be profiling the Revolutionary Council - who are they, and what do they stand for?

And as France becomes the first European country to make it illegal for Muslim women to cover their faces with veils in public, Richard Watson will be considering if such a ban could happen here in the UK. We'll be joined by Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, Tariq Ramadan, Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, and columnist and speaker on Arab and Muslim issues, Mona Eltahawy to debate if it's right to tell people they can't express their faith in public ways.

Do join Jeremy at 2230 on BBC Two.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From earlier:

Our Economics editor Paul Mason is at the Independent Commission on Banking presser, where recommendations have been made that UK banks' retail operations should be "ring-fenced" from their investment banking arms.

The banking commission was set up by the government last June to review UK banks after the financial crisis, and they will publish their full and final recommendations in September.

Paul will be considering if the ICB really can do anything to prevent another banking crisis and if its recommendations will go far enough.

Our Diplomatic editor Mark Urban is in Libya and is doing a piece profiling the Revolutionary Council - who are they, and what do they stand for?

And as France becomes the first European country to make it illegal for Muslim women to cover their faces with veils in public, Richard Watson will be considering if such a ban could happen here in the UK.

We'll have more details later...

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    so the guy walks into a Bank and will not take his helmet off, next minute he is surrounded by armed police, can you tell me the difference if a lady refuses to take off her burkha, when in Rome and all that.....

  • Comment number 2.

  • Comment number 3.

    "...Our Economics editor Paul Mason is at the Independent Commission on Banking presser, .."

    Is a presser
    a) a nickname for Johnny two jags?
    b) a lesser salted pretzel
    c) some sort of audible alert (like a buzzer)
    d) Sloppy writing
    e) ALL of the above
    f) NONE of the above


    But seriously.......

    Separation does seem like a reasonable move. But I imagine it will come at a price for personal banking customers, especially those who currently receive most of their services free.

    Interesting times.


  • Comment number 4.

  • Comment number 5.


    A separation in all but reality:

    http://forensicstatistician.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/its-the-credit-creation-stupid/

    "The ICB Interim report states that “Securitisation” should only reside in the “Permitted in non-bank institutions” box. I’m curious as to how the commission expects that this will work in practice given that “Securitisation” actually transcends Retail & Investment banking. The retail arm Originates the loan in the first place. So they must hand it over (i.e. sell it) to the Investment arm for them to package up and re-sell!"

    This is a firewall without any walls!

  • Comment number 6.

    WESTMINSTER REGARDS US WITH CONTEMPT (#4)

    My MP echoes that contempt in a (very) small way. When I pressed him to answer (showing working, so to speak) how to read: "The Conservatives Must Win Here to Stop 5 More Years of Gordon Brown" AS TRUE, he offered a fatuous non-starter explanation, and DECLARED THE MATTER CLOSED.

    CONTEMPT, from the self-styled HONOURABLE, is the sort of thing our governance has excelled in, for centuries. Dave is a 'high' exponent. Note how he set the NO campaign at the level of YES-voter vilification (with a special smear for Nick Clegg).

    Until we dismantle Westminster, CONTEMPT shall be their finest dispensation.

    SPOILPARTYGAMES.

  • Comment number 7.

    Perhaps 'presser' is jargon for press conference? - but just who is envisaged as putting pressure on whom?

  • Comment number 8.

    NEW NEWBURY DISCTIONARY (#3)

    Presser (n) A pressing agenda item - typically unaddressed.

    "That BBC Newsnight does not investigate matters of manifest importance to its listeners, is a real presser."

    Cf: biggie - no-no - doozie.

  • Comment number 9.

    A CLASS BIT OF STANDUP

    Hillary (ay, 'ere's one) Clinton, says the arrest of Mr Gbagbo sends a clear signal to tyrants all round the world.

    WILL THAT INCLUDE AMERICAN ONES?

  • Comment number 10.

    COMING DOWN IN TWO-PART HARMONY

    McCavity Brown and Omi Darling are singing from the same FLIMSY hymn sheet.

    NOW WE KNOW - nobody knew that banking was global! It was no one's fault.

    Just who does the (belated) new Reality get off what hook? And why now? Balls?*

    But I'm still not clear if Brown saved the world . . .

    "We must be mad - literally mad": every time we throw out a bunch of inept ninnies and elect a new government and PM

    WE GET OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE.

    * Probably.

  • Comment number 11.

    ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE WAR AND WESTMINSTER POLITICS

    Have you heard the horse race analogy to AV, turned out by the Conservative Obfuscation Unit? I hold no brief for AV, but to make out it computes as described, in the Conservative nonsense, SHOULD break misrepresentation law. But as I have indicated THE POLITICAL LIE is outside the law.

    I wonder if Disingenuous Dave (the better looking Cameron) will be making another appearance on a poster?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/06/stick-your-poster-cam-115875-21945618/

    It could say: "Trust me - I'm Dave. AV is an illusion: what you see is not what you get."

  • Comment number 12.

    "And as France becomes the first European country to make it illegal for Muslim women to cover their faces with veils in public"

    I'm not sure that the veil is the problem. The problem is that Islam is more a political ideology rather than a religion and is clearly not sitting well with any of its hosts. We need a re-think on Islam. Was it a good idea to allow Islam to flourish in the west?..well I think you know the answer to that.

  • Comment number 13.





    Could it happen here?

    Answer: Not before it is too late, by which time it will be .... too late!

    And then what?


    Should it happen here?

    Answer: Yes, before it is too late!


    But there is a more pressing question to face .......

    Should we, as did the French, ban the hijab in schools? (“faith” or otherwise)

    Answer: Yes. It is the UK equivalent of the wall around Israel, the walls in Northern Ireland. It is restrictive yoke and a segregationist tool.

    I’ve said it many times .....

    If the hijab signifies the ‘ascent’ to puberty then why are they increasingly being worn by girls in primary schools?

    Answer: They clearly 'trumpet' the desire and intent to separate and segregate.

    Social cohesion in action?



  • Comment number 14.



    Oops! typo’ - hopefully -corrected below:

    Answer: Yes. It is the UK equivalent of the wall around Israel and the walls in Northern Ireland. It is a restrictive yoke and a segregationalist tool.



  • Comment number 15.

    I think you've got this wrong NN, wasn't it Belgium who first banned the burka?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-passes-europes-first-ban-on-wearing-burka-in-public-1959626.html

    I don't remember demonstrations, but then I'm not interested in the islamic religion.

  • Comment number 16.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 17.




    See you can do it !

    “it” being ....

    Lead, don’t follow!

    Well done, Boyo!


    Shock, horror, probe ..... there’s that word again .....

    “..... many ....”

    Completely meaningless and totally invalid!



    The following four words used by the young female muslim in the piece sums up everything that we should be very fearful of .......


    “.... seen as too westernised, ....”

    and the male ‘academic’ just helped to confirm the point!




  • Comment number 18.

    Excellent Jeremy tonight - particularly on the Burkha/Niqab debate. Richard's report on the Muslim woman who was constantly harassed for refusing to wear the Hijab or Burkha and stated why it should be banned. Well done to the Muslim feminist who shot down Tariq Ramadan in flames! As explained in the programme, the burkha is NOT in the Koran, and therefore cannot be regarded as religious freedom or expression. If only Cameron had Sarkozy's backbone......

  • Comment number 19.

  • Comment number 20.

    GOVERNMENT CAN CONTROL US IN CRASS WAYS ON A WHIM - SHOCK HORROR

    Jeremy was 'doing the face' again, about government controls. Does he not know that a delusional wally with little more than innate acting skills, was elevated to Prime Minister of this country, where he manipulated us into Dubya's Crusade? A great many more faces were covered in Iraq - rubble, blood, intestines, fear, despair - than the Nikab will ever drape.

    Controlling whether a small number of individuals wear, or not wear, this or that piece of kit, really should not warrant 'the face'. The face is far too award-winning for Jeremy to go spraying it about, willy nilly, on minor matters.

    I would be pleased to see NewsyNighty harrying the Blair/IDS (let us never forget the Iain Duncan Smith error) war, nightly (not unlike a Shock and Awe campaign).

    THAT is what 'the face' is for Jeremy.

  • Comment number 21.

    Watched your 'debate' and coverage on the Niqab ban in France. Can't stop thinking it's a shame you did not invite any guests who are directly affected by this debate in France, trying to look at the issue from their perspective. I am more precisely thinking of women's groups in France who supported the ban. After all it is women who are first and more directly affected by the ban.

    I was actually more disappointed by the manner in which Jeremy Paxman only seemed interested in debating the role of the State in telling people what to wear while allowing Tariq Ramadan a platform to advocate his own interests (the way Islam is being singled out in Europe). The other two guests were ignored while trying to debate the fact that some women in Muslim communities are being forced to wear the Niqab (yes Mr. Paxman there are women being forced to cover up and live in invisibility).
    Paxman did not make any attempt to give Mona Eltahawy the space and respect to share her views, allowing Ramadan to interrupt her in a patronising manner, while putting an abrupt end to the debate.

    It would be actually intersting to have a real debate without an agenda setting by the main interviewer, with a careful handling of the space given to different opinions and not just to the voices of those who speak louder.

  • Comment number 22.

    "ACTION FOR HAPPINESS" - WE ARE SAVED!

    Alternatively, if you are seeking happiness - better still: contentment - join me in 'ACTION AGAINST CRAPPINESS'. No Messiahs, no Vogons, no MPs.

    Nuff sed.

  • Comment number 23.

    18, 21 Good points

    Jeremy seemed uninterested in the issue.

    It would have been more sociable if the studio guest sat facing the screens as did J.

    It would have been useful if J had asked Tariq what he thought would happen, or what he would do or say, IF he came across a woman with a covered face who said 'actually no, I do not want to wear this'. Maybe it is hypothetical but I think it would have opened up the discussion in interesting ways.

    At the moment, we seem to be being led down a path of 'learning' how to classify clothing and how to pronounce book titles. It is starting to feel like a daily national re-education programme.

  • Comment number 24.

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.