Ouch! C4 News continuing the Rennard story "Who runs the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg, or the unelected peer, Lord Rennard....
Yes the yellow stuff is hitting the fan.
C4 News are describing this as a crisis show down for Clegg vs Rennard. C4 News has been remarkably well connected into this Lib Dem story all along.
This evening Nick Clegg "is of the view that as long as Lord Rennard refuses the very reasonable request from Alistair Webster QC to apologise that it is inappropriate for him to rejoin the Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords."
"We believe that until he apologises and acknowledges the distress that his actions have caused, regardless of intent, he should never have had the Liberal Democrat whip restored and should be barred from any party body or involvement in any party activity that might facilitate a repeat of this situation. No apology; no whip. We note with deep regret the failure of senior members of the parliamentary party to denounce in the strongest possible terms Lord Rennard's behaviour;" "We will not rest until our party is a safe space for all, free from sexual harassment and assault, without exception."
Chappers tweeting the Mail may go 'big' on Rennard. More coming up on C4 news.
Why are the Lib Dems continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over this? I'm not saying the country is talking about it but the kind of people annoyed by it are likely the kind of people disposed to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place.
Well it could rumble on to nothing, or Clegg could be setting himself up for a stand-off. Which would make it more interesting.
What did Ed Miliband have to say about the enforced merger of Lloyds? Did Ed Balls encourage Brown not to reduce competition. Trust Labour as far as they can be thrown, their championship of competition is akin to Osborne trying to fix wage rates.
Spot on. This is political cynicism writ large, however Miliband has turned the tables on the Bluesd because Osborne refused to grasp the nettle of bank reform. Watching righties on this thread defend Brown and Goodwin and the system that led to banking bust is surreal.
Chappers tweeting the Mail may go 'big' on Rennard. More coming up on C4 news.
Why are the Lib Dems continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over this? I'm not saying the country is talking about it but the kind of people annoyed by it are likely the kind of people disposed to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place.
Your suggested strategy?
Make it clear he doesnt get the whip back or have involvement in committees that have influence in the party at least until he apologises (frankly I wouldnt give him the whip back even then). And do it straight away. Oops, too late to do it straight away but the sooner the better.
The situation is doing the Lib Dems no good whatsoever and it's not as if there's anyone out there who would be moved by the plight of Rennard.
To cost the British taxpayer £1bn in a single day whilst only leader of the opposition by doing no more than giving a speech is a truly incredible achievement.
But not in a good way.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
Please tell me you aren't buying into the nonsense that Ed Miliband's speech had a direct causal effect on the Lloyds share price ?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
It will have had an effect on Lloyds's share price. FTSE 100 index up 0.2% today whereas Lloyds Bank Group fell by 0.7% (Day high = £0.8449, day low = £0.8269, close = £0.8352)
But the range of movement today falls broadly within the highs and lows of the last five days (high= £0.86 and low =£0.82). So the reaction to Ed's speech cannot be described as a market panic.
Most investors in Lloyds's shares will regard Miliband's statement today as empty headed electioneering rather than a real threat to the value of their holdings.
But there will now be calls for UK Financial Investments Ltd (the government controlled organisation which holds and sells shares in the intervened banks) to protect investor value in the event that a future government decides to split up the bank. An Osborne 'poison pill' is almost certainly being developed by the Treasury as we speak.
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
Once again you are behind the curve Mr P. The nation cheers as the banking sector gets a dose of overdue competiton to break up Brown's cartel. Any moment soon Osborne will be rolling back his years of inaction and looking at what he can do to steal Ed's clothes. Well done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
Rank the drivers in order of weight and then we can debate how effective a restructuring of the UK banking sector would be in increasing competition in bank services.
Chappers tweeting the Mail may go 'big' on Rennard. More coming up on C4 news.
Why are the Lib Dems continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over this? I'm not saying the country is talking about it but the kind of people annoyed by it are likely the kind of people disposed to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place.
Chappers tweeting the Mail may go 'big' on Rennard. More coming up on C4 news.
Why are the Lib Dems continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over this? I'm not saying the country is talking about it but the kind of people annoyed by it are likely the kind of people disposed to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place.
Chappers tweeting the Mail may go 'big' on Rennard. More coming up on C4 news.
Why are the Lib Dems continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over this? I'm not saying the country is talking about it but the kind of people annoyed by it are likely the kind of people disposed to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place.
Anecdotally: Mrs J is a Lib Dem voter, if only because of the lack of any other suitable party. The other night she said she would not vote for the Lib Dems whilst Rennard is in the party.
Yes, she's a feminist, and yes, time may cool temper, but she's angry about it.
Mr Dodd, re my whereabouts, I'm out and about all the time thank you very much. McDonalds is the quintessential first step on the job ladder - the embarrassing one with jokes written about it - not even as good as a paper round. It's also the one that most middle class people don't have to take.
No MP worth their salt (it's behind you next to serviettes and straws) would dream of working there let alone putting on their CV if they did. It's also one of the jobs that British people are supposed not to want to do. It is therefore one of the most authentic jobs anyone wanting to represent the people can have. Especially when you compare it to what Dave, Nick and Ed have experienced in the way of employment.
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
Once again you are behind the curve Mr P. The nation cheers as the banking sector gets a
Where is this competition going to come from exactly?
If I happen to like my bank will I be forced to leave them because Ed says they have too many customers? Please explain.
As for a break up that's child's play or are you telling me all those overpaid consultants in London can't work out how to reorganise a bank ?
I'm not sticking up for bankers, just demonstrating the idiocy of a man who is a clear and present danger to the future of this country.
Anyway, you haven't answered my question, if I am happy with my bank could I be forced to switch? Also, if you reorganise a bank and split it into 'new' banks, such as TSB or William & Glyns, do we not still have five major banks just with more subsidiaries?
You should be forced to shift ( if that's what happens ) because overall more competition will benefit the economy which in the long term is in your own interest as it will pay off our debts and cut your taxes quicker. As things stand today what guarantees have any of us that our bank won't be taken over so you switch by default or if you;re in the sticks your branch closes and tells you to use a call centre in India. I suspect like me you have had several accounts and have seen a takeover change your bank whether you like it or not.
As for the how it's done we all have our own opinions. Personally I would prefer more regional banks preferably in a mutual form and takeover proof. This isn't wildly different from what we had with the building socs except I'd like to see them offer commercial finance too.
Why did we lose the building societies? My daughter worked for a well regarded local building society, in fact they were also clients of mine and I knew the FD well, but they were forced to merge due to capital issues when it all went bosoms up.
We do have a local building society in my small village, long may they continue, hopefully the Post Office get their act together soon.
Just don't let the dangerous Miliband anywhere near the purse strings.
Mr Dodd - once upon a time it was a badge of honour for Labour MPs to say they worked down the pit - it gave them true working class authenticity. What's today's post-industrial equivalent? McDonalds perhaps? That's my point.
@Topping: "That said, once elected, you will find his direction of travel and supporting policies won't change that much at all."
I would like to think so but I doubt it. Ill-thought out policies or incompetently executed policies or naive ones can do harm, however well-meaning their intent. Labour do not need to be malevolent to do harm. Self-delusion about what they are doing is just as harmful, as we saw with Brown's "no more boom and bust".
Milliband has identified that the economy has not worked well in some important ways. So far, so good. I'm with him so far. But his proposed remedies seem to me to risk making the problem worse rather than better.
Plus God only knows what Labour are going to propose on taxes, on savings, on inflation, on pensions and the rest. Silly policies there could do real harm to people's "cost of living".
I simply do not buy this idea that there is no real choice and that Labour will either choose or be forced to follow the same economic policies as the Coalition. I think this is a delusion, uttered by those who hope this will be the case.
Cyclefree
I am expecting Miliband's next big announcement to be that he intends to refer the NHS to the Competition Commission with a view to setting up two new "challenger" medical service providers to ensure patients benefit from true competition.
To cost the British taxpayer £1bn in a single day whilst only leader of the opposition by doing no more than giving a speech is a truly incredible achievement.
But not in a good way.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
Please tell me you aren't buying into the nonsense that Ed Miliband's speech had a direct causal effect on the Lloyds share price ?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
Rank the drivers in order of weight and then we can debate how effective a restructuring of the UK banking sector would be in increasing competition in bank services.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination of fees, rates and securities. Since we have an oligopoly this tends to mean banks shove prices up as they feel happier with unsecured lending with high interest or residential property in an inflating market. Likewise they bully SMEs in to taking products they don't want such as insurance as a means of increasing their margins.
Volume is driven by where banks think they can make most moeny for least effort. This works fine in a cartel \ oligopoly much less so where there is real competiton. Volume is not driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
Indeed it is. Some of the most interesting and productive debates I've had on this issue have been at protests outside Buju Banton gigs (unlike others on my side of the barriers I definitely wasnt trying to get him banned I was just holding a "down with hate" banner). Putin doesnt appear to me to be an ally in the campaign to the change the culture, even if that's down to lack of exposure to the Russian mindset, his posturing is almost certainly making life worse for some poor kid in middle Russia so even if i got it the joke it would still leave a bad taste in the mouth.
To cost the British taxpayer £1bn in a single day whilst only leader of the opposition by doing no more than giving a speech is a truly incredible achievement.
But not in a good way.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
Please tell me you aren't buying into the nonsense that Ed Miliband's speech had a direct causal effect on the Lloyds share price ?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
Rank the drivers in order of weight and then we can debate how effective a restructuring of the UK banking sector would be in increasing competition in bank services.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination of fees, rates and securities. Since we have an oligopoly this tends to mean banks shove prices up as they feel happier with unsecured lending with high interest or residential property in an inflating market. Likewise they bully SMEs in to taking products they don't want such as insurance as a means of increasing their margins.
Volume is driven by where banks think they can make most moeny for least effort. This works fine in a cartel \ oligopoly much less so where there is real competiton. Volume is not driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
With the proviso that there are always some rotten, commission-driven eggs in the barrel, most banks weigh up risk and reward pretty much the same as they have always done and as we do every day for most of our actions.
Please don't force me to reprise the bankers paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending.
There is a price of risk and the bankers are not bad at assessing it when left free from administrative constrictions (which is not the same as a healthy regulatory environment).
Or would you have these challenger banks lend to any old credit risk?
(off topic: extraordinary prog on Paul Tortelier on BBC4 right now - bolleaux to AQ.)
It appears that the LibDem party rulebook has created the difficulties in the matter of Rennard. That said, Mr Webster QC appears to have arrived at a questionable conclusion. If there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the standard of proof under the rules, the man must be considered blameless, and it cannot be right that someone who is not found liable for wrongdoing be required to apologise. As the great Lord Hoffmann said in Re B (Children)[2008] UKHL 35 at [2]:
'If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a “fact in issue”), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.'
If one of Mr Webster's clients facing a charge of fraud at Southwark were found not guilty, because the jury were satisfied that he was guilty, but not sure of the fact, should that client be required to apologise to the complainant? Evidently not. It appears Mr Webster has misdirected himself in law, and that Lord Rennard is being unfairly targeted by the party.
To cost the British taxpayer £1bn in a single day whilst only leader of the opposition by doing no more than giving a speech is a truly incredible achievement.
But not in a good way.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
Please tell me you aren't buying into the nonsense that Ed Miliband's speech had a direct causal effect on the Lloyds share price ?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
Rank the drivers in order of weight and then we can debate how effective a restructuring of the UK banking sector would be in increasing competition in bank services.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
With the proviso that there are always some rotten, commission-driven eggs in the barrel, most banks weigh up risk and reward pretty much the same as they have always done and as we do every day for most of our actions.
Please don't force me to reprise the bankers paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending.
There is a price of risk and the bankers are not bad at assessing it when left free from administrative constrictions (which is not the same as a healthy regulatory environment).
Or would you have these challenger banks lend to any old credit risk?
(off topic: extraordinary prog on Paul Tortelier on BBC4 right now - bolleaux to AQ.)
That is to misunderstand risk. Yes risk is priced but so is profit and efficiency. Where the real risk sits is in having no competitive pressure to force efficiency. innovation and wage restraint. For society as a whole the major risk is in having insufficient competition so that oligoplies form. This means we have banks that can't fail, corruption and fraud and a failure to provide credit at the rquired level to the productive economy, which is where the UK is today.
Life_ina_market_town, the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the accused is often seen as morally guilty. That is probably nearer to the Rennard situation than the binary situation you outline.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
With the proviso that there are always some rotten, commission-driven eggs in the barrel, most banks weigh up risk and reward pretty much the same as they have always done and as we do every day for most of our actions.
Please don't force me to reprise the bankers paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending.
There is a price of risk and the bankers are not bad at assessing it when left free from administrative constrictions (which is not the same as a healthy regulatory environment).
Or would you have these challenger banks lend to any old credit risk?
(off topic: extraordinary prog on Paul Tortelier on BBC4 right now - bolleaux to AQ.)
That is to misunderstand risk. Yes risk is priced but so is profit and efficiency. Where the real risk sits is in having no competitive pressure to force efficiency. innovation and wage restraint. For society as a whole the major risk is in having insufficient competition so that oligoplies form. This means we have banks that can't fail, corruption and fraud and a failure to provide credit at the rquired level to the productive economy, which is where the UK is today.
Yes I agree on the too big to fail and the perception/reality that losses will be underwritten. Hence the risk profile is skewed. But I still maintain that "the bankers" includes by far a huge majority of honest, sensible lenders who aren't, with their every pricing decision, thinking, yes well if it all goes wrong the state will pick up the tab.
I'm not sure if you have looked down the list of current best mortgages at eg. moneysupermarket lately but the idea that there is an oligopoly in financial services is there dispelled. There will be quotes there from companies you have never heard of right up there with the big guys.
Mr. Richard, ironically, the answer is the same - the environment.
Germany had a bizarre over-reaction to Fukushima, when its politicians forgot they don't get tsunamis and earthquakes and decided that shutting all the nuclear power plants was a good idea. In Britain the warmery of all our political leaders has led them to decide emitting carbon dioxide is pure evil, and so our coal-powered power stations should be closed. It's bloody stupid.
You do get tsunamis in Britain! If not necessarily quite the same genesis. A whacking great one (caused by an undersea landslide off Norway) did huge damage in Mesolithic times*, and it is a real concern whether other landslides, perhaps triggered by methane clathrate eruptions in the sea floor [sold methane suddenly turning to gas form], could cause more.
Though I am less certain about the cause of the Brstol Channel flood of the 17th century - maybe that was just a storm + high tide surge rathe rthan an earthquake.
* Relatively speaking. Not many nukes. But it must have been hellish for the locals.
Wasn't it associated with the Lisbon earthquake? Or a Canarian eruption?
Life_ina_market_town, the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the accused is often seen as morally guilty. That is probably nearer to the Rennard situation than the binary situation you outline.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
The problem is the rulebook. If criminal procedure is defective and leads to the wrongful acquittal of a guilty defendant, the answer must be to change the procedure, not to hound the defendant.
As for the issue of "not proven", the last thing that the people of England want is the importation of any of 'those interesting relics of barbarism, tempered by a few importations from Rome, known to the world as Scots law.' (Lord Maugham) In any event, the return of a not proven verdict entitles the defendant to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, for which they are not obliged nor expected to apologise.
What is this man going to cost us if he ever becomes PM?
I've got you down as a sensible man !
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
done Ed.
The simple question you need to answer, Mr. Brooke, is that I put to Pork last night:
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
With the proviso that there are always some rotten, commission-driven eggs in the barrel,
Or would you have these challenger banks lend to any old credit risk?
(off topic: extraordinary prog on Paul Tortelier on BBC4 right now - bolleaux to AQ.)
today.
Yes I agree on the too big to fail and the perception/reality that losses will be underwritten. Hence the risk profile is skewed. But I still maintain that "the bankers" includes by far a huge majority of honest, sensible lenders who aren't, with their every pricing decision, thinking, yes well if it all goes wrong the state will pick up the tab.
I'm not sure if you have looked down the list of current best mortgages at eg. moneysupermarket lately but the idea that there is an oligopoly in financial services is there dispelled. There will be quotes there from companies you have never heard of right up there with the big guys.
The people in the system simply adminsiter the system. Most of the customer facingb staff have been crapped on by their bosses - job cuts, paid in shares worth zilch, jobs sent overseas, pensions raided and their jobs devalued by computerised crap and sales pressure. The problem sits at the top and integrated mega banks.
As for competition you are simply saying that banks have screwed up so much other people are now treading on their patch. This is good news, however this will takes years to come through and as ever if anyone gets big enough the big 5 will simply buy them out and squash a competitor. In the mean time the productive economy continues to run sub optimally.
Mr. Richard, ironically, the answer is the same - the environment.
Germany had a bizarre over-reaction to Fukushima, when its politicians forgot they don't get tsunamis and earthquakes and decided that shutting all the nuclear power plants was a good idea. In Britain the warmery of all our political leaders has led them to decide emitting carbon dioxide is pure evil, and so our coal-powered power stations should be closed. It's bloody stupid.
You do get tsunamis in Britain! If not necessarily quite the same genesis. A whacking great one (caused by an undersea landslide off Norway) did huge damage in Mesolithic times*, and it is a real concern whether other landslides, perhaps triggered by methane clathrate eruptions in the sea floor [sold methane suddenly turning to gas form], could cause more.
Though I am less certain about the cause of the Brstol Channel flood of the 17th century - maybe that was just a storm + high tide surge rathe rthan an earthquake.
* Relatively speaking. Not many nukes. But it must have been hellish for the locals.
Wasn't it associated with the Lisbon earthquake? Or a Canarian eruption?
Life_ina_market_town, the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the accused is often seen as morally guilty. That is probably nearer to the Rennard situation than the binary situation you outline.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
The problem is the rulebook. If criminal procedure is defective and leads to the wrongful acquittal of a guilty defendant, the answer must be to change the procedure, not to hound the defendant.
As for the issue of "not proven", the last thing that the people of England want is the importation of any of 'those interesting relics of barbarism, tempered by a few importations from Rome, known to the world as Scots law.' (Lord Maugham) In any event, the return of a not proven verdict entitles the defendant to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, for which they are not obliged nor expected to apologise.
One thing people seem to be forgetting here. This is not a judicial issue whether civil or criminal. Rennard will lose neither liberty or livelihood no matter what Clegg et al decide. This issue is purely one of free association. Do the lib dems on the whole want Rennard as part of the party. In my view they should be under no compulsion to have in the party if they do not want to whether the reason they do not want to is because he is a proven criminal or merely because he happens to smell faintly of rancid broccoli. Party membership is a club in many ways and clubs should be free to select or deselect their members as they see fit regardless of whether we may feel the criteria they use is worthy or not
Mr. Richard, ironically, the answer is the same - the environment.
Germany had a bizarre over-reaction to Fukushima, when its politicians forgot they don't get tsunamis and earthquakes and decided that shutting all the nuclear power plants was a good idea. In Britain the warmery of all our political leaders has led them to decide emitting carbon dioxide is pure evil, and so our coal-powered power stations should be closed. It's bloody stupid.
You do get tsunamis in Britain! If not necessarily quite the same genesis. A whacking great one (caused by an undersea landslide off Norway) did huge damage in Mesolithic times*, and it is a real concern whether other landslides, perhaps triggered by methane clathrate eruptions in the sea floor [sold methane suddenly turning to gas form], could cause more.
Though I am less certain about the cause of the Brstol Channel flood of the 17th century - maybe that was just a storm + high tide surge rathe rthan an earthquake.
* Relatively speaking. Not many nukes. But it must have been hellish for the locals.
Wasn't it associated with the Lisbon earthquake? Or a Canarian eruption?
Bristol Ch event = 1606/7 (dep on old/new calendar), Lisbon earthquake 1755 (though the tsunami did hit England an Ireland in a relatively small way, "only" c. 3m in Cornwall if Wikipedia is to be believed).
Checking back, the BC event was indeed as I recalled ascribed to an earthquake in the 2002 paper and here is a summary. http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml which s pretty much as I recall the work.
Either way low installations on the coast are a worry and I don't feel happy about replacing coastal nukes such as Hinkley Point and Dungeness etc without at least some improvement in flood protection.
One thing people seem to be forgetting here. This is not a judicial issue whether civil or criminal. Rennard will lose neither liberty or livelihood no matter what Clegg et al decide. This issue is purely one of free association. Do the lib dems on the whole want Rennard as part of the party. In my view they should be under no compulsion to have in the party if they do not want to whether the reason they do not want to is because he is a proven criminal or merely because he happens to smell faintly of rancid broccoli. Party membership is a club in many ways and clubs should be free to select or deselect their members as they see fit regardless of whether we may feel the criteria they use is worthy or not
If rules are given effect to by contract, then it is an issue of civil law, not merely free association. It follows that Lord Hoffmann's dicta about the establishment of facts applies.
It appears that the LibDem party rulebook has created the difficulties in the matter of Rennard. That said, Mr Webster QC appears to have arrived at a questionable conclusion. If there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the standard of proof under the rules, the man must be considered blameless, and it cannot be right that someone who is not found liable for wrongdoing be required to apologise. As the great Lord Hoffmann said in Re B (Children)[2008] UKHL 35 at [2]:
'If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a “fact in issue”), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.'
If one of Mr Webster's clients facing a charge of fraud at Southwark were found not guilty, because the jury were satisfied that he was guilty, but not sure of the fact, should that client be required to apologise to the complainant? Evidently not. It appears Mr Webster has misdirected himself in law, and that Lord Rennard is being unfairly targeted by the party.
Not so.
Webster judged that it was the intent aspect that was insufficiently supported by the evidence to be proved.
So it is both logical and reasonable for the Lib Dems to demand an apology for unintentionally causing distress, which Rennard has refused to do.
My second job was flipping burgers at a Wimpy Bar (and deepfrying those strange round sausages called "benders". My first was a Saturday job in a petrol station on the pumps and till.
Shows my age a bit, but may I pick up my certificate of working class credibility on the way out?
Both ar jobs that Owen Jones wouldn't look at twice, and paid bugger all. Great fun though and taught me to work hard at A levels so that I could move to something better. Hard work is good for people, and I still favour grafters at interview.
Mr Dodd, re my whereabouts, I'm out and about all the time thank you very much. McDonalds is the quintessential first step on the job ladder - the embarrassing one with jokes written about it - not even as good as a paper round. It's also the one that most middle class people don't have to take.
No MP worth their salt (it's behind you next to serviettes and straws) would dream of working there let alone putting on their CV if they did. It's also one of the jobs that British people are supposed not to want to do. It is therefore one of the most authentic jobs anyone wanting to represent the people can have. Especially when you compare it to what Dave, Nick and Ed have experienced in the way of employment.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination of fees, rates and securities. Since we have an oligopoly this tends to mean banks shove prices up as they feel happier with unsecured lending with high interest or residential property in an inflating market. Likewise they bully SMEs in to taking products they don't want such as insurance as a means of increasing their margins.
Volume is driven by where banks think they can make most moeny for least effort. This works fine in a cartel \ oligopoly much less so where there is real competiton. Volume is not driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
The main driver of the interest rate charged on loans to the business sector is the base rate set by the Bank of England. Most loans are priced at a premium to this rate or to another rate linked to the base rate (e.g. LIBOR).
Interest rates will also be determined by the cost of funds to the lending bank. A large high street bank will have a substantial proportion of its funds provided by retail depositors. Niche commercial lenders will be principally dependent on interbank lending rates. Historically, the high street banks have had a competitive advantage by being able to directly access lower cost retail deposits to fund their lending.
In the current state of the economy, the BoE base rate at 0.5% and the BoE's QE and Funds for Lending Scheme mean that the advantage of the deposit taking banks has been temporarily limited.
The second external constraint imposed on banks is prudential regulation and, in particular, capital adequacy requirements. As Topping points out the high street banks are facing the "paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending".
It is the imposition of higher capital adequacy requirements on the weaker banks which has principally resulted in their reluctance to lend. The BoE has attempted to solve this problem by offering "pass through" funds to distressed banks so that they can increase lending to the business sector at the same time as reducing assets and increasing reserves. Even so, the intervened banks have been either reluctant or unable to increase lending at the same rate as those independent banks with healthier balance sheets. The volume of funds available to lend to business is principally being influenced by regulation.
The UK banks are still struggling to repair their balance sheets and to increase their capital cover. Their position is massively better than it was at the time of the bailouts but they have not yet returned to full health. When they do investors will buy their shares and the banks will increase their lending. In the current climate, neither branches, assets nor shares will find eager buyers.
So we have banks in convalescence but recovering. What does Miliband do? He suggests we amputate their limbs? I hope it is you, not me, Mr. Brooke, who pays for Ed's 'arm and a leg'.
I have mentioned just the first two drivers. There are many more to go before we get to industry structure.
My second job was flipping burgers at a Wimpy Bar (and deepfrying those strange round sausages called "benders". My first was a Saturday job in a petrol station on the pumps and till.
Shows my age a bit, but may I pick up my certificate of working class credibility on the way out?
Both ar jobs that Owen Jones wouldn't look at twice, and paid bugger all. Great fun though and taught me to work hard at A levels so that I could move to something better. Hard work is good for people, and I still favour grafters at interview.
Mr Dodd, re my whereabouts, I'm out and about all the time thank you very much. McDonalds is the quintessential first step on the job ladder - the embarrassing one with jokes written about it - not even as good as a paper round. It's also the one that most middle class people don't have to take.
No MP worth their salt (it's behind you next to serviettes and straws) would dream of working there let alone putting on their CV if they did. It's also one of the jobs that British people are supposed not to want to do. It is therefore one of the most authentic jobs anyone wanting to represent the people can have. Especially when you compare it to what Dave, Nick and Ed have experienced in the way of employment.
Spot on.
Dr. Sox
My first job was much grander.
I worked as a steriliser in the CSSD of a major hospital.
The department was run and populated mostly by the Berry family, father Bill, mother Cherry and daughter Myrtle.
I enjoyed every minute of it except my 'bonus' of being allowed to watch a hysterectomy fully robed in theatre.
My second job was flipping burgers at a Wimpy Bar (and deepfrying those strange round sausages called "benders". My first was a Saturday job in a petrol station on the pumps and till.
Shows my age a bit, but may I pick up my certificate of working class credibility on the way out?
Both ar jobs that Owen Jones wouldn't look at twice, and paid bugger all. Great fun though and taught me to work hard at A levels so that I could move to something better. Hard work is good for people, and I still favour grafters at interview.
Genuine question for curiosity - where on the working to upper class list does waiting tables / pulling pints in your local come? (Done alongside A-levels so I had money to spend the other side of the bar...)
Ouch as in a mild wisp of transitory pain. The tendency on here of Conservatives to take solace in minor local difficulties of their opponents while failing to face up to their own party's considerable problems is deeply worrying.
Btw A Lib Dem friend of mine stated that he would like Chris Huhne as the leader. From what I can work out OGH wouldn't mind either, though he has a bet on it - so whether he'd want it or not is another matter.
Chris Huhne as leader of the Lib Dems would be utterly hilarious from the outside looking in, but @MarkSenior or any other Lib Dems here would you WANT him as leader ?!
I voted for Huhne is 2005 and 2007 and still think he'd have made a good leader. He played a very key part in the coalition agreement in 2010.
Which makes the current stand-off between Clegg and Rennard all the more surprising, damaging to the Clegg leadership and all the more likely it isn't just about an apology but what role Rennard would have in the party even if he made one.
Lord Rennard: A prominent and powerful 'Rasputin figure' who ruled the Lib Dem machine
Under his guidance, Liberal Democrat councillors ensured that potholes were fixed, lampposts renewed and bent swings in the local park replaced – and that those minor triumphs were then trumpeted in local newsletters slipped into brown envelopes and addressed by hand. He also developed a national strategy to establish the Liberal Democrats nationally, first in toeholds and then strongholds in every part of the UK, rather than being focused in the Celtic fringes. He was a kingmaker who worked closely with successive leaders, first helping Paddy Ashdown’s doubling of seats to 46 at the 1997 general election.
It was he who manoeuvred young Nick Clegg into the safe seat of Sheffield Hallam and, as returning officer in 2007, determined that a batch of late postal votes, that would have handed the leadership to his rival Chris Huhne, were not accepted
So we have banks in convalescence but recovering. What does Miliband do? He suggests we amputate their limbs? I hope it is you, not me, Mr. Brooke, who pays for Ed's 'arm and a leg'.
I have mentioned just the first two drivers. There are many more to go before we get to industry structure.
Do you wish me to go on?
You are simply describing what should happen but ignoring the reality of where we are.
The banks cheated at LIBOR because they could collude and run a cartel. This was not a few bad apples, this was systemic and has cost the banks billions. And this is not some remote crime it directly impacts us all as we the customers pay for it.
Regulation such as it is has failed. It has failed because we have a box ticking culture which has few real sanctions and because prescription is a poor alternative to competition.
As for the current mess on capital inadequacy that is simply a function of bust banks in an overconcentrated market. If we had spread the risk over more banks I contend we would be in much better shape.
The funny thing about the Wimpy was that the permanent staff had all left school at 16 and were the bosses of the A and University students who were likely to be much better off in the long run. It was a great leveller, and we would all pile off down the pub together after closing down at night.
Amongst the other things I learnt was that if you do not smoke, you do not get a break; that if you do not swear at the waitresses, they let the food go cold; and that cleaning out deep fat fryers is a worse job than cleaning the toilets. I also learned how to deal with sexual harrassment, by both men and women.
I think it does no one from a middle class background any harm to see how others have to live.
This Cassidy bloke was a manager at McDs, so probably a corporate stooge...
(To the tune of the red flag)
The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the foremans job at last! Etc...
My second job was flipping burgers at a Wimpy Bar (and deepfrying those strange round sausages called "benders". My first was a Saturday job in a petrol station on the pumps and till.
Shows my age a bit, but may I pick up my certificate of working class credibility on the way out?
Both ar jobs that Owen Jones wouldn't look at twice, and paid bugger all. Great fun though and taught me to work hard at A levels so that I could move to something better. Hard work is good for people, and I still favour grafters at interview.
Genuine question for curiosity - where on the working to upper class list does waiting tables / pulling pints in your local come? (Done alongside A-levels so I had money to spend the other side of the bar...)
I feel awful for this poor mother in Scotland. Let's hope the lad turns up safe and well. People that do stuff to kids deserve the worst punishment. If someone's responsible he or she should be thrown in a cell to rot for a long, long time.
Life_ina_market_town, the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the accused is often seen as morally guilty. That is probably nearer to the Rennard situation than the binary situation you outline.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
The problem is the rulebook. If criminal procedure is defective and leads to the wrongful acquittal of a guilty defendant, the answer must be to change the procedure, not to hound the defendant.
As for the issue of "not proven", the last thing that the people of England want is the importation of any of 'those interesting relics of barbarism, tempered by a few importations from Rome, known to the world as Scots law.' (Lord Maugham) In any event, the return of a not proven verdict entitles the defendant to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, for which they are not obliged nor expected to apologise.
One thing people seem to be forgetting here. This is not a judicial issue whether civil or criminal. Rennard will lose neither liberty or livelihood no matter what Clegg et al decide. This issue is purely one of free association. Do the lib dems on the whole want Rennard as part of the party. In my view they should be under no compulsion to have in the party if they do not want to whether the reason they do not want to is because he is a proven criminal or merely because he happens to smell faintly of rancid broccoli. Party membership is a club in many ways and clubs should be free to select or deselect their members as they see fit regardless of whether we may feel the criteria they use is worthy or not
Political parties have I believe on the whole like most clubs a yearly subscription fee. I believe any club and this would include political parties I would imagine are within their rights to refuse to renew membership without giving any reason. In much the same way any shop or public house may also refuse to treat
If Gordon Brown hadn’t pushed HBOS and Lloyds together, and if Labour’s pet bank the Co-op hadn’t been chaired by a raving drug fiend there would even now be Two! More! Banks!
Second: He wants to dismantle big commercial entities into smaller, more competitive units. But this is what capitalism does as a matter of course. It is the business model for private equity, short-sellers, asset-strippers, hostile take-over pros. Miliband is putting himself up as a predator. What a noodle he is. Mind you, he knocked a billion off the banks’ cap just by talking about them so he’s not entirely without teeth.
Third: He said that lending to small business is woefully inadequate. It may or may not be. We do know, however, that a proximate cause of the sub-prime mortgage market was politicians demanding lenders make loans to bad credit risks.
Responsible capitalism via irresponsible capitalism. Only Ed Miliband.
I was interviewed by BBC News Channel about this earlier and asked: what about the 1989 Beer Orders? Didn’t Maggie Thatcher decide that the brewers were ripping off punters by wholly-owning too many pubs and not allowing general competition? That’s true, and she did order pub selloffs and guest beers.But she didn’t have government set up its own brewery. (Probably because she knew that government would struggle to organise a piss-up inside it).
Miliband is far more, em, optimistic about the power of government to reorganize the economy. You can bet he won’t stop at banks. He really does believe that Britain’s main problem is not enough power wielded by the government.
Life_ina_market_town, the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the accused is often seen as morally guilty. That is probably nearer to the Rennard situation than the binary situation you outline.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
The problem is the rulebook. If criminal procedure is defective and leads to the wrongful acquittal of a guilty defendant, the answer must be to change the procedure, not to hound the defendant.
As for the issue of "not proven", the last thing that the people of England want is the importation of any of 'those interesting relics of barbarism, tempered by a few importations from Rome, known to the world as Scots law.' (Lord Maugham) In any event, the return of a not proven verdict entitles the defendant to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, for which they are not obliged nor expected to apologise.
One thing people seem to be forgetting here. This is not a judicial issue whether civil or criminal. Rennard will lose neither liberty or livelihood no matter what Clegg et al decide. This issue is purely one of free association. Do the lib dems on the whole want Rennard as part of the party. In my view they should be under no compulsion to have in the party if they do not want to whether the reason they do not want to is because he is a proven criminal or merely because he happens to smell faintly of rancid broccoli. Party membership is a club in many ways and clubs should be free to select or deselect their members as they see fit regardless of whether we may feel the criteria they use is worthy or not
Political parties have I believe on the whole like most clubs a yearly subscription fee. I believe any club and this would include political parties I would imagine are within their rights to refuse to renew membership without giving any reason. In much the same way any shop or public house may also refuse to treat
No , you are incorrect , membership of the Lib Dems is covered by its rules and the constitution and removal and/or refusal of membership are covered by those . I suspect most other major political parties are the same .
Lenon, pulling pints is easy - you're everyone's friend, social hours, free drinks, doddle. I've done plenty of really rubbish jobs. Warehouses, hospital cleaning, working with mentally handicapped adolescents, meter reading, nights in a bakery etc.
However, the worst job I've ever had was being a car clamper for Tower Hamlets council. Council jacket, council van, putting clamps on illegal parkers and removing them later when they've paid the fine. I was really shocked by the level of hatred - took my breath away. You get treated like sh*t. I only did it for a week but came close to being assaulted every day. It's one of those jobs where people think it's alright to have a real go at you. Not a pleasant job.
Didnt the forced sale of pubs by the breweries lead to our indebted pub companies who close pubs each week to sell off as houses.? Not exactly a triumph, i feel, though I am rather fond of guest beers rather than Leicester own Everards.
I was interviewed by BBC News Channel about this earlier and asked: what about the 1989 Beer Orders? Didn’t Maggie Thatcher decide that the brewers were ripping off punters by wholly-owning too many pubs and not allowing general competition? That’s true, and she did order pub selloffs and guest beers.But she didn’t have government set up its own brewery. (Probably because she knew that government would struggle to organise a piss-up inside it).
Miliband is far more, em, optimistic about the power of government to reorganize the economy. You can bet he won’t stop at banks. He really does believe that Britain’s main problem is not enough power wielded by the government.
So we have banks in convalescence but recovering. What does Miliband do? He suggests we amputate their limbs? I hope it is you, not me, Mr. Brooke, who pays for Ed's 'arm and a leg'.
I have mentioned just the first two drivers. There are many more to go before we get to industry structure.
Do you wish me to go on?
You are simply describing what should happen but ignoring the reality of where we are.
The banks cheated at LIBOR because they could collude and run a cartel. This was not a few bad apples, this was systemic and has cost the banks billions. And this is not some remote crime it directly impacts us all as we the customers pay for it.
Regulation such as it is has failed. It has failed because we have a box ticking culture which has few real sanctions and because prescription is a poor alternative to competition.
As for the current mess on capital inadequacy that is simply a function of bust banks in an overconcentrated market. If we had spread the risk over more banks I contend we would be in much better shape.
Systemic risk arises when the assumptions upon which a whole industry operates are found to be invalid.
And this is what happened to the banking industry in 2007-9. The malaise brought down the largest to the smallest bank, from a specialist investment bank to a local savings and loan. And it affected all banks which survived the fall out.
The strongest and fittest had to absorb the weakest. Where this was impractical taxpayers had to pick up the tab.
Industry structure had very little impact on who the casualties were. What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?
Industry structure is a factor in competitiveness but it has a relatively minor impact on the performance of a banking sector. Before the task of optimising industry structure is started, the more significant determinants must be addressed. These are trade imbalances, asset bubbles, monetary policies, government and household indebtedness, housing policies and pricing, regulation of core, derivative and shadow banking activities etc.
Simply tinkering with an individual country's banking structure is not going to deliver safe, honest and competitive banking services. And pretending it would derives either from ignorance of the underlying problems or a cynical attempt to deceive.
( I assume your strategy is to write posts so long there's no room for a reply ! ) :-)
I'm well aware what systemic risk is complex supply chains such as car manufacturing deal with it all the time. But this is not really to do with industry risk and everything to do with industry concentration. And every study from Porter to PIMS will tell you as an industry consolidates pricing goes up since competitors move from pricing themselves in to business to pricing themselves in to bigger profits. The UK banking sector is a case in point. It is the aim of most companies to dominate a market and when they consolidate that's when cartels kick in. When market conditions get to this level there is a long history of governments in the US and UK taking a look and changing the playing field.
As for your list of things that need done you are putting the cart before the horse none of these things can be achieved without a functioning finance system. And in any case as I have argued with you over the years Osborne doesn't know how to deliver them.
@Blueberry etc - Quite agree, relatively easy job and lots of fun. I was just interested in others views as it does give you a sense of real people and you have to engage with all members of society.
I feel awful for this poor mother in Scotland. Let's hope the lad turns up safe and well. People that do stuff to kids deserve the worst punishment. If someone's responsible he or she should be thrown in a cell to rot for a long, long time.
Comments
C4 News are describing this as a crisis show down for Clegg vs Rennard. C4 News has been remarkably well connected into this Lib Dem story all along.
This evening Nick Clegg "is of the view that as long as Lord Rennard refuses the very reasonable request from Alistair Webster QC to apologise that it is inappropriate for him to rejoin the Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords."
http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-inappropriate-for-lord-rennard-to-rejoin-lib-dem-lords-if-he-does-not-apologise-37879.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Earler this afternoon the following letter from >100 LD activists appeared in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/17/lord-rennard-no-apology-no-whip
"We believe that until he apologises and acknowledges the distress that his actions have caused, regardless of intent, he should never have had the Liberal Democrat whip restored and should be barred from any party body or involvement in any party activity that might facilitate a repeat of this situation. No apology; no whip. We note with deep regret the failure of senior members of the parliamentary party to denounce in the strongest possible terms Lord Rennard's behaviour;" "We will not rest until our party is a safe space for all, free from sexual harassment and assault, without exception."
The situation is doing the Lib Dems no good whatsoever and it's not as if there's anyone out there who would be moved by the plight of Rennard.
What are the main drivers of price and volume in bank lending to the SME sector?
Rank the drivers in order of weight and then we can debate how effective a restructuring of the UK banking sector would be in increasing competition in bank services.
Yes, she's a feminist, and yes, time may cool temper, but she's angry about it.
I
Provided the Treasury handle the new risk effectively I see little long term damage being done to shares in the intervened banks as a result of Miliband's nonsense.
Once again you are behind the curve Mr P. The nation cheers as the banking sector gets a
Where is this competition going to come from exactly?
If I happen to like my bank will I be forced to leave them because Ed says they have too many customers? Please explain.
As for a break up that's child's play or are you telling me all those overpaid consultants in London can't work out how to reorganise a bank ?
I'm not sticking up for bankers, just demonstrating the idiocy of a man who is a clear and present danger to the future of this country.
Anyway, you haven't answered my question, if I am happy with my bank could I be forced to switch? Also, if you reorganise a bank and split it into 'new' banks, such as TSB or William & Glyns, do we not still have five major banks just with more subsidiaries?
You should be forced to shift ( if that's what happens ) because overall more competition will benefit the economy which in the long term is in your own interest as it will pay off our debts and cut your taxes quicker. As things stand today what guarantees have any of us that our bank won't be taken over so you switch by default or if you;re in the sticks your branch closes and tells you to use a call centre in India. I suspect like me you have had several accounts and have seen a takeover change your bank whether you like it or not.
As for the how it's done we all have our own opinions. Personally I would prefer more regional banks preferably in a mutual form and takeover proof. This isn't wildly different from what we had with the building socs except I'd like to see them offer commercial finance too.
Why did we lose the building societies? My daughter worked for a well regarded local building society, in fact they were also clients of mine and I knew the FD well, but they were forced to merge due to capital issues when it all went bosoms up.
We do have a local building society in my small village, long may they continue, hopefully the Post Office get their act together soon.
Just don't let the dangerous Miliband anywhere near the purse strings.
I am expecting Miliband's next big announcement to be that he intends to refer the NHS to the Competition Commission with a view to setting up two new "challenger" medical service providers to ensure patients benefit from true competition.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination of fees, rates and securities. Since we have an oligopoly this tends to mean banks shove prices up as they feel happier with unsecured lending with high interest or residential property in an inflating market. Likewise they bully SMEs in to taking products they don't want such as insurance as a means of increasing their margins.
Volume is driven by where banks think they can make most moeny for least effort. This works fine in a cartel \ oligopoly much less so where there is real competiton. Volume is not driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
Please don't force me to reprise the bankers paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending.
There is a price of risk and the bankers are not bad at assessing it when left free from administrative constrictions (which is not the same as a healthy regulatory environment).
Or would you have these challenger banks lend to any old credit risk?
(off topic: extraordinary prog on Paul Tortelier on BBC4 right now - bolleaux to AQ.)
That is to misunderstand risk. Yes risk is priced but so is profit and efficiency. Where the real risk sits is in having no competitive pressure to force efficiency. innovation and wage restraint. For society as a whole the major risk is in having insufficient competition so that oligoplies form. This means we have banks that can't fail, corruption and fraud and a failure to provide credit at the rquired level to the productive economy, which is where the UK is today.
However the problems for the LDs in this Webster activity started when they set down the terms of it. Too narrow and constrained itself to mimicking the criminal process of England & Wales.
I'm not sure if you have looked down the list of current best mortgages at eg. moneysupermarket lately but the idea that there is an oligopoly in financial services is there dispelled. There will be quotes there from companies you have never heard of right up there with the big guys.
As for the issue of "not proven", the last thing that the people of England want is the importation of any of 'those interesting relics of barbarism, tempered by a few importations from Rome, known to the world as Scots law.' (Lord Maugham) In any event, the return of a not proven verdict entitles the defendant to the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, for which they are not obliged nor expected to apologise.
As for competition you are simply saying that banks have screwed up so much other people are now treading on their patch. This is good news, however this will takes years to come through and as ever if anyone gets big enough the big 5 will simply buy them out and squash a competitor. In the mean time the productive economy continues to run sub optimally.
One thing people seem to be forgetting here. This is not a judicial issue whether civil or criminal. Rennard will lose neither liberty or livelihood no matter what Clegg et al decide. This issue is purely one of free association. Do the lib dems on the whole want Rennard as part of the party. In my view they should be under no compulsion to have in the party if they do not want to whether the reason they do not want to is because he is a proven criminal or merely because he happens to smell faintly of rancid broccoli. Party membership is a club in many ways and clubs should be free to select or deselect their members as they see fit regardless of whether we may feel the criteria they use is worthy or not
Checking back, the BC event was indeed as I recalled ascribed to an earthquake in the 2002 paper and here is a summary. http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml which s pretty much as I recall the work.
However, more recent work suggests storm surge (indirectly) + high tide e.g. the Bristil Uni students' summary http://betweenarock.co.uk/random-science/the-bristol-tsunami-flood-or-fallacy/ - and we have seen this recently as well as in the early 50s in East Anglia/Thames estuary/Netherlands.
Either way low installations on the coast are a worry and I don't feel happy about replacing coastal nukes such as Hinkley Point and Dungeness etc without at least some improvement in flood protection.
Not so.
Webster judged that it was the intent aspect that was insufficiently supported by the evidence to be proved.
So it is both logical and reasonable for the Lib Dems to demand an apology for unintentionally causing distress, which Rennard has refused to do.
Shows my age a bit, but may I pick up my certificate of working class credibility on the way out?
Both ar jobs that Owen Jones wouldn't look at twice, and paid bugger all. Great fun though and taught me to work hard at A levels so that I could move to something better. Hard work is good for people, and I still favour grafters at interview.
The main drivers of price are what banks think they can get away with which is a combination of fees, rates and securities. Since we have an oligopoly this tends to mean banks shove prices up as they feel happier with unsecured lending with high interest or residential property in an inflating market. Likewise they bully SMEs in to taking products they don't want such as insurance as a means of increasing their margins.
Volume is driven by where banks think they can make most moeny for least effort. This works fine in a cartel \ oligopoly much less so where there is real competiton. Volume is not driven by SME demand since this always outstrips what banks make available.
The main driver of the interest rate charged on loans to the business sector is the base rate set by the Bank of England. Most loans are priced at a premium to this rate or to another rate linked to the base rate (e.g. LIBOR).
Interest rates will also be determined by the cost of funds to the lending bank. A large high street bank will have a substantial proportion of its funds provided by retail depositors. Niche commercial lenders will be principally dependent on interbank lending rates. Historically, the high street banks have had a competitive advantage by being able to directly access lower cost retail deposits to fund their lending.
In the current state of the economy, the BoE base rate at 0.5% and the BoE's QE and Funds for Lending Scheme mean that the advantage of the deposit taking banks has been temporarily limited.
The second external constraint imposed on banks is prudential regulation and, in particular, capital adequacy requirements. As Topping points out the high street banks are facing the "paradox of having on the one hand to rebuild their balance sheets and on the other to increase lending".
It is the imposition of higher capital adequacy requirements on the weaker banks which has principally resulted in their reluctance to lend. The BoE has attempted to solve this problem by offering "pass through" funds to distressed banks so that they can increase lending to the business sector at the same time as reducing assets and increasing reserves. Even so, the intervened banks have been either reluctant or unable to increase lending at the same rate as those independent banks with healthier balance sheets. The volume of funds available to lend to business is principally being influenced by regulation.
The UK banks are still struggling to repair their balance sheets and to increase their capital cover. Their position is massively better than it was at the time of the bailouts but they have not yet returned to full health. When they do investors will buy their shares and the banks will increase their lending. In the current climate, neither branches, assets nor shares will find eager buyers.
[to be continued]
Banks [continued]
So we have banks in convalescence but recovering. What does Miliband do? He suggests we amputate their limbs? I hope it is you, not me, Mr. Brooke, who pays for Ed's 'arm and a leg'.
I have mentioned just the first two drivers. There are many more to go before we get to industry structure.
Do you wish me to go on?
My first job was much grander.
I worked as a steriliser in the CSSD of a major hospital.
The department was run and populated mostly by the Berry family, father Bill, mother Cherry and daughter Myrtle.
I enjoyed every minute of it except my 'bonus' of being allowed to watch a hysterectomy fully robed in theatre.
Ouch as in a mild wisp of transitory pain. The tendency on here of Conservatives to take solace in minor local difficulties of their opponents while failing to face up to their own party's considerable problems is deeply worrying.
The banks cheated at LIBOR because they could collude and run a cartel. This was not a few bad apples, this was systemic and has cost the banks billions. And this is not some remote crime it directly impacts us all as we the customers pay for it.
Regulation such as it is has failed. It has failed because we have a box ticking culture which has few real sanctions and because prescription is a poor alternative to competition.
As for the current mess on capital inadequacy that is simply a function of bust banks in an overconcentrated market. If we had spread the risk over more banks I contend we would be in much better shape.
Amongst the other things I learnt was that if you do not smoke, you do not get a break; that if you do not swear at the waitresses, they let the food go cold; and that cleaning out deep fat fryers is a worse job than cleaning the toilets. I also learned how to deal with sexual harrassment, by both men and women.
I think it does no one from a middle class background any harm to see how others have to live.
This Cassidy bloke was a manager at McDs, so probably a corporate stooge...
(To the tune of the red flag)
The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the foremans job at last! Etc...
Around the same time - just seen him mid channel surf being interviewed by Piers Morgan - I was bunking off sixth form with Neil Morrissey.
Those were the days.
@ChrisDavies49: @PickardJE it even uses the phrase "one nation" in the introduction. Wow.
However, the worst job I've ever had was being a car clamper for Tower Hamlets council. Council jacket, council van, putting clamps on illegal parkers and removing them later when they've paid the fine. I was really shocked by the level of hatred - took my breath away. You get treated like sh*t. I only did it for a week but came close to being assaulted every day. It's one of those jobs where people think it's alright to have a real go at you. Not a pleasant job.
And this is what happened to the banking industry in 2007-9. The malaise brought down the largest to the smallest bank, from a specialist investment bank to a local savings and loan. And it affected all banks which survived the fall out.
The strongest and fittest had to absorb the weakest. Where this was impractical taxpayers had to pick up the tab.
Industry structure had very little impact on who the casualties were. What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?
Industry structure is a factor in competitiveness but it has a relatively minor impact on the performance of a banking sector. Before the task of optimising industry structure is started, the more significant determinants must be addressed. These are trade imbalances, asset bubbles, monetary policies, government and household indebtedness, housing policies and pricing, regulation of core, derivative and shadow banking activities etc.
Simply tinkering with an individual country's banking structure is not going to deliver safe, honest and competitive banking services. And pretending it would derives either from ignorance of the underlying problems or a cynical attempt to deceive.
( I assume your strategy is to write posts so long there's no room for a reply ! ) :-)
I'm well aware what systemic risk is complex supply chains such as car manufacturing deal with it all the time. But this is not really to do with industry risk and everything to do with industry concentration. And every study from Porter to PIMS will tell you as an industry consolidates pricing goes up since competitors move from pricing themselves in to business to pricing themselves in to bigger profits. The UK banking sector is a case in point. It is the aim of most companies to dominate a market and when they consolidate that's when cartels kick in. When market conditions get to this level there is a long history of governments in the US and UK taking a look and changing the playing field.
As for your list of things that need done you are putting the cart before the horse none of these things can be achieved without a functioning finance system. And in any case as I have argued with you over the years Osborne doesn't know how to deliver them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25790820