Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January Ipsos-MORI leader approval ratings

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January Ipsos-MORI leader approval ratings

The Ipsos-MORI leader satisfaction ratings for Jan
Not much change only Cam down http://t.co/CZI7qSfZtA

Read the full story here


Comments

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    FPT

    AveryLP said:

    @Alanbrooke

    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?

    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.

    The task of restoring the UK's banking system to competitive health is best left to Mark Carney at the Bank of England. At least he understands the problems, knows the business and has been given the tools with which to deliver.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited January 2014
    FPT: Quite a lot of activity from the Vatican given the somewhat disturbing events revealed in a document obtained by AP.
    Boston.com ‏@BostonDotCom 2h

    Release of the document on Vatican defrocking 400 priests for child abuse prompted by UN interrogation of Holy See. http://bo.st/1b6IMnF
    Though there appears to be some clarification going on about new cases.
    Paddy Banville ‏@PaddyBanville 7m

    @PatheosCatholic This has since been corrected by the Vatican. 400 refers to number of new cases opened.


    Unthought Know ‏@Unthought_Know 6h

    Vatican officials told the U.N. it was aware of 612 new cases of sexual abuse in 2012, of which 418 involved minors http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304603704579324891654814828?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken their behaviour would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited January 2014
    On Topic

    "All of them continue to be net negative"

    Indeed, but some are of course more negative than others.
    It also certainly doesn't stop them being the very public face of their party when they want to make big announcements or on setpiece occasions. Like for today with little Ed giving his very own banking plan and Cammie refuting it by saying the banks are now fine. Meanwhile Clegg very publicly struggles with Rennard and what to do. The leaders matter and their popularity or lack of it is going to be a huge factor.


    It also makes the leaders debate quite the pickle for the broadcasters. None of the ledaers are 'box office' in the sense of being popular but then the public does quite like to see those it has little respect for taken down a peg or two. I suspect the debates will be far more confrontational than last time as a result.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

    Because they were numpties. And he had got away with it on multiple occasions. They came very very near to going under back in (?) 1998 after LTCM and got away with it. As for the regulators, he wasn't breaking any rules and the US is a very rule bound society, while politicians weren't thinking hard.

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Mick_Pork said:

    On Topic

    "All of them continue to be net negative"

    Indeed, but some are of course more negative than others.
    It also certainly doesn't stop them being the very public face of their party when they want to make big announcements or on setpiece occasions. Like for today with little Ed giving his very own banking plan and Cammie refuting it by saying the banks are now fine. Meanwhile Clegg very publicly struggles with Rennard and what to do. The leaders matter and their popularity or lack of it is going to be a huge factor.


    It also makes the leaders debate quite the pickle for the broadcasters. None of the ledaers are 'box office' in the sense of being popular but then the public does quite like to see those it has little respect for taken down a peg or two. I suspect the debates will be far more confrontational than last time as a result.

    Mick,have you seen this -

    My local MP wants to take on our alex .

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2540993/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-George-Galloway-wants-rules-debate-SNP-leader-Alex-Salmond.html

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

    Because they were numpties. And he had got away with it on multiple occasions. They came very very near to going under back in (?) 1998 after LTCM and got away with it. As for the regulators, he wasn't breaking any rules and the US is a very rule bound society, while politicians weren't thinking hard.

    I have nothing further to add m'lud.

    [Sits down].

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    FPT


    @Avery

    ( 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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    40-1 though they were exceedingly competent at making a great deal of cash from that, not least in bonuses, until the music stopped of course.
    Ex-SEC Official Blames Agency for Blow-Up of Broker-Dealers

    'They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work'


    The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

    The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

    http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/
    I could post a few links detailing some completely unsurprising and big political donations and contributions from those firms in question but I think we all get the picture by now.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

    Because they were numpties. And he had got away with it on multiple occasions. They came very very near to going under back in (?) 1998 after LTCM and got away with it. As for the regulators, he wasn't breaking any rules and the US is a very rule bound society, while politicians weren't thinking hard.

    I have nothing further to add m'lud.

    [Sits down].

    Incompetence isn't against the law.

    (I didn't read your discussion with Alanbrooke, was just taking issue with your sweeping statement that the failed banks had nothing in common. Banking crisises are ultimately always a result of bad judgment by management. As a business it should be utility like: important, cautiously managed and with great care and a bias towards risk avoidance.)
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    FPT


    @Avery

    ( 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.

    Osborne is a god and you will be struck down by a thunderbolt if you question his infallibility and divine powers.

    And Osborne appointed Carney to sitteth on his right hand side. And Carney, Mr. Brooke, does know his onions.

    Banks are highly regulated economic distribution systems. They do not operate in the same conditions as car manufacturers: their freedom to price and to lend is circumscribed. Their risks are ultimately our risks.

    Osborne and Carney are delivering a functioning finance system. It is taking time, but like the rest of the economy, the UK is moving in the right direction at a rate which is internationally competitive and advantageous.

    Before chopping up unsellable banks into unsellable chunks lets first get the existing banks into a condition which might encourage investment and purchase. Otherwise we just return to 2009 type Brownian state intervention.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Mick_Pork said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    40-1 though they were exceedingly competent at making a great deal of cash from that, not least in bonuses, until the music stopped of course.
    Ex-SEC Official Blames Agency for Blow-Up of Broker-Dealers

    'They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work'


    The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

    The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

    http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/
    I could post a few links detailing some completely unsurprising and big political donations and contributions from those firms in question but I think we all get the picture by now.

    To be fair to Dickie, although he was well paid he took the bulk of his pay in stock, and kept it in equity. He lost a round billion personally when the firm went bust.

    To be honest, I don't have much of an issue with the amounts that the likes of Lloyd Blankenfein or David Vinar get paid because they have proved themselves to be very agile risk managers. The problem is really the adequate-but-no-better banker who are paid too much for basically taking advantage of the platform their employer offers.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

    Because they were numpties. And he had got away with it on multiple occasions. They came very very near to going under back in (?) 1998 after LTCM and got away with it. As for the regulators, he wasn't breaking any rules and the US is a very rule bound society, while politicians weren't thinking hard.

    I have nothing further to add m'lud.

    [Sits down].

    Incompetence isn't against the law.

    (I didn't read your discussion with Alanbrooke, was just taking issue with your sweeping statement that the failed banks had nothing in common. Banking crisises are ultimately always a result of bad judgment by management. As a business it should be utility like: important, cautiously managed and with great care and a bias towards risk avoidance.)
    [Rises to his feet]

    I fully endorse the conclusions of my learned friend, m'lud.

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?

    All of them took ill-judged risks and were proven incompetent at managing their source of capital?

    True. But the judgement that their decisions were incompetent was reached after the consequences were known. On the assumptions which applied at the time their decisions were taken the decisions would have been deemed to have been acceptable if aggressive risk taking.

    Hell, no!

    Everyone knew that Dickie Fuld was running Lehman on too little equity. It took a while for the chickens to get there, but they were always coming home to roost.

    Borrow long, lend short. Page 1, Rule 1, in the "bluffer's guide to banking"
    If "everyone knew" why didn't the regulators and politicians intervene?

    Because they were numpties. And he had got away with it on multiple occasions. They came very very near to going under back in (?) 1998 after LTCM and got away with it. As for the regulators, he wasn't breaking any rules and the US is a very rule bound society, while politicians weren't thinking hard.

    I have nothing further to add m'lud.

    [Sits down].

    Incompetence isn't against the law.

    (I didn't read your discussion with Alanbrooke, was just taking issue with your sweeping statement that the failed banks had nothing in common. Banking crisises are ultimately always a result of bad judgment by management. As a business it should be utility like: important, cautiously managed and with great care and a bias towards risk avoidance.)
    Not wanting to defend bad management, but if/when it successfully goes on too long then shareholders of cautious banks start agitating for management to be less cautious as well.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited January 2014

    Mick_Pork said:

    On Topic

    "All of them continue to be net negative"

    Indeed, but some are of course more negative than others.
    It also certainly doesn't stop them being the very public face of their party when they want to make big announcements or on setpiece occasions. Like for today with little Ed giving his very own banking plan and Cammie refuting it by saying the banks are now fine. Meanwhile Clegg very publicly struggles with Rennard and what to do. The leaders matter and their popularity or lack of it is going to be a huge factor.


    It also makes the leaders debate quite the pickle for the broadcasters. None of the ledaers are 'box office' in the sense of being popular but then the public does quite like to see those it has little respect for taken down a peg or two. I suspect the debates will be far more confrontational than last time as a result.

    Mick,have you seen this -

    My local MP wants to take on our alex .

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2540993/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-George-Galloway-wants-rules-debate-SNP-leader-Alex-Salmond.html

    He failed to get into celebrity big brother again or 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' I take it?

    Given he is now the MP for Bradford West and his party seems to be crumbling I doubt even gorgeous George is kidding himself that he is somehow central to the independence referendum and all the serious negotiations and process around it. As for his boasting about being a 'bruiser', that was also the claim made by the amusing buffoon Carmichael too, before Sturgeon completely annihilated him. So Nicola could easily take George down in a debate if it came to that. Or indeed Dennis Canavan or Patrick Harvie if they wanted, though I doubt they will.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    According to the L&N model, Cameron is in a commanding position to win the next election, perhaps with a majority.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    I read your post yesterday re 3D printing but only late as I had been out at a small manufacturer all afternoon. A well run company, well invested , apprenticeships and doing the kind of thing UK plc needs to do to restore its finance, But as usual he sub optimises his potential because he refuses to put any trust in UK banks. He uses two banks Barclays and the Bank of Mordor but only to park his considerable cash balance since has has no trust in the institutions that they will hold to terms, not rip him off or bugger off when times are tough. He should be investing and expanding, creating more jobs and re-shoring work, but he's not because he's hoarding cash as an insurance against a banking system he does not trust.

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    RodCrosby said:

    According to the L&N model, Cameron is in a commanding position to win the next election, perhaps with a majority.

    Sir Roderick.

    I cannot agree more with yourself and Messrs. Lebo and Norporth.

    But isn't it now time to convince the voters?

  • glwglw Posts: 9,955
    Lennon said:

    Not wanting to defend bad management, but if/when it successfully goes on too long then shareholders of cautious banks start agitating for management to be less cautious as well.

    Exactly, and as soon as you hear people saying "this time it's different" as an explanation for why the boom times will never end, that's your cue to head for the exit.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,343
    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    On Topic

    "All of them continue to be net negative"

    Indeed, but some are of course more negative than others.
    It also certainly doesn't stop them being the very public face of their party when they want to make big announcements or on setpiece occasions. Like for today with little Ed giving his very own banking plan and Cammie refuting it by saying the banks are now fine. Meanwhile Clegg very publicly struggles with Rennard and what to do. The leaders matter and their popularity or lack of it is going to be a huge factor.


    It also makes the leaders debate quite the pickle for the broadcasters. None of the ledaers are 'box office' in the sense of being popular but then the public does quite like to see those it has little respect for taken down a peg or two. I suspect the debates will be far more confrontational than last time as a result.

    Mick,have you seen this -

    My local MP wants to take on our alex .

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2540993/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-George-Galloway-wants-rules-debate-SNP-leader-Alex-Salmond.html

    He failed to get into celebrity big brother again or 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' I take it?

    Given he is now the MP for Bradford West and his party seems to be crumbling I doubt even gorgeous George is kidding himself that he is somehow central to the independence referendum and all the serious negotiations and process around it. As for his boasting about being a 'bruiser', that was also the claim made by the amusing buffoon Carmichael too, before Sturgeon completely annihilated him. So Nicola could easily take George down in a debate if it came to that. Or indeed Dennis Canavan or Patrick Harvie if they wanted, though I doubt they will.
    Mphm! Mr S is already waiting to discuss matters with that nice Mr Cameron who told us he would defend the Union with every fibre of his being, or words to that effect (and also waiting tdhereupon is a majority of the electorate on both sides of the border according to polling). A bloke in a pink catsuit just doesn't cut it ...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    AveryLP said:

    RodCrosby said:

    According to the L&N model, Cameron is in a commanding position to win the next election, perhaps with a majority.

    Sir Roderick.

    I cannot agree more with yourself and Messrs. Lebo and Norporth.

    But isn't it now time to convince the voters?

    Maybe the VI move back to the Tories will be sharp and late.
  • With all of the leaders deeply unpopular, I'm not sure the ratings are salient.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815


    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    I read your post yesterday re 3D printing but only late as I had been out at a small manufacturer all afternoon. A well run company, well invested , apprenticeships and doing the kind of thing UK plc needs to do to restore its finance, But as usual he sub optimises his potential because he refuses to put any trust in UK banks. He uses two banks Barclays and the Bank of Mordor but only to park his considerable cash balance since has has no trust in the institutions that they will hold to terms, not rip him off or bugger off when times are tough. He should be investing and expanding, creating more jobs and re-shoring work, but he's not because he's hoarding cash as an insurance against a banking system he does not trust.

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    Maybe the high street lenders are not right for his business.

    It looks as if he should be talking to a corporate financier and looking at debt or equity capital solutions.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    With all of the leaders deeply unpopular, I'm not sure the ratings are salient.

    FYI, Cameron is, by historical standards, rather popular...
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited January 2014
    Charles said:



    To be fair to Dickie, although he was well paid he took the bulk of his pay in stock, and kept it in equity. He lost a round billion personally when the firm went bust.

    Of course he did. If you are are gambling and winning throwing the car keys and mortgage into the pot never seems to be that big an issue for those who think they can never lose.
    Charles said:

    To be honest, I don't have much of an issue with the amounts that the likes of Lloyd Blankenfein or David Vinar get paid because they have proved themselves to be very agile risk managers. The problem is really the adequate-but-no-better banker who are paid too much for basically taking advantage of the platform their employer offers.

    Somebody had to be left standing after all, and who better than those who can prove themselves most 'agile', particularly in the political sphere. ;)
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited January 2014

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    I've no idea how old you are, but I've been involved with small companies since 1980. During that time, there has never been a time when company directors haven't bitched about banks. Indeed I've done it myself.

    But I've also been on the other side - not banks, but working with venture capitalists evaluating companies - and it looks very different from that side of the table. Company directors and shareholders often want the bank or venture capitalist to take all the risk for only a small part of the prospective profit.

    The problem, if there is a problem, cannot possibly be anything to do with banking cartels or lack of competition - what is there to stop any of the many hundreds of foreign banks with banking licences in the UK from entering the market and lending to small businesses, if there are profitable opportunities to do so? Indeed, occasionally you do get some foreign banks doing a bit of this, but it's clearly not easy money since they rarely find enough opportunities to make it worthwhile.
  • RodCrosby said:

    According to the L&N model, Cameron is in a commanding position to win the next election, perhaps with a majority.

    Then L&N should make a heavy wager.*

    *Do your own research. It is not a bet I will be taking.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014
    RodCrosby said:

    AveryLP said:

    RodCrosby said:

    According to the L&N model, Cameron is in a commanding position to win the next election, perhaps with a majority.

    Sir Roderick.

    I cannot agree more with yourself and Messrs. Lebo and Norporth.

    But isn't it now time to convince the voters?

    Maybe the VI move back to the Tories will be sharp and late.
    I live in hope.

    And your suggestion does make sense.

    Kick the b*stard who is imposing austerity on you until you are forced to choose between the b*stard and the alternatives.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:


    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    I read your post yesterday re 3D printing but only late as I had been out at a small manufacturer all afternoon. A well run company, well invested , apprenticeships and doing the kind of thing UK plc needs to do to restore its finance, But as usual he sub optimises his potential because he refuses to put any trust in UK banks. He uses two banks Barclays and the Bank of Mordor but only to park his considerable cash balance since has has no trust in the institutions that they will hold to terms, not rip him off or bugger off when times are tough. He should be investing and expanding, creating more jobs and re-shoring work, but he's not because he's hoarding cash as an insurance against a banking system he does not trust.

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    Maybe the high street lenders are not right for his business.

    It looks as if he should be talking to a corporate financier and looking at debt or equity capital solutions.

    Flogging yourself to a financier with a 3-5 year time horizon for a divestment isn't exactly the way to build a UK Mittelstand. How about we have competitive banks which lend, know their customers and are comptent at what they do. And some choice between them.

    Is it Mr Pole that despite the man from the ministry edicts to lend more a £4m business wouldn't get a loan because the banks are more worried about their balance sheets ?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited January 2014
    Damn lefties just don't comprehend how misunderstood the bankers are and how politically advantageous it is to be seen as unquestioning cheerleaders for them.
    John Allan, National Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses, said:

    "Since the financial crash five years ago, small firms' confidence in the banking system has been hit. Not only have they been plagued by inability to access finance and overnight changes to their lines of credit, these latest figures show they have faced increasing fees for banking services.

    "Restoring this trust and getting banks to work in partnership with small firms is absolutely crucial for the recovery. We recognise the banks have done much and recognised their past mistakes, starting the culture change needed. However, our latest figures are a salutary reminder that process still has some way to go with more than half of our members believing the banks don't care about small firms.

    "As much as a culture change in the banks, we must diversify the lending landscape as a whole. We fear that without real competition in the banking sector, small firms will only have the high street banks to turn to. We therefore urge the Government to maintain their efforts to promote non-bank sources of finance and thereby increase choice for small firms as well as competition in the market.

    Notes to Editors

    1. The FSB is the UK's leading business organisation with around 200,000 members. It exists to protect and promote the interests of the UK's Real-Life Entrepreneurs who run their own business. More information is available at www.fsb.org.uk and follow on twitter @fsb_hq.

    2. The FSB surveyed members of the ‘Voice of Small Business' Survey Panel from 31 July to 12 August and received 2,330 responses. The study was undertaken by Research by Design on behalf of the FSB.

    http://www.fsb.org.uk/News.aspx?loc=pressroom&rec=8235
    *chortle*
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    I've no idea how old you are, but I've been involved with small companies since 1980. During that time, there has never been a time when company directors haven't bitched about banks. Indeed I've done it myself.

    But I've also been on the other side - not banks, but working with venture capitalists evaluating companies - and it looks very different from that side of the table. Company directors and shareholders often want the bank or venture capitalist to take all the risk for only a small part of the prospective profit.

    The problem, if there is a problem, cannot possibly be anything to do with banking cartels or lack of competition - what is there to stop any of the many hundreds of foreign banks with banking licences in the UK from entering the market and lending to small businesses, if there are profitable opportunities to do so? Indeed, occasionally you do get some foreign banks doing a bit of this, but it's clearly not easy money since they rarely find enough opportunities to make it worthwhile.
    I'm early fifties and have worked both sides of the fence as you say. And the banking situation in the UK is fairly useless at SME level. For someone like yourself in the South East conditions are different since you haven't really had a recession and the funding scene is more varied. As I have pointed out there are other ways of funding which are eating in to the
    bank's market share however banks still are the major source of funding for commercial finance. And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014


    AveryLP said:


    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    I read your post yesterday re 3D printing but only late as I had been out at a small manufacturer all afternoon. A well run company, well invested , apprenticeships and doing the kind of thing UK plc needs to do to restore its finance, But as usual he sub optimises his potential because he refuses to put any trust in UK banks. He uses two banks Barclays and the Bank of Mordor but only to park his considerable cash balance since has has no trust in the institutions that they will hold to terms, not rip him off or bugger off when times are tough. He should be investing and expanding, creating more jobs and re-shoring work, but he's not because he's hoarding cash as an insurance against a banking system he does not trust.

    I am currently negotiating on two other businesses where once again it is exactly the same the banks are seen as a hindrance not a help. Our banks have no faith from customers that they do banking. So for all George's trips to see flashy technology, it's a waste of petrol if the perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    Maybe the high street lenders are not right for his business.

    It looks as if he should be talking to a corporate financier and looking at debt or equity capital solutions.

    Flogging yourself to a financier with a 3-5 year time horizon for a divestment isn't exactly the way to build a UK Mittelstand. How about we have competitive banks which lend, know their customers and are comptent at what they do. And some choice between them.

    Is it Mr Pole that despite the man from the ministry edicts to lend more a £4m business wouldn't get a loan because the banks are more worried about their balance sheets ?
    There is some truth in what you suggest but the problem is temporary and will resolve itself in reasonable short order.

    And the Nabavi of All Sussex has added a further useful and very true perspective on the problem downthread.

    It is difficult to add to the words of wisdom already expressed.

    I do think there are times, Mr. Brooke, that you wished you were German.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @thetimes: Tomorrow's @BrookesTimes cartoon: Man lost for 29 years didn't know the class war had ended... http://t.co/cQO217XrZj http://t.co/GB2NJomC8y
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Scott_P said:

    @thetimes: Tomorrow's @BrookesTimes cartoon: Man lost for 29 years didn't know the class war had ended... http://t.co/cQO217XrZj http://t.co/GB2NJomC8y

    Brilliant!

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited January 2014

    And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the banking sector of the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:


    AveryLP said:


    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    Maybe the high street lenders are not right for his business.

    It looks as if he should be talking to a corporate financier and looking at debt or equity capital solutions.

    Flogging yourself to a financier with a 3-5 year time horizon for a divestment isn't exactly the way to build a UK Mittelstand. How about we have competitive banks which lend, know their customers and are comptent at what they do. And some choice between them.

    Is it Mr Pole that despite the man from the ministry edicts to lend more a £4m business wouldn't get a loan because the banks are more worried about their balance sheets ?
    There is some truth in what you suggest but the problem is temporary and will resolve itself in reasonable short order.

    And the Nabavi of All Sussex has added a further useful and very true perspective on the problem downthread.

    It is difficult to add to the words of wisdom already expressed.

    The problem has been going on for years it is not temporary, it has simply become more noticeable as the recession and industry concetration have taken their toll.

    As for Sir Richard Nabob Grand Earl of the South Downs, I'm afraid his misplaced faith in Osborne is simply another reflection of how SE Tories fail to grasp that elsewhere voters care more about their own industries than UK banks. It is an unfortunate fact for you SE chappies that a factory worker's vote and a banker's vote are both equal. Indeed if anything the factory worker's vote is worth more since he's more likely to sit in a Midlands marginal and can swing a seat whereas bankers just pile up votes in constituencies that have always voted blue.

    I can only assume you folk like big tax bills and Labour governments since you can't find an affinity with enough voters to win an election outside the South.

  • As for Sir Richard Nabob Grand Earl of the South Downs,

    Point of order: the lovely Weald, not the equally lovely South Downs!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
    A much repeated retail banking truism:

    There is no such thing as a global retail bank: the best that can be achieved is to be multi-domestic.

    HSBC is a rare global success but even its structure is essentially multi-domestic.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Scott_P said:

    @thetimes: Tomorrow's @BrookesTimes cartoon: Man lost for 29 years didn't know the class war had ended... http://t.co/cQO217XrZj http://t.co/GB2NJomC8y

    When will the Chipping Norton class warrior Cammie be informed?
    Bitter exchanges erupted in the Commons when David Cameron delivered a statement on his controversial attendance at the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka.

    In a highly personal attack on the Labour leader, who had urged the Prime Minister to join others and boycott the event, Cameron accused him of not knowing what he was talking about.

    "If he knows anything about foreign affairs - and I doubt it, because he barely gets out of Islington..." he said.

    Taunting Miliband further, he added that his brother David once said Britain needed a Foreign Secretary who could stop the traffic in Beijing, but the Opposition leader couldn't even get out of Primrose Hill (in the London Borough of Camden).
    LOL

    :)

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited January 2014

    And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the banking sector of the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
    Maybe the reason they don't lend is that since banks became big integrated beasts they prefer to bet on higher returns elsewhere the results of which we have just had the bill for. Your somewhat flippant comment on why people won't lend to SMEs simply shows how some of the blues have lost the plot. SMEs create more jobs, SMEs are the seeds for the big businesses of tomorrow, SMEs remain the backbone of the economy. The question really should be if this sector is having difficulties with banks what needs to be done to rectify it. But obviously that's not the question you wish to ask.
  • AveryLP said:

    A much repeated retail banking truism:

    There is no such thing as a global retail bank: the best that can be achieved is to be multi-domestic.

    Fair point, but a limited specialism of lending to small businesses would make a perfectly respectable niche, without having to do the full retail banking malarkey, if the opportunities were really there.. There have been a few banks which have tried this, but with limited impact.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
    A much repeated retail banking truism:

    There is no such thing as a global retail bank: the best that can be achieved is to be multi-domestic.

    HSBC is a rare global success but even its structure is essentially multi-domestic.

    errr didn't I read the other day they need to find another £70bn capital ?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    AveryLP said:


    AveryLP said:


    @Avery

    I'm afraid you continue with the usual complacency and knee-jerk defence of banking.

    perennial UK weakness of no finance to invest in ideas is still the norm.

    Maybe the high street lenders are not right for his business.

    It looks as if he should be talking to a corporate financier and looking at debt or equity capital solutions.

    Flogging yourself to a financier with a 3-5 year time horizon for a divestment isn't exactly the way to build a UK Mittelstand. How about we have competitive banks which lend, know their customers and are comptent at what they do. And some choice between them.

    Is it Mr Pole that despite the man from the ministry edicts to lend more a £4m business wouldn't get a loan because the banks are more worried about their balance sheets ?
    There is some truth in what you suggest but the problem is temporary and will resolve itself in reasonable short order.

    And the Nabavi of All Sussex has added a further useful and very true perspective on the problem downthread.

    It is difficult to add to the words of wisdom already expressed.

    The problem has been going on for years it is not temporary, it has simply become more noticeable as the recession and industry concetration have taken their toll.

    As for Sir Richard Nabob Grand Earl of the South Downs, I'm afraid his misplaced faith in Osborne is simply another reflection of how SE Tories fail to grasp that elsewhere voters care more about their own industries than UK banks. It is an unfortunate fact for you SE chappies that a factory worker's vote and a banker's vote are both equal. Indeed if anything the factory worker's vote is worth more since he's more likely to sit in a Midlands marginal and can swing a seat whereas bankers just pile up votes in constituencies that have always voted blue.

    I can only assume you folk like big tax bills and Labour governments since you can't find an affinity with enough voters to win an election outside the South.
    I would expect your to have more empathy with the son of a factory owner, Mr. Brooke. His family may not have bashed metal but fingers do get inked when producing multiple wallpaper colourways.

    A German culture of municipal provision of industry finance and an American culture of business angels providing venture capital might help. But foreign cultures are difficult to import.
  • Maybe the reason they don't lend is that since banks became big integrated beasts they prefer to bet on higher returns elsewhere the results of which we have just had the bill for. Your somewhat flippant comment on why people won't lend to SMEs simply shows how some of the blues have lost the plot. SMEs create more jobs, SMEs are the seeds for the big businesses of tomorrow, SMEs remain the backbone of the economy. The question really should be if this secotr is having difficulties with banks what needs to be doen to rectify it. But obviously that's not the question you wish to ask.

    I'm not being flippant at all, I'm being realistic. Of course any bank has to allocate its capital according to the risk/reward ratio. If there are better returns elsewhere, for the same degree of risk, they would be massively irresponsible not to allocate their resources accordingly.

    Conversely, if there are good potential returns available by lending more to the SME sector, the UK-focused banks would be irresponsible or incompetent not to do so. And, if they didn't bother to do so, there would be a gap which some other bank could fill.

    And, even if other banks didn't step in, commercial companies should be able to come in and use their own capital (or credit rating) to grab these opportunities.

    I think the question to be asked is more about why there aren't more profitable opportunities in the SME sector to attract such investment.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    A much repeated retail banking truism:

    There is no such thing as a global retail bank: the best that can be achieved is to be multi-domestic.

    Fair point, but a limited specialism of lending to small businesses would make a perfectly respectable niche, without having to do the full retail banking malarkey, if the opportunities were really there.. There have been a few banks which have tried this, but with limited impact.
    Handelsbanken is a good example but there are not many others.

  • And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the banking sector of the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
    Maybe the reason they don't lend is that since banks became big integrated beasts they prefer to bet on higher returns elsewhere the results of which we have just had the bill for. Your somewhat flippant comment on why people won't lend to SMEs simply shows how some of the blues have lost the plot. SMEs create more jobs, SMEs are the seeds for the big businesses of tomorrow, SMEs remain the backbone of the economy. The question really should be if this sector is having difficulties with banks what needs to be done to rectify it. But obviously that's not the question you wish to ask.
    And SMEs are an inconvenience to the corporatist state.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited January 2014
    The graphic is a piece of <south-park>T'urdie-turd</south-park>: If your eye focuses upon the right-hand of Cammer's satisfaction level then the pivot-point of comparison is distorted. Cleggie's 'allocation' looks more normalised despite being as dire as a/any Lib-Dhimmie!

    Basically the graphic is misleading shyte. A'but time a [ex-] journalist (and IPSO-Mori) learn't t'summinck from t'Economist (c.f. graphs and graphics)...!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited January 2014

    AveryLP said:

    And since they remain the major source and have had considerable taxpayer support I don't consider it unreasonable for HMG to look at the sector and ask why it appears incapable of serving businesses.

    Of course, it's not unreasonable at all. Even if the taxpayer wasn't involved it would be a very valid question to ask.

    However, I'm sceptical about the answer. Basically I don't think the answer is failings on the supply side - as I said, if it were, why aren't foreign banks jumping in to take up the slack? We have almost certainly the world's most open and non-protectionist banking system; even the City, the jewel in the crown, has been mainly foreign-owned since Big Bang. Any bank in the world could start lending to small businesses in the UK. One has to ask why they don't.
    A much repeated retail banking truism:

    There is no such thing as a global retail bank: the best that can be achieved is to be multi-domestic.

    HSBC is a rare global success but even its structure is essentially multi-domestic.

    errr didn't I read the other day they need to find another £70bn capital ?
    I think the £70 billion is a European aggregrate figure for the world's "systemically important" banks. 96 billion Euros is the figure I have seen stated by the Basel Committee. This amount is approximately 60% of the global amount needed and relates to "systemically important" banks registered in and supervised by EU countries

    This group of banks have higher capital requirements than smaller banks not in the systemically important group. HSBC is included in this group but will not account for anything near the full figure.

    Also the additional capital is not immediately required and needs to be verified by means of a stress test to be carried out by the BBA during the course of this year. Given that all banks have reduced capital adequacy requirements by retaining profits as reserves to the tune of 83 billion Euros in the second half of last year, the problem is not as alarming as the headline figures suggest.

    It may well turn out that HSBC is over capitalised. In which case the regulators are threatening to get them to "help global economic recovery" by allocated the surplus to undercapitalised banks (through acquisition?).

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    hate FC Barcelona? Wouldn't be seen dead at Camp Nou?

    Well now you can.....

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/17/barcelona-mausoleum-fans-remains-stored-ashes
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Questions in the Telegraph about the PM's visitors to Chequers.
    Mr Clegg’s list of visitors contains numerous journalists, while Mr Cameron’s does not.
    Maybe he is coy about having a tete a tete with Simon Heffer, or maybe not.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    "What did Lehmans, AIG, Northern Rock and the Dunfermline Building Society have in common?"

    Unlike the banks that survived they didn't get 100s of billions of dollars in soft loans from the Federal Reserve.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    RodCrosby said:

    With all of the leaders deeply unpopular, I'm not sure the ratings are salient.

    FYI, Cameron is, by historical standards, rather popular...
    Indeed, other than Blair during his first term (and he had the odd terrible month) Cameron is ahead of other PMs 3.5 years in (or later). Oddly, all the ratings seems have have changed a lot over time. In the pre-79 years even Callaghan wasn't really disliked no matter what. During the late 80s early 90s Thatcher and Major had -50 ratings on a regular basis. Then Blair was a rare oasis of lengthy positive scores (with a few gaps he was positive for almost 8 years). Then Brown was...more like Major.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    AveryLP said:

    Scott_P said:

    @thetimes: Tomorrow's @BrookesTimes cartoon: Man lost for 29 years didn't know the class war had ended... http://t.co/cQO217XrZj http://t.co/GB2NJomC8y

    Brilliant!

    must be related to this...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    Quincel said:

    RodCrosby said:

    With all of the leaders deeply unpopular, I'm not sure the ratings are salient.

    FYI, Cameron is, by historical standards, rather popular...
    Indeed, other than Blair during his first term (and he had the odd terrible month) Cameron is ahead of other PMs 3.5 years in (or later). Oddly, all the ratings seems have have changed a lot over time. In the pre-79 years even Callaghan wasn't really disliked no matter what. During the late 80s early 90s Thatcher and Major had -50 ratings on a regular basis. Then Blair was a rare oasis of lengthy positive scores (with a few gaps he was positive for almost 8 years). Then Brown was...more like Major.
    BoyScout is probably right - a couple of threads back, we saw the salience of leaders dropping sharply and the salience of parties rising. That may be part of the Tory problem - it's pretty well-established that whereas most people don't detest Cameron, there is a really active dislike of the Conservative Party across much of the electorate (even active Conservatives sometimes give the impression that they think some of the party is pretty bonkers). So if people decide their voting intention by party...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited January 2014
    Edinburgh boy's body found...
    in Fife.

    One person detained.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    RodCrosby said:

    Edinburgh boy's body found...
    in Fife.

    One person detained.

    Presumably we will only get further details if the detained person is charged.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited January 2014
    AveryLP said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Edinburgh boy's body found...
    in Fife.

    One person detained.

    Presumably we will only get further details if the detained person is charged.

    Sky: boy's mother detained....
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    RodCrosby said:

    AveryLP said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Edinburgh boy's body found...
    in Fife.

    One person detained.

    Presumably we will only get further details if the detained person is charged.

    Sky: mother detained....
    Unsurprising.

    "Detained" rather than "arrested/charged" may mean another or others may have been involved in the boy's death.

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (OT) I've only just arrived on the internet for today's session, and the little feet at the top and bottom of the scroll bar (on the right-hand edge of the screen) have disappeared. It makes it very awkward and annoying. I'm using Google Chrome. What's going on? Should I blame Ed Miliband?
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    edited January 2014
    Unfortunately you have lost the little feet due to EU directive 7895/2 section 3 which states

    "References to human extremities or facsimiles thereof should be removed from all software implementations on the grounds that they are potentially offensive to the differently abled. Likewise all references to senses or any other bodily function or organ which may be deficient in the potential viewing space shall be similarly stricken"
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    Quincel said:

    RodCrosby said:

    With all of the leaders deeply unpopular, I'm not sure the ratings are salient.

    FYI, Cameron is, by historical standards, rather popular...
    Indeed, other than Blair during his first term (and he had the odd terrible month) Cameron is ahead of other PMs 3.5 years in (or later). Oddly, all the ratings seems have have changed a lot over time. In the pre-79 years even Callaghan wasn't really disliked no matter what. During the late 80s early 90s Thatcher and Major had -50 ratings on a regular basis. Then Blair was a rare oasis of lengthy positive scores (with a few gaps he was positive for almost 8 years). Then Brown was...more like Major.
    BoyScout is probably right - a couple of threads back, we saw the salience of leaders dropping sharply and the salience of parties rising. That may be part of the Tory problem - it's pretty well-established that whereas most people don't detest Cameron, there is a really active dislike of the Conservative Party across much of the electorate (even active Conservatives sometimes give the impression that they think some of the party is pretty bonkers). So if people decide their voting intention by party...
    Then the televised leader debates could become more important? (nothwithstanding that everyone agreeing with nick meant sod-all!)
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    FPT @AlanBrookes "Miliband is simply picking up on Osborne's inactivity in addressing banking reform, more fool Osborne he left the stable door open. While Miliband might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason if it moves things on we should all celebrate."

    I have usually always followed your comments on the economy with interest, and this despite not often agreeing with your constant 'plague on their houses' cynicism where you get to throw stones from the pavement at others who have to get elected where as you do not. But having followed and read your comments for years now PB, you dislike of particular personalities rather than policies is now glaringly obvious.

    And memo to @SeanFear&amp;Co, its your lot in the Conservative party that made us totally unattractive and unelectable for 13 years. And yet, so many of those former Conservative members now in UKIP are desperately hoping for a Labour Government next time around so they can try yet again to impose a like minded soul into the Conservative Leadership while none of them are actual members of the party. They want Scots Independence in the Indy Referendum, yet don't want a clear cut In or Out EU Referendum under Cameron in case they lose.

    Good luck with that one, it really does make renewing the membership so much more attractive an option for the rest of us in party who have been about for a similar period, but just in other parts of the country far more difficult . If the Conservatives come out on top as the biggest party in a Hung Parliament or even gain an majority next time, where does that leave your brand of highly selective right wing Conservationism in the English heartlands?
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    fitalass said:



    And memo to @SeanFear&amp;Co, its your lot in the Conservative party that made us totally unattractive and unelectable for 13 years. And yet, so many of those former Conservative members now in UKIP are desperately hoping for a Labour Government next time around so they can try yet again to impose a like minded soul into the Conservative Leadership while none of them are actual members of the party. They want Scots Independence in the Indy Referendum, yet don't want a clear cut In or Out EU Referendum under Cameron in case they lose.

    First up so you can't say I didnt declare it I am very much a plague on all your houses sort of guy and actually I include UKIP on that because while I am certainly BOO it is for entirely different reasons to UKIP.

    This is not particularly therefore a politcal comment in the conventional sense but I felt that I had to comment in general on your statement. That comment is that the statement itself is what is completely wrong with the political structure of this country.

    Parties should not be saying "lets set a manifesto that will get us elected" what parties should be doing is saying "What brings the greatest good for the greatest number of our country" and then trying to persuade the electorate that their view is right.

    Power for the sake of power shows a group of people that should be subject to retrospective abortion regardless of whether they are red,blue,yellow,purple,green or any other affiliation. That is what unfortunately our political pygmies stand for mostly. They do not give a shit about you and me. They give a shit about their bank balance and their cronies and how they look to trendy metrosexuals
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    apologies if people think I was a little harsh there
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Patrick said:

    I'd be very, very sad to see the queen, Charlie and Wills all die together. But I think having Kate as Regent, our acting head of state, would be deeply cool.

    My fantasy scenario (which would have been even more exciting several years ago*) would have been if the Queen and several others had died in a tragedy, leaving Peter Phillips as the next in line. *If it had happened a few years ago, he would still have been officially the most gorgeous man in the world and would become King Peter the Great.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,036
    edited January 2014
    Patrick said:

    I'd be very, very sad to see the queen, Charlie and Wills all die together. But I think having Kate as Regent, our acting head of state, would be deeply cool.

    Last time I checked Kate is not a Counsellor of State, nor is she eligible by virtue of the Regency Act 1937-1953.

    Wikipedia says:

    "As of 22 July 2013, the first person under the age of 18 in line of succession to the throne is Prince George of Cambridge. The child, who is the grandson of the Prince of Wales, is third in line to the throne after his grandfather and father. If the prince were to succeed to the throne before his 18th birthday on 22 July 2031, his uncle, Prince Harry (the Prince of Wales' younger son), would serve as regent. In the event that Prince Harry would be unable to serve as regent, the next in line would be his uncle (Prince George's great uncle) the Duke of York followed by the Duke of York's elder daughter Princess Beatrice of York."
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Stupid BBC

    (1) Journalist on the 6 O'clock News said that Mikaeel Kular (R.I.P., by the way) was "2 feet tall". Anyone with more than one braincell knows that the average height of a 3-year-old boy is 3'4".

    (2) The birth of Zara Tindall's baby girl was NOT EVEN MENTIONED on the 6 O'clock news!!!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    JohnLoony said:

    Stupid BBC

    (1) Journalist on the 6 O'clock News said that Mikaeel Kular (R.I.P., by the way) was "2 feet tall". Anyone with more than one braincell knows that the average height of a 3-year-old boy is 3'4".

    (2) The birth of Zara Tindall's baby girl was NOT EVEN MENTIONED on the 6 O'clock news!!!

    Zara Tindall is a private citizen married to a Rugby star with no royal connections.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    surbiton said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Stupid BBC

    (1) Journalist on the 6 O'clock News said that Mikaeel Kular (R.I.P., by the way) was "2 feet tall". Anyone with more than one braincell knows that the average height of a 3-year-old boy is 3'4".

    (2) The birth of Zara Tindall's baby girl was NOT EVEN MENTIONED on the 6 O'clock news!!!

    Zara Tindall is a private citizen married to a Rugby star with no royal connections.
    She (and her daughter) are members of the Royal family, and granddaughter (and great-granddaughter) of her Majesty the Queen. The fact that the birth was not even mentioned on the 6OCN is disgraceful.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (OT) The political controversy about Russia's laws in the context of the Sochi Winter Olympics is a measure, not of the absolute measure of the anti-gayness of the laws, but of the relative difference in political culture between Russia and the liberal West. There wasn't any great kerfuffle about the USSR's ban on gay relationships at the Moscow Olympics in 1980.

    Still, if Sochi had been the location of the Summer Olympics of 2016, I have a fantasy vision of Tom Daley (gold, bisexual, Great Britain) and Matthew Mitcham (silver, gay, Australian) standing on the podium doing a gay/rainbow flag version of the 1968 Mexico black-power salute. Bronze can go to Ivan Garcia (bronze, straight-but-cute, Mexican).
This discussion has been closed.