Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Could today be the day Sunak looses 3 by-elections? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,741
edited July 2023 in General
imageCould today be the day Sunak looses 3 by-elections? – politicalbetting.com

Somerton, Selby and Uxbridge are the first Westminster by-election defences that Sunak has had to face since becoming leader and PM nine months. The other by-elections to be held have been in safe LAB seats.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,169
    MattW said:

    First.

    Amongst Equals
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,607
    Surely "loses". And probably not, the results won't be in until tomorrow.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,147
    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,714
    A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,621
    edited July 2023
    DavidL said:

    Surely "loses". And probably not, the results won't be in until tomorrow.

    He's loosed them today, in the sense of releasing them for voting. Maybe. In which case, QTWTAIY.

    On the other point, if the votes are today, but you don't find out you've lost until tomorrow, when do you lose? Are the seats in a superposition of states until observed, like Schrödinger's cat?
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 865
    ydoethur said:

    A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?

    I have a very small wager on them holding S&A.

    Given my betting record, Lab gain is nailed on there.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,345
    It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: you worry about boat arrivals after you worry about keeping your job, paying the gas bill, etc.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,895
    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    In contrast, the photograph almost, but not quite, catches Alister Jack from his most flattering angle.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,621
    edited July 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: you worry about boat arrivals after you worry about keeping your job, paying the gas bill, etc.

    Of course, when 'your boat* comes in' you no longer need to worry about job, has bill etc :smile:

    *or does it have to be a ship?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    edited July 2023
    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    There'll be more photos in the DT than they publish of nubile schoolgirls (but, for some reason, never schoolboys) the morning after exam results. All we, or rather those PBers of that taste, have to do is wait for Mr Sunak to let "loose" his current position as CEO and move over to something nicer.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,209

    Scott_xP said:


    At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
    They will engage with it - it will enable much closer cooperation without political backlash for a start.

    On engaging to the point of rejoining that will take more time, andci suspect we'll be willing to consider it long before the EU is willing to agree it - any significant anti EU parties and it would be too risky.

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,209

    So if Labour do win Uxbridge that would be an endorsement for ULEZ and Sadiq Khan?




    https://twitter.com/tuckwell_steve/status/1681910017115447297

    That is the logic behind a lot of election messaging. If the Tories go culture war as expected at the GE they will be claiming an endorsement for all things woke when they lose.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,714
    maxh said:

    ydoethur said:

    A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?

    I have a very small wager on them holding S&A.

    Given my betting record, Lab gain is nailed on there.
    That's bad news for Sunak.

    Personally, I think the Tories will be pretty happy if they hold Selby.

    If they lose it to Labour that's when they might panic and do something silly (or to be exact, even sillier than their recent record).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,607
    Selebian said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely "loses". And probably not, the results won't be in until tomorrow.

    He's loosed them today, in the sense of releasing them for voting. Maybe. In which case, QTWTAIY.

    On the other point, if the votes are today, but you don't find out you've lost until tomorrow, when do you lose? Are the seats in a superposition of states until observed, like Schrödinger's cat?
    Reminds me of the joke about the physicists in the car stopped by the police for speeding. "And there is a dead cat in the boot". "There is now" wailed Schrodinger.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,209
    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    Selebian said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely "loses". And probably not, the results won't be in until tomorrow.

    He's loosed them today, in the sense of releasing them for voting. Maybe. In which case, QTWTAIY.

    On the other point, if the votes are today, but you don't find out you've lost until tomorrow, when do you lose? Are the seats in a superposition of states until observed, like Schrödinger's cat?
    No, because you have to put in enough Gibbs' free energy one way or another to reduce the entropy, aka sorting and counting the presently random heaps of voting slips.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,273
    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    There are no bad photos of Penny. She has resting goddess face.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,562
    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    We should do exactly what the French do.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,273
    Selebian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: you worry about boat arrivals after you worry about keeping your job, paying the gas bill, etc.

    Of course, when 'your boat* comes in' you no longer need to worry about job, has bill etc :smile:

    *or does it have to be a ship?
    I am still in want of a fishy on a little dishy
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,166
    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Your last paragraph is where a form of Federal model UK would help. At present Gibraltar, CI, IOM etc aren’t going to be overly keen to give up their tax setting advantages but if you set up a federal UK where each constituent part contributed proportionately to the UK pot for defence etc but allowed freedom to set their “state/entity” tax rates and all have representation in a UK parliament then it would make sense for Gib, IOM, CI, Falklands to be more enmeshed and clearly part of the UK whole and harder for others to try and prise away.

    Wonderful news for the Orkneys too of course.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,868
    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    They do.

    Barclays shut the BNP accounts in 2004.

    I think they did the same to Nick Griffin.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512
    rcs1000 said:

    It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: you worry about boat arrivals after you worry about keeping your job, paying the gas bill, etc.

    Right wing media / politicians working very very hard to spin that around. Worry first about the invading hordes, and only then about paying your bills and keeping your job. Besides, if you are struggling on those points its solely because of the people in small boats coming to this country to steal your job and put prices up.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,992
    Go to the polls with hope in your heart.

    A small step but one day they might disappear altogether......

    (The Farage Lament)

    https://twitter.com/brucel/status/1373992739319189504?lang=en-GB
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    edited July 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    There'll be more photos in the DT than they publish of nubile schoolgirls (but, for some reason, never schoolboys) the morning after exam results. All we, or rather those PBers of that taste, have to do is wait for Mr Sunak to let "loose" his current position as CEO and move over to something nicer.
    To me that seems to be a BBC website front page thing these days, especially with female gymnasts, swimmers, synchronised swimming, tennis competitions etc - very noticeable when there is a portfolio of sports on the underlying article. For some reason girls' boobs, bums and legs seem to be popular.

    (Update: Guardian 2 minutes ago on Google. Search for "Commonwealth Games":

    Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    It gets complicated as to *why* they withdraw services. See the SNP / MOD case that @Cyclefree mentioned in the last thread.

    Imagine that the banks collectively put a mark on anyone connected with Extinction Rebellion - would you be ok with that? Or all trade unions?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,166
    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    I would imagine that absolutely nobody outside of Farage’s groupies knew he had a Coutts account before this happened and generally anyone high profile doesn’t go around advertising where they bank so it shouldn’t be an issue as the bank’s reputation doesn’t get sullied unless one of their staff goes to the papers about person x they hate having an account.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,898
    The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.

    The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.

    Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.


    https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1681615172673126400
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,594
    edited July 2023
    FPT

    ...

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.

    If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
    Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
    Now here's a thing.

    If an incoming government banned cash transactions it would make tax free, VAT free, tradesman hobbles far more difficult to execute. The grey economy would collapse and tax take would be substantially improve overnight.

    It would also be a bit of a head scratcher for low level drug dealers, top drawer gangsters and illegal car wash businesses, oh and Turkish barbers.
    I missed out Kings Cross Hookers. "American Express?" "That'll do nicely".
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,177
    glw said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    We should do exactly what the French do.
    That last line must be a first on here!

    And Good Morning everybody.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    edited July 2023
    boulay said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    I would imagine that absolutely nobody outside of Farage’s groupies knew he had a Coutts account before this happened and generally anyone high profile doesn’t go around advertising where they bank so it shouldn’t be an issue as the bank’s reputation doesn’t get sullied unless one of their staff goes to the papers about person x they hate having an account.
    Did it not come out when Mr Farage complained himself to the media?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    A
    rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    They do.

    Barclays shut the BNP accounts in 2004.

    I think they did the same to Nick Griffin.
    The BNP should bank with BNP.
    What about the reputational risk for BNP having a business relationship with BNP?
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872
    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,999
    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    Just another Tory press office publicity pic, surely?

    Not quite to this standard though.

    image
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,621
    viewcode said:

    Selebian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: you worry about boat arrivals after you worry about keeping your job, paying the gas bill, etc.

    Of course, when 'your boat* comes in' you no longer need to worry about job, has bill etc :smile:

    *or does it have to be a ship?
    I am still in want of a fishy on a little dishy
    I remember when everyone wanted Rishi 'cos he's a little dishy :disappointed:
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512
    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    There'll be more photos in the DT than they publish of nubile schoolgirls (but, for some reason, never schoolboys) the morning after exam results. All we, or rather those PBers of that taste, have to do is wait for Mr Sunak to let "loose" his current position as CEO and move over to something nicer.
    To me that seems to be a BBC website front page thing these days, especially with female gymnasts, swimmers, synchronised swimming, tennis competitions etc - very noticeable when there is a portfolio of sports on the underlying article. For some reason girls' boobs, bums and legs seem to be popular.

    (Update: Guardian 2 minutes ago on Google. Search for "Commonwealth Games":

    Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)

    But surely the emphasis on schoolgirls isn't there (albeit with an overlap). Otherwise, I bow to your expertise and assiduous research. :smiley:
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 865
    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,166
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    I would imagine that absolutely nobody outside of Farage’s groupies knew he had a Coutts account before this happened and generally anyone high profile doesn’t go around advertising where they bank so it shouldn’t be an issue as the bank’s reputation doesn’t get sullied unless one of their staff goes to the papers about person x they hate having an account.
    Did it not come out when Mr Farage complained himself to the media?
    I believe so, my point was more about banks’ high profile customers in general in that most high profile people don’t advertise who they bank with so there shouldn’t be a reputational risk for the bank unless they let people know - in Farage’s case if he had been shouting from the rooftops he was a Coutts customer before this then I can understand why they wouldn’t be entirely happy.

    I remember when it was made public about David Beckham opening an account with Coutts which made a lot of stuffier clients somewhat upset that the bank was letting the riff-raff in. My partner at the time who was senior at Coutts was amused by the feedback from a lot of her clients.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,999
    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,562

    glw said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    We should do exactly what the French do.
    That last line must be a first on here!

    And Good Morning everybody.
    Well the French are right on this. There's no ambiguity for French overseas territories, they are France.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,066
    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    I don't know if you are right or not but that was exactly the attitude and perception at the FO which led to the events of 1982. What people 'care' about is often very much a transitional thing.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,594

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
    If Corbyn stands and splits the left vote we might get the rabid right wing Mayor Corbyn desires
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    It gets complicated as to *why* they withdraw services. See the SNP / MOD case that @Cyclefree mentioned in the last thread.

    Imagine that the banks collectively put a mark on anyone connected with Extinction Rebellion - would you be ok with that? Or all trade unions?
    I guess, I just know that you don't automatically have a right to be a customer and that equality law only covers certain things. Unionising I think would be one of those things covered - I'm pretty sure the HRA protects the right to workers organising. XR is probably in a grey area - the right to protest is protected but that doesn't mean you won't have other social consequences. But I don't think people have the right to be a member of any political organisation - indeed many countries proscribe certain political organisations that are considered too extreme depending on the polity in question.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,166

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    The fuss is more about why he is losing his account. We don’t know the facts yet clearly - if he lost his account because he no longer meets the terms and conditions he signed up to then it’s his problem. If he lost his account because people in the bank disagree with his crappy views then it’s a problem for the bank.

    Would of course be different if he approached Coutts, not being a prior customer, asked to open an account and then was refused as the bank can make a commercial decision on who they take on as new customers if they refuse everyone someone has a beef with then they will likely go out of business eventually as everyone has a beef with everything.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,273
    glw said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    We should do exactly what the French do.
    The French integrated their overseas areas into Metropolitan France, regarding (say) French Guyana in the same category as Paris. This tendency has always been resisted by Britain - Imperial Federation failed, the Malta referendum was ignored, and others[1]. Regardless of whether it's a good idea, it won't happen.

    [1] I think there was a discussion about uniting UK and Canada in the 1950s?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,066
    boulay said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    I would imagine that absolutely nobody outside of Farage’s groupies knew he had a Coutts account before this happened and generally anyone high profile doesn’t go around advertising where they bank so it shouldn’t be an issue as the bank’s reputation doesn’t get sullied unless one of their staff goes to the papers about person x they hate having an account.
    I thought it was a PB poster who spilled the beans having seen him coming out of the bank one day. :)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    FPT

    The only "protected characteristic" one that might come into play is the "belief" one.

    But reputational risk is something banks are obliged - and would be wise - to take into account when assessing whether or not to take or or keep a customer. I can think of numerous occasions when I have had to point out information about potential or actual customers ( involvement in investigations / court cases) to those making such assessments. Reputational harm - if it was the reason - is not a breach, IMO but an equality lawyer would know better, of the Equality Act.

    From what I have seen in the dossier the bank made a decision to exit the relationship for commercial reasons and also considered various reputational issues, both as to whether an earlier exist might be advisable or possibly as a reason to keep him on nothwithstanding the commercial decision. I'm not convinced he'd have a claim under the Equality Act based on that - but there may be more, of course, that is not in the public domain.

  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
    If Corbyn stands and splits the left vote we might get the rabid right wing Mayor Corbyn desires
    Yes. If Mrs Trump wins for the Tories because Corbyn splits the vote, I expect the crankies will insist its all Labour's fault for not just selecting Jezbollah in the first place.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,898
    boulay said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    I would imagine that absolutely nobody outside of Farage’s groupies knew he had a Coutts account before this happened and generally anyone high profile doesn’t go around advertising where they bank so it shouldn’t be an issue as the bank’s reputation doesn’t get sullied unless one of their staff goes to the papers about person x they hate having an account.
    As it turned out, Farage was a massive reputational risk for the bank, way bigger than the bank's risk committee assessed.

    I suspect lessons learnt will be to tighten up on internal reporting to make any refused account decision bulletproof, should it be put into the public domain.

    And make sure you never take on anyone like Farage in the first place.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,562

    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.

    Anyone who thinks "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer" is a dope. Anyone can look at a map for about 5 seconds and they ought the be able to figure out why proximity has little bearing in the matter.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    FF43 said:

    The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.

    The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.

    Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.


    https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1681615172673126400

    Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.

    I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?

    My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221

    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    I don't know if you are right or not but that was exactly the attitude and perception at the FO which led to the events of 1982. What people 'care' about is often very much a transitional thing.
    MoD, too, in the runup to the war - notably the planned withdrawal and decommissioning of HMS Endurance.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,984

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    It isn't protected to have a bank account, at least in practice, and thats a massive issue when we move towards cashless. On the specifics of Farage both sides are putting out deliberately misleading stuff imo, even if their "side" of the truth. It is not particularly interesting, but it does shine light on the increased regulatory pressure on banks, that is leading them to increasingly close accounts without providing (often not allowed to provide) customers a reason why.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,621
    edited July 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely "loses". And probably not, the results won't be in until tomorrow.

    He's loosed them today, in the sense of releasing them for voting. Maybe. In which case, QTWTAIY.

    On the other point, if the votes are today, but you don't find out you've lost until tomorrow, when do you lose? Are the seats in a superposition of states until observed, like Schrödinger's cat?
    No, because you have to put in enough Gibbs' free energy one way or another to reduce the entropy, aka sorting and counting the presently random heaps of voting slips.
    Gibbs - one of the Brothers Gibb? I fear Sunak will be having a Night Fever, his Spirits (Having Flown) now crashing to Earth. He asked "How Deep is Your Love?" of the electorate and implored "Run to Me", but the voters saw those as just Words and said I've Gotta Get a Message to You, to end the Charade and make it clear For Whom the Bell Tolls by taking a Holiday from voting Conservative as Every Christian Lionhearted Man Will Show You. So, after all the Jive Talkin', Sunak's hope of victory will not be Stayin' Alive and he'll have to say to Starmer, "You Win Again".
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    glw said:

    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.

    Anyone who thinks "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer" is a dope. Anyone can look at a map for about 5 seconds and they ought the be able to figure out why proximity has little bearing in the matter.
    The Royal Navy still operates on coal?
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    So if Labour do win Uxbridge that would be an endorsement for ULEZ and Sadiq Khan?




    https://twitter.com/tuckwell_steve/status/1681910017115447297

    That is the logic behind a lot of election messaging. If the Tories go culture war as expected at the GE they will be claiming an endorsement for all things woke when they lose.

    My favourite example was passionate Brexiteer Zac Goldsmith forcing a by-election a few months after the Brexit vote that he conceived and promoted as a "referendum on Heathrow expansion". Funnily enough, voters in his very heavily Remain constituency saw it differently.

    Everyone does this "it's a referendum on..." thing, as you say. But it says quite a lot about Goldsmith that he had the arrogance (and a fair amount of stupidity) to believe he could call a by-election against the backdrop he did, and assume everyone would just blithely go along with his characterisation of what it was about.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,520

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    I don't like Farage anymore than you do but it is sensible to wait for the details to be revealed officially as it would be wrong for someone to be denied a bank account over their political views as long as they are legal and within the law
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,813

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    The points set out above by @boulay are good. Assuming the allegations are true, in the interests of consistency the bank should now close down all the accounts with a hint of non ESG compliant friendly wealth and see what business model they are left with.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    edited July 2023
    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    I'm not sure what the attitude would be - for the UK afaics the strategic interest is probably to do with 1) Resources - fishing, potentially seabed exploitation ie minerals, oil, 2) The Antarctic 3) Marine Conservation where we have been a leader.

    I think I'm correct to say that Portsmouth MPs take an interest in the Falklands (not sure which or why).

    Falklands population has doubled since 1982, and they now have one of the top 10 GDP per capita numbers in the world if they are included in the list - so there is some logic in them staying semi-separate. I wonder what the future holds?

    Anyhoo - I'm off to supervise a carpet fitter. Have a great day, all.

    (On CASH, carpet supplier required 2/3 up front by card, then 1/3 on site by cash. The invoice terms the latter as "fitting", despite the advertised deal being "measurement, fitting is free".)
  • Options
    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,236
    @Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:

    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347

    Sonia Sodha
    @soniasodha
    Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,169

    FF43 said:

    The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.

    The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.

    Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.


    https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1681615172673126400

    Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.

    I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?

    My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
    Banking/payment services for the unbanked are a significant problem for marginalised people, and often a barrier to recovery. It is one place the state can provide a useful backstop at comparatively low cost.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Not a very flattering photo of eBay Deneuve. The #peggedbypenny crew on here aren't going to be chuffed.

    There'll be more photos in the DT than they publish of nubile schoolgirls (but, for some reason, never schoolboys) the morning after exam results. All we, or rather those PBers of that taste, have to do is wait for Mr Sunak to let "loose" his current position as CEO and move over to something nicer.
    To me that seems to be a BBC website front page thing these days, especially with female gymnasts, swimmers, synchronised swimming, tennis competitions etc - very noticeable when there is a portfolio of sports on the underlying article. For some reason girls' boobs, bums and legs seem to be popular.

    (Update: Guardian 2 minutes ago on Google. Search for "Commonwealth Games":

    Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)

    But surely the emphasis on schoolgirls isn't there (albeit with an overlap). Otherwise, I bow to your expertise and assiduous research. :smiley:
    I couldn't possibly comment.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,221
    edited July 2023

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    That very general area, Lincs and EA? Cheap? Close to the sea? Do check out coastal erosion and flooding. Just in case.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,267

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    I don't like Farage anymore than you do but it is sensible to wait for the details to be revealed officially as it would be wrong for someone to be denied a bank account over their political views as long as they are legal and within the law
    I don't think Farage should be denied a bank account because of his political views. In today's world access to the electronic payments system is a necessity so access to a bank account should be a right, no matter what. But I am with RP on this - a fancy private bank account isn't a right or a necessity, it is a premium service that banks as commercial operations can offer to whosoever they please, based on whatever criteria they select as long as they don't contravene equalities legislation. If the Nat West account option was originally denied and only put on the table after Farage went public then that would be wrong. But I'm guessing the delay in offering it was more likely down to incompetence, having interacted with the UK banking industry myself.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872
    maxh said:

    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
    I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    Carnyx said:

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    That very general area? Cheap? Close to the sea? Do check out coastal erosion and flooding. Just in case.
    Well, as you decline and your spitting capability decreases, you will still be able to reach the sea :smile: .
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    edited July 2023
    This is quite a fun little video of an Irish Guard stepping closer when carer tells his charge "don't stand too close".

    Cycling Mikey doing the day job.

    https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1681727821041811472
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    Do the couple of percent reductions correlate with the coastline getting a couple of percent closer?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,594

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    I don't like Farage anymore than you do but it is sensible to wait for the details to be revealed officially as it would be wrong for someone to be denied a bank account over their political views as long as they are legal and within the law
    Well that's rich when Suella and Rishi have already gone in with their anti-woke boots on.

    Call me skeptical, but doesn't Farage always have an angle? What a pr*** that he feels so entitled he needs a Coutts bank account despite being an "average Joe" anyway. That is not to say Coutts/NatWest haven't played this badly.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,346

    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
    Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,346

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
    Except Brown blocked the Euro while ULEZ is a live issue, Tories best chance here is to make Uxbridge a referendum on Khan's ULEZ
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,772

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    Cash only? Of course. You are in Lincolnshire, God's own country, and 36 miles from Algarkirk. (Sadly I am nearly 300 miles away)

    Have some beads and cowrie shells handy just in case they haven't heard of cash.

    And finally, very occasionally Nottingham gang members do revenge shootings on the Lincs coast.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    On topic, I don't really know, and think the odds on a clean sweep are a bit optimistic.The Tories have clearly recovered a few points during the recent lull in scandals, so the national lead is now 15ish instead of 20ish. But the unofficial division of LibLab effort in the three seats vseems to be working well, so it's a good test of tactical voting. I suspect the Green vote will prove sticky - Green voters tend to be more purist about only voting for the One True Faith.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,267
    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
    Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
    I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
    I just don't understand why the Chagos Islanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely nothing to do with it.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512

    FF43 said:

    The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.

    The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.

    Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.


    https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1681615172673126400

    Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.

    I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?

    My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
    There are two things: refusal of a bank account, and refusal of premium services. I have a right to a bank account, I do not have a right to other services where the bank can impose eligibility criteria such as income.

    To read the right wing press you would believe that the Nigel is being refused a bank account and thanks to the Coutts action will be unable to bank. This is incorrect.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,066
    glw said:

    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.

    Anyone who thinks "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer" is a dope. Anyone can look at a map for about 5 seconds and they ought the be able to figure out why proximity has little bearing in the matter.
    Your quotation system is all shot. You have ascribed the quote to the wrong person.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    A
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    boulay said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.

    I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.

    This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.

    If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.

    Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
    TanksALot have entered the chat.

    I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.

    One with a Russian passport.
    If a bank feels that having a high profile customer sullies their reputation, do they not have a right to withdraw their services from that customer? (This is me asking a legal question, not me stating I believe that is why they have done what they've done).
    It gets complicated as to *why* they withdraw services. See the SNP / MOD case that @Cyclefree mentioned in the last thread.

    Imagine that the banks collectively put a mark on anyone connected with Extinction Rebellion - would you be ok with that? Or all trade unions?
    I guess, I just know that you don't automatically have a right to be a customer and that equality law only covers certain things. Unionising I think would be one of those things covered - I'm pretty sure the HRA protects the right to workers organising. XR is probably in a grey area - the right to protest is protected but that doesn't mean you won't have other social consequences. But I don't think people have the right to be a member of any political organisation - indeed many countries proscribe certain political organisations that are considered too extreme depending on the polity in question.
    In the SNP / MOD case, the MOD argued, unsuccessfully, that advocating succession from the U.K. was not compatible with working at the MOD.

    So there’s actual case law of bits of this.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,088
    Re Nige and his financial ‘woes’ (hahahahaha)

    Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,498

    On topic, I don't really know, and think the odds on a clean sweep are a bit optimistic.The Tories have clearly recovered a few points during the recent lull in scandals, so the national lead is now 15ish instead of 20ish. But the unofficial division of LibLab effort in the three seats vseems to be working well, so it's a good test of tactical voting. I suspect the Green vote will prove sticky - Green voters tend to be more purist about only voting for the One True Faith.

    Which is why it’s a perfect home for BJO
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,813
    edited July 2023

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    @TwistedFireStopper
    Without going in to too many details I have been in this situation before. Bought a very cheap property in the last recession in a deprived village close to the sea over a slightly more expensive one in an up and coming town. The property ended up being cheap for a reason. The price moved upwards over time but not by very much. By contrast the properties in the next town increased 200% over 8 years. I don't regret it and probably would do the same thing over again but this is because I wanted to be in the village and the decision wasn't entirely motivated by money. I could have made a fortune by buying the house in the next town and people were telling me this at the time. The reality is that ultimately people want to live in close proximity to services, transport links, fashionable communities, jobs.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,639
    MattW said:

    This is quite a fun little video of an Irish Guard stepping closer when carer tells his charge "don't stand too close".

    Cycling Mikey doing the day job.

    https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1681727821041811472

    Irish Guard? Dear god.

    He's a Blues and Royals trooper.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    I don't like Farage anymore than you do but it is sensible to wait for the details to be revealed officially as it would be wrong for someone to be denied a bank account over their political views as long as they are legal and within the law
    Farage isn't being denied a bank account. He will still be able to bank, just not with the highly-selective private bank he was previously with.

    You or I have no right to demand an account with Coutts, we are not eligible. Why should the Nigel be any different? But not being able to get a private account with Coutts does not deny us a bank account, does it? Suspect we both have several.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,562

    glw said:

    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.

    Anyone who thinks "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer" is a dope. Anyone can look at a map for about 5 seconds and they ought the be able to figure out why proximity has little bearing in the matter.
    Your quotation system is all shot. You have ascribed the quote to the wrong person.
    Sorry about that. Unfortunately it's now too late to edit. It was 148grss I was responding to.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017
    MattW said:

    This is quite a fun little video of an Irish Guard stepping closer when carer tells his charge "don't stand too close".

    Cycling Mikey doing the day job.

    https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1681727821041811472

    Small things that matter.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,512
    HYUFD said:

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
    Except Brown blocked the Euro while ULEZ is a live issue, Tories best chance here is to make Uxbridge a referendum on Khan's ULEZ
    And when you lose? That's your entire anti-Khan campaign for city hall shot.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    This is quite a fun little video of an Irish Guard stepping closer when carer tells his charge "don't stand too close".

    Cycling Mikey doing the day job.

    https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1681727821041811472

    Irish Guard? Dear god.

    He's a Blues and Royals trooper.
    The first version I saw said "Irish Guard".

    Delighted to be corrected !
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,346

    On topic - could be

    ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.

    Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ"
    1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree
    2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan

    This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
    If Corbyn stands and splits the left vote we might get the rabid right wing Mayor Corbyn desires
    Corbyn could even win as an independent as Livingstone did in 2000. Remember London even voted for Corbyn in 2019 despite his heavy national defeat
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713

    On the Farage fandango, as I understand it nobody is denying him the ability to have a bank account. That is protected and regulated. But the right to have a rich person private account isn't a right, surely?

    Can I rock up at Coutts and demand a bank account? If they refuse should I scream homophobia because they don't like LGBT people?

    There is a world of difference between day to day banking, and ponce banking. The whole point about private banking is that it is private. Selective. Exclusive. Offered to the chosen few. There is no absolute right to be able to bank with them.

    So what is the fuss about?

    I don't like Farage anymore than you do but it is sensible to wait for the details to be revealed officially as it would be wrong for someone to be denied a bank account over their political views as long as they are legal and within the law
    Farage isn't being denied a bank account. He will still be able to bank, just not with the highly-selective private bank he was previously with.

    You or I have no right to demand an account with Coutts, we are not eligible. Why should the Nigel be any different? But not being able to get a private account with Coutts does not deny us a bank account, does it? Suspect we both have several.
    I would say the point should be about accountability. It should be based on facts and quantifiable criteria, not on opinion.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,031

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    First.

    Morning all.

    On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.

    So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.

    My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.


    Not sure any if them actually want that.

    But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
    Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
    No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
    Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
    I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
    I just don't understand why the Chagos Islanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely nothing to do with it.
    I think the US Military and their lack of a Plan B alternative to the Chagos Islands (unless anyone can correct me?) may have something to do with that.
  • Options
    twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,108
    edited July 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Sorry to bring it up again, but....cash.
    We're on the East Coast, looking at buying a place close to the sea. We're staying in an Airbnb log cabin on a farm in a lovely village called Hogsthorpe, woke up to alpacas and goats eating outside the patio door....anyway, back to cash. Went into Chapel St Leonards last night for something to eat. I had to go to a cashpoint to get cash out as the number of shops, cafes and pubs that have hand written signs saying "CASH ONLY" would have made certain PBers shat their pants.
    As an aside, property here is dirt cheap. It's a seasonal, minimum wage employment kinda place on this coast. There are 100s of places for sale that we've been tracking on RightMove for months that keep getting reduced by a couple of percent each month. As cash buyers, we could bag a bargain if we moved here. We probably won't, as we've become a bit pretentious and like a wander to a hippy coffee shop for vegan cake. Only seem to find full English, fish and chips and burgers around here, and the mountain biking ain't great but still, it's tempting with the chance of us actually upsizing with a big chunk of change in the bank. Our budget gets us a detached 3 bed bungalow and a big garden within spitting distance to the sea up here, but an ex council semi a few miles from the coast down the south west, admittedly with the amenities and lifestyle we're getting into. Decisions, decisions.

    That very general area, Lincs and EA? Cheap? Close to the sea? Do check out coastal erosion and flooding. Just in case.
    I know, my late in laws had a place right on the Happisburgh coast 20 years ago that was 4 caravan rows away from the cliff. We went there a week ago. It's now in the sea. The places we're looking at don't appear on searches to be at risk, but you can't tell how erosion and climate change are going to play a part in future years.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,117
    So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .

    Not a good look !

    As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,017

    FF43 said:

    The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.

    The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.

    Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.


    https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1681615172673126400

    Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.

    I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?

    My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
    The Bank of England no longer does bank accounts for staff - the internal space got handed over for a Nat West branch…

    The problem is that it isn’t just one bank able to black mark people. They share services doing this. So you can, easily, end up in a situation where only some bank in Lichtenstein will take you on.

    This has happened to a number of ordinary people - sometimes as a result of fraud *against them*.

    Imagine the fun of trying to get a lawyer to work for you (to get your. A king services back) without a bank account. Since the lawyer won’t work for cash, being worried themselves about reporting rules!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,346
    ydoethur said:

    maxh said:

    ydoethur said:

    A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?

    I have a very small wager on them holding S&A.

    Given my betting record, Lab gain is nailed on there.
    That's bad news for Sunak.

    Personally, I think the Tories will be pretty happy if they hold Selby.

    If they lose it to Labour that's when they might panic and do something silly (or to be exact, even sillier than their recent record).
    Selby will reflect national swing, Uxbridge won't so much due to ULEZ and Labour having a candidate who is a Camden councillor
This discussion has been closed.