Still undecided what a Greek exit/default/collapse will mean for the election. Plunging markets, economic unstability, fear of contagion, promise of unemployment rising.
Do you: a) Get mud to stick to the Tories for economic mismanagement, not seeing the signs, happening on their watch. Labour stock rises. b) Get mud to stick to Labour with guilt by association for being left wing and anti-austerity*, seen as economically incompetent, and no time for a newbie.
* whatever their current policy is, "too far, too fast" would haunt them.
I am having a hard time discerning the logic behind Greece's tactics at the moment. *snip* So does he already have a Russian promissory note in his back pocket? Along with the Cypriots? Just how much mischief is Putin up to?
Not sure the Russian economy could stand that, given the state of oil prices and the Ruble. Then again, Putin doesn't actually have to follow through with any such promise...
[anyway, I think logic and crypto-communist popularism are never going to go hand-in-hand]
My biggest concern as a staker is the fixed-term parliament act & I wonder how much of this we've factored? The days of idle speculation about the next election, which would begin about 3 years into a parliament and last 2 years in a full-termer, have evaporated. Thus, is the country awake yet to an election? If as I guess people STILL aren't election aware what's it going to do to polling when they finally wake up?
To me that's one of several factors that make this election a real jittery punt. There are some potentially big winners but also big losers.
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
Now there I strongly disagree. No director of a bank the size of HSBC can ever be sure that there isn't some rogue unit somewhere doing bad things, any more than Andy Burnham can be held personally and criminally responsible for Stafford Hospital.
If you bung directors in jail for things they haven't done and didn't know about, all that will happen is that honest, risk-averse people will refuse to become directors of banks, leaving just spivs, fools and outright crooks prepared to take the risk of being unfairly blamed. Is that really what we want to achieve?
In my view the mistake made by regulators around the world is actually much simpler: we need more prosecutions of those bank employees directly responsible for wrong-doing.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
If there were a greater willingness to prosecute, there would be at least two very high profile CEOs doing chokey right now. Directors are employees too, as you know.
I am not sure that being incompetent is a criminal offence. If it were Gordon Brown would be in jail, as would all the people who voted for him. In the Barings fiasco it was Nick Leeson who was the actual criminal not the incompetents who appointed him.
Paul Waugh retweeted James Ball @jamesrbuk 53s53 seconds ago Gauke has said repeatedly #HSBCFiles "has been known about" since 2007. Leak first became public in 2009, UK got the data in 2010.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN that the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" projection has been delayed until 11am tomorrow because of leaves on the line and the wrong type of snow.
ARSE apologies for any inconvenience caused by inclement weather in the electoral system.
However, if you peek through the windows of Chateau Jack at approximately 11.15pm tonight, you may be able to see some of the prepared slides in advance.
@MichaelLCrick: On #C4News at 7, 1st ever TV intv w SNP's Mhairi Black, fighting Doug Alexander in Paisley, at 20, could become youngest MP for c200 years
The flip-side is that Cameron should get out there on his soapbox.
Whilst Miliband is worse than Kinnock, Cameron doesn't connect with the ordinary man in the street like Major did I think.
John Major's net rating with Ipsos Mori in January 1992 was plus 13.
Neil Kinnock's net rating was minus 19.
Given Major a lead of 32.
David Cameron's net rating in January 2015 is minus 11, Ed's is minus 35.
So Dave's lead is 24 over Ed.
This relates to one of the most important questions for me. The Tories' big hope is that as in 1992 when asked to choose Prime Ministers voters jump towards the guy with the stronger ratings.
That would seem to be fairly predictable in a race where there's a leader with positive ratings taking on someone with negative ones. However would the same thing be true when both are rated negatively, just one more so than the other? There's reason to think not - if you think both Dave and Miliband are rubbish, you may vote UKIP on the right, or vote Labour because in general you think they'll be fairer. It's not the same binary choice as good versus crap.
A popular PM beats an unpopular LOTO, but does an unpopular PM beat an even more unpopular LOTO, especially when there may be other things in the latter's party's favour?
I think we need to look at +ve / -ve amongst supporters of the various parties (as per Jan's MORI):
amongst Con: +21 -69 [this is always an issue for me; as a Tory I'm very satisfied with EM...] amongst Lab: +48 -45 amongst LD: +25 -58 amongst UKIP: +6 -90
The takeaways would have to be that Labour's vote may be soft, but that Con hopes for substantial votes back from UKIP may be unrealistic as they are highly dissatisfied with everyone (as you'd expect!). However they really don't like Ed (or Clegg, for that matter) so maybe they might be persuadable on a lesser-of-two-evils approach.
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
Now there I strongly disagree. No director of a bank the size of HSBC can ever be sure that there isn't some rogue unit somewhere doing bad things, any more than Andy Burnham can be held personally and criminally responsible for Stafford Hospital.
If you bung directors in jail for things they haven't done and didn't know about, all that will happen is that honest, risk-averse people will refuse to become directors of banks, leaving just spivs, fools and outright crooks prepared to take the risk of being unfairly blamed. Is that really what we want to achieve?
In my view the mistake made by regulators around the world is actually much simpler: we need more prosecutions of those bank employees directly responsible for wrong-doing.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
If there were a greater willingness to prosecute, there would be at least two very high profile CEOs doing chokey right now. Directors are employees too, as you know.
I am not sure that being incompetent is a criminal offence. If it were Gordon Brown would be in jail, as would all the people who voted for him. In the Barings fiasco it was Nick Leeson who was the actual criminal not the incompetents who appointed him.
You think the fixing of Libor rates was mere incompetence?
The flip-side is that Cameron should get out there on his soapbox.
Whilst Miliband is worse than Kinnock, Cameron doesn't connect with the ordinary man in the street like Major did I think.
John Major's net rating with Ipsos Mori in January 1992 was plus 13.
Neil Kinnock's net rating was minus 19.
Given Major a lead of 32.
David Cameron's net rating in January 2015 is minus 11, Ed's is minus 35.
So Dave's lead is 24 over Ed.
This relates to one of the most important questions for me. The Tories' big hope is that as in 1992 when asked to choose Prime Ministers voters jump towards the guy with the stronger ratings.
That would seem to be fairly predictable in a race where there's a leader with positive ratings taking on someone with negative ones. However would the same thing be true when both are rated negatively, just one more so than the other? There's reason to think not - if you think both Dave and Miliband are rubbish, you may vote UKIP on the right, or vote Labour because in general you think they'll be fairer. It's not the same binary choice as good versus crap.
A popular PM beats an unpopular LOTO, but does an unpopular PM beat an even more unpopular LOTO, especially when there may be other things in the latter's party's favour?
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN that the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" projection has been delayed until 11am tomorrow because of leaves on the line and the wrong type of snow.
ARSE apologies for any inconvenience caused by inclement weather in the electoral system.
However, if you peek through the windows of Chateau Jack at approximately 11.15pm tonight, you may be able to see some of the prepared slides in advance.
Are you hoping for a leaky ARSE?
Think of the santorum stains.
Yellow card!
Only if Jack's sitting on a shoe box. I said s i t t i n g.
@MichaelLCrick: On #C4News at 7, 1st ever TV intv w SNP's Mhairi Black, fighting Doug Alexander in Paisley, at 20, could become youngest MP for c200 years
Once again the MSM is behind PB. We were talking about this a few days ago.
@tnewtondunn: Latest @LordAshcroft poll: Tories lead by 3 - Con 34%, Lab 31%. Cam lead over Mili also widening, 31 point gap now on “doing the job of PM”.
Was that polling before Ed launched his diplomatic incident?
Lord Ashcroft Randomly Generated Election Result LOL
As with compouter - we feel your pain.
Though I don't think you get the same entertainment as we have with PB Hodges. One more poll with a Tory lead and we can have another Polling Torygasm.
Ashcroft's results are in the same ballpark as most of the others. The difference between a modest Labour lead, or a modest Conservative lead, isn't great in statistical terms.
Prof Crawford Spence of Warwick Business School, who researches tax avoidance. "HSBC has been complicit in clear tax evasion and law breaking rather than legitimate tax avoidance. "
Crikey.
Nonsense. The BBC and the Guardian made it all up.
Wonder why they bother since anyone can spot this happened in 2007 - on Ed Ball's Watch. In the meantime the Treasury can now give Switzerland 500 names a year and ask them to get the banks there to reveal whether there are any hidden accounts. (Something the BBC are very conveniently forgetting - but, you see, it does fit round the Labour party campaign strategy.)
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
Now there I strongly disagree. No director of a bank the size of HSBC can ever be sure that there isn't some rogue unit somewhere doing bad things, any more than Andy Burnham can be held personally and criminally responsible for Stafford Hospital.
If you bung directors in jail for things they haven't done and didn't know about, all that will happen is that honest, risk-averse people will refuse to become directors of banks, leaving just spivs, fools and outright crooks prepared to take the risk of being unfairly blamed. Is that really what we want to achieve?
In my view the mistake made by regulators around the world is actually much simpler: we need more prosecutions of those bank employees directly responsible for wrong-doing.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
If there were a greater willingness to prosecute, there would be at least two very high profile CEOs doing chokey right now. Directors are employees too, as you know.
Ah if you mean directors who have directly done somethign wrong, then yes I agree with you. I thought you meant they should be punished for the sins of their underlings, no matter how remote those underlings were and irrespective of whether they knew about the wrongdoing
The basic principle in my view should be that we should focus on punishing the specific individuals who do wrong. What we seem to have is a system which fines the bank's innocent shareholders.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN that the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" projection has been delayed until 11am tomorrow because of leaves on the line and the wrong type of snow.
ARSE apologies for any inconvenience caused by inclement weather in the electoral system.
However, if you peek through the windows of Chateau Jack at approximately 11.15pm tonight, you may be able to see some of the prepared slides in advance.
Lord Ashcroft Randomly Generated Election Result LOL
As with compouter - we feel your pain.
Though I don't think you get the same entertainment as we have with PB Hodges. One more poll with a Tory lead and we can have another Polling Torygasm.
Neither you nor BJO rank very high in the entertainment league I'm afraid.
The detail in the Ashcroft Poll isn't great for Labour.
Net 2010 Lib Dems -> Labour = +18 respondents. Net 2010 Lib Dems - > Conservatives = +16 respondents.
So almost zero Con-Lab swing as a result of 2010 Lib Dem voters. There is then a small net swing from Lab to Con in direct swing voters. Only the rise of UKIP creates a net Con to Lab swing.
Lord Ashcroft Randomly Generated Election Result LOL
As with compouter - we feel your pain.
Though I don't think you get the same entertainment as we have with PB Hodges. One more poll with a Tory lead and we can have another Polling Torygasm.
Neither you nor BJO rank very high in the entertainment league I'm afraid.
Is it true 4 x polls today? Populus, Ashcroft, ICM and YouGov?
No.
We're not getting the ICM this week.
Okelies. Just over on twitter some pple saying we are.
Who are these people?
I have an email from Martin Boon confirming it.
Hey cool. But you know what twitter's like.
May2015 @May2015NS · 4h 4 hours ago We should have 4 polls tday. 1 so far from Populus. Ashcroft's latest to come, plus YGov late on & a monthly one from ICM (@guardian_clark?) www.May2015.com
Ashcroft's results are in the same ballpark as most of the others. The difference between a modest Labour lead, or a modest Conservative lead, isn't great in statistical terms.
Indeed.
The only surprise is that we've not had more Con lead's from a variety of pollsters really, because Lab and Con "neck and neck" (which is where we appear to be in reality) can easily break to a small lead for either party.
Is it true 4 x polls today? Populus, Ashcroft, ICM and YouGov?
No.
We're not getting the ICM this week.
Okelies. Just over on twitter some pple saying we are.
Who are these people?
I have an email from Martin Boon confirming it.
Hey cool. But you know what twitter's like.
May2015 @May2015NS · 4h 4 hours ago We should have 4 polls tday. 1 so far from Populus. Ashcroft's latest to come, plus YGov late on & a monthly one from ICM (@guardian_clark?) www.May2015.com
@tnewtondunn: And @LordAshcroft's latest focus group: what drink would Ed Mili be? A Crème de Menthe, “the sort of drink nobody would order”. Double ouch.
Only 70% are dissatisfied with Dave and want to replace him with Ed.
So when it says labour at 34% in a poll, perhaps up to 30% of voters are contemplating not actually voting for ed in an election, because they support labour but won't vote for ed.
This explains the discrepancy between labour poll scores and the poor actual voter turnout
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1m1 minute ago And @LordAshcroft's latest focus group: what drink would Ed Mili be? A Crème de Menthe, “the sort of drink nobody would order”. Double ouch.
Is it true 4 x polls today? Populus, Ashcroft, ICM and YouGov?
No.
We're not getting the ICM this week.
Okelies. Just over on twitter some pple saying we are.
Who are these people?
I have an email from Martin Boon confirming it.
Hey cool. But you know what twitter's like.
May2015 @May2015NS · 4h 4 hours ago We should have 4 polls tday. 1 so far from Populus. Ashcroft's latest to come, plus YGov late on & a monthly one from ICM (@guardian_clark?) www.May2015.com
don't hold your breath for Gdn/ICM today @May2015NS
Nice - cheers for that.
Watching on next two YG's with interest. First signs of the Conservative onslaught starting to show? Or just churn? This is when my punting fingers start to twitch: spotting the movements almost before they happen. Is it? Or isn't it?
Look's like even Mike will have a hard time putting a negative Con spin on this one...
Oh ye of little faith...
@MSmithsonPB: Amongst all expressing voting intention in Ashcroft poll LAB has small lead. Turnout weightings give CON the 3% lead.
Every silver lining has a cloud?
Just got to watch movements, from a punting angle that is. If YG's also nudge then maybe starting to see a small shift and enough to get the wallet back out. Might do it anyway. Can't see Miliband surviving this media assault, even with TB now by his side. Or perhaps especially with TB by his side.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1m1 minute ago And @LordAshcroft's latest focus group: what drink would Ed Mili be? A Crème de Menthe, “the sort of drink nobody would order”. Double ouch.
"When it comes to specific prime ministerial attributes, the gap has widened in recent months. I found Cameron 36 points ahead of Miliband on “representing Britain in international negotiations” and “being able to lead a team”, 29 points ahead on “making the right decisions even when they are unpopular”, 27 points ahead on “having a clear idea of what he wants to achieve”, and 31 points ahead on “doing the job of Prime Minister overall” – a bigger lead in every case than when I last asked this question in September. Miliband’s traditional advantage, on “understanding ordinary people”, has fallen from 16 to four points (41% said he would do a better job in this regard; 37% named Cameron).
In every case except “understanding ordinary people”, swing voters (who say they have not decided how to vote or may change their minds) gave a bigger advantage to Cameron than voters as a whole – and were more likely to prefer Cameron to Miliband as PM overall. UKIP voters were also much more favourable to Cameron than the country as a whole. One third of Labour voters said Cameron would do the better job of leading a team and making the right decisions even when they were unpopular; 37% of them said he would do the better job of representing Britain abroad."
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1m1 minute ago And @LordAshcroft's latest focus group: what drink would Ed Mili be? A Crème de Menthe, “the sort of drink nobody would order”. Double ouch.
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
If there were a greater willingness to prosecute, there would be at least two very high profile CEOs doing chokey right now. Directors are employees too, as you know.
Ah if you mean directors who have directly done somethign wrong, then yes I agree with you. I thought you meant they should be punished for the sins of their underlings, no matter how remote those underlings were and irrespective of whether they knew about the wrongdoing
The basic principle in my view should be that we should focus on punishing the specific individuals who do wrong. What we seem to have is a system which fines the bank's innocent shareholders.
Well, the shareholders are the owners. So the big ones should be doing something about getting some competent managers in.
Actually what happens is that the shareholders demand that the banks reduce their costs and increase the return on capital. The banks then cut back on the very areas which are needed to control the traders and others who do the misbehaving rather than investing in the systems/people needed to keep them under control and you get into a vicious spiral.
Banks never invest properly in what's needed when the money rolls in; the money rolling in attracts all sorts of undesirables; the money keeps rolling in; everyone thinks they've discovered a risk-free way of making money; this is the point when people start saying things like "It's a new paradigm." Or "This time it's different." (This is the point when you take your money out of the bank.) No-one wants to stop what they think is a virtuous cycle. No-one listens to those internally crying "Whoa". Then it all goes horribly wrong. Banks get fined. People leave. Banks are then left in a position where they need to earn money to pay fines and to remedy all the stuff that needs to be put right and to keep shareholders happy but they've pissed it all away on undeserving staff. They try and cut costs and, like most entities doing this under pressure, usually make a hash of it. But this is not uncovered until the next time the brown substance hits the proverbial fan. And so it goes......
Comments
[anyway, I think logic and crypto-communist popularism are never going to go hand-in-hand]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/guardian-icm-polls
EICIPM
To me that's one of several factors that make this election a real jittery punt. There are some potentially big winners but also big losers.
Your scraping about at the bottom of the barrel and hoping you can be dragged over the winning line by UKIP and FPTP...
@LordAshcroft: Prime Ministerial attributes. EM leads only on “understanding ordinary people” - and only just:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9ah8zUCAAInHa4.jpg
James Ball @jamesrbuk 53s53 seconds ago
Gauke has said repeatedly #HSBCFiles "has been known about" since 2007. Leak first became public in 2009, UK got the data in 2010.
Stride towards a fortune, boldly on your way,
Never once forgetting there's one born every day.
We're not getting the ICM this week.
Cameron as PM
amongst Con: +81 -15
amongst Lab: +19 -79
amongst LD: +49 -41
amongst UKIP: +22 -77
Ed as leader of Labour
amongst Con: +21 -69 [this is always an issue for me; as a Tory I'm very satisfied with EM...]
amongst Lab: +48 -45
amongst LD: +25 -58
amongst UKIP: +6 -90
The takeaways would have to be that Labour's vote may be soft, but that Con hopes for substantial votes back from UKIP may be unrealistic as they are highly dissatisfied with everyone (as you'd expect!). However they really don't like Ed (or Clegg, for that matter) so maybe they might be persuadable on a lesser-of-two-evils approach.
I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the result on May 7th
2001: Blair minus 2, Hague minus 29
2005: Blair minus 25, Howard minus 10
2010: Brown minus 24, Cameron plus 3
Ashcroft showing Tory uptick but then he had them 6% ahead a month back. Still, good polls for Tories so far today.
1%
I call swingback has taken place
Was that polling before Ed launched his diplomatic incident?
Read it on conhome and draw your own conclusions, but I think disaster for ed would be putting it mildly.
I have an email from Martin Boon confirming it.
@TimPBouverie: @MichaelLCrick has first IV with Mhairi Black (20) - SNP cand who wanted to 'put nut in' to Lab councillors. #c4news http://t.co/7wvCSqoI7k
until now
Con/Lib-Dem/DUP coalition looks viable.
Con/Lib-Dem/SNP/Grn? coalition also looks possible.
The basic principle in my view should be that we should focus on punishing the specific individuals who do wrong. What we seem to have is a system which fines the bank's innocent shareholders.
Just look at Cam's lead among the swing voters.
Net 2010 Lib Dems -> Labour = +18 respondents.
Net 2010 Lib Dems - > Conservatives = +16 respondents.
So almost zero Con-Lab swing as a result of 2010 Lib Dem voters. There is then a small net swing from Lab to Con in direct swing voters. Only the rise of UKIP creates a net Con to Lab swing.
Coalition Liberals save the day for Cameron.
Fair enough. But these aren't from a PB tory but Lord A himself.
Luckily there are 90 odd days of this left.
Kinnockisation.
Con 277
Lab 277
Lib Dem 27
UKIP 3
Nat 50
Minority 18
May2015 @May2015NS · 4h 4 hours ago
We should have 4 polls tday. 1 so far from Populus. Ashcroft's latest to come, plus YGov late on & a monthly one from ICM (@guardian_clark?)
www.May2015.com
The only surprise is that we've not had more Con lead's from a variety of pollsters really, because Lab and Con "neck and neck" (which is where we appear to be in reality) can easily break to a small lead for either party.
Tom Clark @guardian_clark
don't hold your breath for Gdn/ICM today @May2015NS
ENGLAND ONLY shares in today's Ashcroft poll
CON 36
LAB 31
LD 9
GRN 7
UKIP 16
This represents a 3.2% CON to LAB swing in England
All numbers within the right ballpark. We'll need to see if it is repeated.
Only 70% are dissatisfied with Dave and want to replace him with Ed.
So when it says labour at 34% in a poll, perhaps up to 30% of voters are contemplating not actually voting for ed in an election, because they support labour but won't vote for ed.
This explains the discrepancy between labour poll scores and the poor actual voter turnout
And @LordAshcroft's latest focus group: what drink would Ed Mili be? A Crème de Menthe, “the sort of drink nobody would order”. Double ouch.
Ooof, right in the cringe
Watching on next two YG's with interest. First signs of the Conservative onslaught starting to show? Or just churn? This is when my punting fingers start to twitch: spotting the movements almost before they happen. Is it? Or isn't it?
"no ground game in Bedford"
"un weighted shows different.."
@MSmithsonPB: Amongst all expressing voting intention in Ashcroft poll LAB has small lead. Turnout weightings give CON the 3% lead.
Cam : good red wine
Clegg : Babycham
Farage : bitter ...
Can you make sure you're airborne next Mon/Tues?
Just got to watch movements, from a punting angle that is. If YG's also nudge then maybe starting to see a small shift and enough to get the wallet back out. Might do it anyway. Can't see Miliband surviving this media assault, even with TB now by his side. Or perhaps especially with TB by his side.
"When it comes to specific prime ministerial attributes, the gap has widened in recent months. I found Cameron 36 points ahead of Miliband on “representing Britain in international negotiations” and “being able to lead a team”, 29 points ahead on “making the right decisions even when they are unpopular”, 27 points ahead on “having a clear idea of what he wants to achieve”, and 31 points ahead on “doing the job of Prime Minister overall” – a bigger lead in every case than when I last asked this question in September. Miliband’s traditional advantage, on “understanding ordinary people”, has fallen from 16 to four points (41% said he would do a better job in this regard; 37% named Cameron).
In every case except “understanding ordinary people”, swing voters (who say they have not decided how to vote or may change their minds) gave a bigger advantage to Cameron than voters as a whole – and were more likely to prefer Cameron to Miliband as PM overall. UKIP voters were also much more favourable to Cameron than the country as a whole. One third of Labour voters said Cameron would do the better job of leading a team and making the right decisions even when they were unpopular; 37% of them said he would do the better job of representing Britain abroad."
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/portsmouth-north/winning-party
Pompey North, Tories move into 2-5 from 1-2
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/kingswood/winning-party
Kingswood, Evens available with Paddy, 8-11 with Gold standard Ladbrokes
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/crewe-and-nantwich/winning-party
Crewe and Nantwich, Tories into 4-9
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/pudsey/winning-party
Pudsey - Labour still 8-11 favourites.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/elmet-and-rothwell/winning-party
Elmet & Rothwell Conservatives 4-7 favourites.
A few years ago, I spent part of an Ashes test match in the loo.
Because I knew whenever I go to the bog, a wicket falls, and we needed a wicket.
Take one for the team.
Actually what happens is that the shareholders demand that the banks reduce their costs and increase the return on capital. The banks then cut back on the very areas which are needed to control the traders and others who do the misbehaving rather than investing in the systems/people needed to keep them under control and you get into a vicious spiral.
Banks never invest properly in what's needed when the money rolls in; the money rolling in attracts all sorts of undesirables; the money keeps rolling in; everyone thinks they've discovered a risk-free way of making money; this is the point when people start saying things like "It's a new paradigm." Or "This time it's different." (This is the point when you take your money out of the bank.) No-one wants to stop what they think is a virtuous cycle. No-one listens to those internally crying "Whoa". Then it all goes horribly wrong. Banks get fined. People leave. Banks are then left in a position where they need to earn money to pay fines and to remedy all the stuff that needs to be put right and to keep shareholders happy but they've pissed it all away on undeserving staff. They try and cut costs and, like most entities doing this under pressure, usually make a hash of it. But this is not uncovered until the next time the brown substance hits the proverbial fan. And so it goes......
And since I'm correcting you, isn't that 'giving one for the team', not taking one