This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
What else are they going to do?
Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.
I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.
I know of three acquaintances who have seen payday loan debt spiral out of control. Of course it was essentially their fault (one, the youngest, did so after I had carefully explained why he would be mad even to consider taking out a payday loan). But two out of the three would not have known how to find loan sharks and would simply have cut their cloth according to their means. So what they would have done indeed was reform themselves - they would have had no choice.
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
So: the government shouldn't have bailed out the banks because the Lloyds insurance market.
What?
Could you find me a reference for your government bailing out Lloyds names allegation please.
If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?
We haven't bailed out a stock market.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.
The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.
Time Value of Money - TVM.
The British government pays 1.8% for 10 year money - so I don't think that's going to affect the equation very much.
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
That's complete nonsense. Many names were bankrupted when called upon to settle market claims as they were expected to do. There was no bailout.
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
Interesting theory. Sure there were complaints and people who didn't like selling their homes made a bit of a fuss, strange that isn't it ... there was no bail out.
Now you might be on stronger ground with Equitable Life customers and the compensation going on there from the taxpayer but that's down to massive UK regulatory failings as I understand it.
This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses)
Really? I think that those were actually involved would have a rather robust reaction to the suggestion that they were somehow protected from losing their shirts.
Try Googling 'lloyds names bankruptcy'. You might learn something.
Everything is fine - he's going to northern Ireland a couple of days earlier than me to prepare for his party. I think he has a shrewd suspicion how I want to spend the evening.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
What else are they going to do?
Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.
I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.
Back to the old nursery rhyme: "Pop goes the weasel”!
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
What else are they going to do?
Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.
I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.
Indeed. It's often quite rational on some level.
My bank is going to charge me £25 if this direct debit bounces, but I can borrow enough to cover the DD and pay back + £5 when I get paid. I either get screwed for £25 by my bank, or £5 from wonga.
Hand-to-mouth financial logic is something I suspect most PB'ers can't relate to. Much easier to pity, shame and condemn them for their stupidity.
If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?
We haven't bailed out a stock market.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.
The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.
Time Value of Money - TVM.
The British government pays 1.8% for 10 year money - so I don't think that's going to affect the equation very much.
The Ipsos Mori figures are certainly not showing any increased likelihood to vote certainly not to 1997 levels .
Are you comparing like-with-like i.e. 3 months out?
Yes and also taking into account that in 2010 , Ipsos Mori's last 2 polls actually had more people saying they were certain to vote than actually did do .
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
IIRC the Lloyds Names had to cough up.
The shareholders of the failed banks lost the vast majority of their investments. Would you have preferred the depositors to have lost out as well?
As an aside it is astounding how proudly ignorant some posters can be but you have to admire the conviction in their beliefs... it's like the conspiracy theorists of 9/11, the non moon landings et al
I know nothing about Broxtowe but I can swear blind that Al Murray will win there.
@rcs1000 In the capatilist system you advocate ( allegedly) they would have lost money for banking with a bunch of crooks. But you are only interested in a specialized form of capitalism where failure is not an option. I know you are mainly into banking, but would you like to explain to the good folks on here what happened when the companies called in the liabilities of the "names"? If you are clueless, look it up.
I presume you're talking about the Lloyds insurance market, which has historically been funded by "names".
There was no government bail out of the insurance market, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.
You keep saying banks should have been allowed to fail.
Now; imagine that John Smith Software Ltd banked with RBS. RBS has been allowed to fail. It's in adminstration. How does John Smith Software Ltd pay its staff at the end of the month?
£75,000 deposit insurance won't help it, if its monthly wage bill is £200k.
Only small firms are included in the financial compensation scheme. Bigger firms are excluded and defined as:
"a body corporate (which includes a company, industrial and provident society, Royal Charter body, and statutory corporation) which has two or more of the following
As an aside it is astounding how proudly ignorant some posters can be but you have to admire the conviction in their beliefs... it's like the conspiracy theorists of 9/11, the non moon landings et al
I know nothing about Broxtowe but I can swear blind that Al Murray will win there.
I think Nick P will be back in Parliament after May 7th.
Everything is fine - he's going to northern Ireland a couple of days earlier than me to prepare for his party. I think he has a shrewd suspicion how I want to spend the evening.
@rcs1000 In the capatilist system you advocate ( allegedly) they would have lost money for banking with a bunch of crooks. But you are only interested in a specialized form of capitalism where failure is not an option. I know you are mainly into banking, but would you like to explain to the good folks on here what happened when the companies called in the liabilities of the "names"? If you are clueless, look it up.
I presume you're talking about the Lloyds insurance market, which has historically been funded by "names".
There was no government bail out of the insurance market, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.
You keep saying banks should have been allowed to fail.
Now; imagine that John Smith Software Ltd banked with RBS. RBS has been allowed to fail. It's in adminstration. How does John Smith Software Ltd pay its staff at the end of the month?
£75,000 deposit insurance won't help it, if its monthly wage bill is £200k.
Only small firms are included in the financial compensation scheme. Bigger firms are excluded and defined as:
"a body corporate (which includes a company, industrial and provident society, Royal Charter body, and statutory corporation) which has two or more of the following
- more than £6.5 million turnover
- more than £3.26 million balance sheet total
- more than 50 employees"
Indeed. I'd assumed it was in RCS example!! None at all if a 'big boy'.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.
Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
What else are they going to do?
Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.
I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.
Indeed. It's often quite rational on some level.
My bank is going to charge me £25 if this direct debit bounces, but I can borrow enough to cover the DD and pay back + £5 when I get paid. I either get screwed for £25 by my bank, or £5 from wonga.
Hand-to-mouth financial logic is something I suspect most PB'ers can't relate to. Much easier to pity, shame and condemn them for their stupidity.
How bloody brilliant would it have been if, instead of funnelling 4% loans to rich tory voters in the shires (at great cost to our unborn children) - we put that into micro-loans/savings for some of our poorest communities.
If you're able to save up a £1000 safety net, and you can see 20% interest on that, paid in weekly (with a nice reminder by text, that you've earned £2.65 interest this week) - the hand-to-mouth mindset starts to change considerably.
@Sean_F Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that. It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration. Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members. No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am. Again!
If a lot of the cleaned up (removed) details were fraudulent then the voting percentage will drop. After all - the only reason for creating a fraudulent voter is to vote.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.
Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.
Exactly.
It is easy to show that on reasonable assumptions regarding admin charges and bad debtors, you get to a 300% APR to break even pretty quickly without breaking sweat.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.
Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.
My father used to loan a florin (10p) on Monday and expect a half crown (12.5p) back on the Friday. The NS guys were happy to take it.
If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?
We haven't bailed out a stock market.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.
The main support provided by the Government/Bank of England to RBS has been through loans and guarantees rather than equity investment in new RBS shares. The interest margin on the loans and the fees charged for the guarantees have earned sufficient profit to offset any future loss made on the RBS shares.
@Sean_F Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that. It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration. Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members. No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am. Again!
The depositors are all of us, though. If bank deposits weren't secure, then in all likelihood, far fewer people would use banks. Transactions would have to be in specie, which would set back economic development a long way.
@rcs1000 What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees. This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses) You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement. But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
IIRC the Lloyds Names had to cough up.
The shareholders of the failed banks lost the vast majority of their investments. Would you have preferred the depositors to have lost out as well?
The problem with the LLoyds cases was that the Names gave instructions as to the type of syndicate that they were prepared to join e.g. a marine or commercial property or motor.
Regrettably their managers placed them on higher-risk/ higher reward syndicates specialising in public/ employers liability - and when the asbestos hit the fan their losses multiplied.
Lloyds has a reputation for paying claims - after the San Francisco earthquake a telegram was cent by CE Heath “pay all of our policyholders in full, irrespective of the terms of their policies”
This they were able to do because they charged sensible premiums for the risk. These days 'underwriters' write for market share, not profitability - with the result that claims aren't paid as quickly and cover provided is reduced substantially.
But if that is what the public want - then that is what the public get.
"The government has put an extra £6.8bn into the electoral registration drive."
Either the Government has an extreme commitment to democracy. Or the Guardian is so rich it can afford to mix up its millions and its billions.
Them tax avoiders, huh? Tsk.....
EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe the true headline figure the Guardian are reporting is a BILLION voters missing off the electoral roll. Maybe everyone in Asia just got struck off.....
@Sean_F Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that. It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration. Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members. No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am. Again!
You may well be filthy..and a socialist...either way you should steer well clear of finance and economics. Stop embarassing yourself.
If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?
We haven't bailed out a stock market.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.
The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.
RBS doesn't pay dividends, and my personal belief is that they still have a lot of undeclared bad debt. Regardless once you add in other costs associated with purchasing the shares the break even price is probably higher, though this is not my area of expertise so I'm couldn't say how much higher.
We'll see how well the Williams and Glynn sale goes...
RBS will continue to accrue capital internally, until tier one is - say - 12%. It will then dividend out profits. (As is true of pretty much every bank in the UK, Europe and the US.)
We know what the level of non-performing loans (i.e. people not paying interest or keeping up with principal repayments) in the RBS loan book is, and it really isn't that high.
You are essentially taking the view that management is lying.
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.
Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?
ah if only everything were that simple.
I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.
Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.
The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.
Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.
My father used to loan a florin (10p) on Monday and expect a half crown (12.5p) back on the Friday. The NS guys were happy to take it.
That's 25% over 5 days. There are 73 five-day periods in the year, so if we compound that (1.25^73-1) it gives you an APR of, erm, over a billion percent. (APR 1,186,945,868% to be exact)
That's how stupid using an APR for short-term loans is.
@Sean_F The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree? Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets? Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment? the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.
@Sean_F Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that. It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration. Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members. No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am. Again!
You may well be filthy..and a socialist...either way you should steer well clear of finance and economics. Stop embarassing yourself.
If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?
We haven't bailed out a stock market.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.
The main support provided by the Government/Bank of England to RBS has been through loans and guarantees rather than equity investment in new RBS shares. The interest margin on the loans and the fees charged for the guarantees have earned sufficient profit to offset any future loss made on the RBS shares.
I think you make a good point when you talk about guarantees and the 'fees' paid to secure them. We have not given away free money.
"The government has put an extra £6.8bn into the electoral registration drive."
Either the Government has an extreme commitment to democracy. Or the Guardian is so rich it can afford to mix up its millions and its billions.
Them tax avoiders, huh? Tsk.....
EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe the true headline figure the Guardian are reporting is a BILLION voters missing off the electoral roll. Maybe everyone in Asia just got struck off.....
I spent a while trying to come up with a form of words that was equal to the poorly-written and edited nature of the Guardian piece, but I gave up on it and decided that most people are already aware of the Grauniad's foibles.
@TheWatcher We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet. Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?
The Ipsos Mori figures are certainly not showing any increased likelihood to vote certainly not to 1997 levels .
Are you comparing like-with-like i.e. 3 months out?
Yes and also taking into account that in 2010 , Ipsos Mori's last 2 polls actually had more people saying they were certain to vote than actually did do .
So the number of people saying they were certain to vote plus likely to vote would be way higher than the number who actually voted.
Just shows pollsters need to find a way of finding out how committed people are about going to vote on election day. Perhaps pollsters should make people walk to their nearest school or village hall to complete the survey.
@Sean_F The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree? Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets? Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment? the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.
These are the sorts of arguments that Ron Paul would make. There is some intellectual force behind arguments that we should just let banks fail, and for their depositors to have to recover their money through the normal process of insolvency. But, I think we'd have to accept a significant reduction in economic activity if we did so.
@TheWatcher We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet. Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?
Not my favourite place to drink; cheap, and sometimes there’s a bargain, but as in everything else in life generally you get what you pay for!
@TheWatcher We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet. Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?
Thanks. It's extraordinary that unionists should advocate such a doctrine (of Scots not being allowed to decide on UK matters) - an extremely quick way of wrecking the UK from its centre. I've seen it not just on PB but from prominent Tories and also LDs (from what I gather).
I've never heard an LD esposuse this so if someone can find me a quote I'll be asuitably admonished.
Can't argue with the rationale of all UK MPs having a say on matters affecting the whole of the UK whatever their view on the continued existence of the UK in its present form. As democratically elected representatives they have a right to be in the Commons and a right to vote on such legislation if they choose.
It would surprise me greatly too - given LD's long tradition of home rule - so I wouldn't dream of admonishing you: it may just be a one-off personal comment and I certainly don't expect it to be party policy. And to refer to LDs in the plural was probably incorrect of me. But have a listen to the clip therein and see what you think.
@Sean_F Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that. It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration. Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members. No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am. Again!
The history of punters "taking a haircut" on their deposits is that they don't like it and withdraw their money in advance.. See the queues at Northern Rock..The resulting run on a Bank forces it to liquidate assets .
Then as asset values fall, more banks have lower asset values and become unstable.. and so on.
It's called a "crash" See 1929.
In the US it happened a lot in 1929. The result was soup kitchens and GDP fell 30% in three years... Yes 30%...
The Greeks are close to the same situation and if their bailout does not happen the same will happen to them but worse..
If you want to "restructure" the system that way, the people who would lose out are all those reliant on jobs to feed themselves.. as there would be far fewer jobs.
I recommend a few weeks reading about the 1929 crash and its aftereffects...you might learn some basic facts about banking crises.
@Sean_F You mean we would have to accept the judgement of the market and take responsibility for it's collapse instead of blaming Gordon Brown for a world disaster? That would be insane wouldn't it? Money is never wrong, the people who control it make sure of that. Pure capitalism, you know it makes sense. Unless it affects the rich of course, at which point they need "protection" It's a bit like soviet economics really?
The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
@TheWatcher We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet. Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?
Not my favourite place to drink; cheap, and sometimes there’s a bargain, but as in everything else in life generally you get what you pay for!
Although, as I understand it, the women there generally require less of an investment in time and money before a return is seen.
You should be aware that your investment can go up and go down, and as with all quick returns it is not without considerable risk...
I did think the Indyref effect might boost turnout in North Britain but in the Scotland specific polling I've seen nothing to say turnout won't be the usual.
I did think the Indyref effect might boost turnout in North Britain but in the Scotland specific polling I've seen nothing to say turnout won't be the usual.
Scotland is only 8% of the pop at any rate. Even if turnout goes to 80% there sell can still win
@madasafish Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can? (I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)
Thanks. It's extraordinary that unionists should advocate such a doctrine (of Scots not being allowed to decide on UK matters) - an extremely quick way of wrecking the UK from its centre. I've seen it not just on PB but from prominent Tories and also LDs (from what I gather).
I've never heard an LD esposuse this so if someone can find me a quote I'll be asuitably admonished.
Can't argue with the rationale of all UK MPs having a say on matters affecting the whole of the UK whatever their view on the continued existence of the UK in its present form. As democratically elected representatives they have a right to be in the Commons and a right to vote on such legislation if they choose.
It would surprise me greatly too - given LD's long tradition of home rule - so I wouldn't dream of admonishing you: it may just be a one-off personal comment and I certainly don't expect it to be party policy. And to refer to LDs in the plural was probably incorrect of me. But have a listen to the clip therein and see what you think.
@Sean_F The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree? Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets? Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment? the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.
In effect the Bank of England IS getting money from a magic money tree to buy UK government bonds under its QE programme. This is because the B of E can create as much new sterling in circulation as it wishes, consistent with its duty to contain (domestic) inflation.
The people who pay the price are people who suffer from higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, caused by the increased money supply and lower interest rates of QE. Such people are presently those who rely on interest income from savings. In the past pensioners have suffered when pensions have not kept pace with high inflation.
@Sean_F The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree? Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets? Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment? the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.
QE and fractional reserve banking are both magic money trees. There was nothing there before. At the press of a button, the money appears in somebody's account and is now available to buy things. Search online 'Positive Money'.
@madasafish Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can? (I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)
I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of alternatives from you.
Please tell us what you think we should have let happen with RBS and the like?
I did think the Indyref effect might boost turnout in North Britain but in the Scotland specific polling I've seen nothing to say turnout won't be the usual.
Surely all those who got on the role for the Indy ref will be leaving to avoid the taxes they were previously avoiding.
Registration changes (1M off the roll in Uk) could make all the difference come election day all over the country.
The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
Also things like key meters for gas and electricity are more expensive, and it is mostly the poor that have to use them.
I don't understand why that is so and why more is not made of it.
@David_Evershed Or those on the bottom of the rung, who have no way of ameliorating the effects? Who benefits most from it, if the pensioners, workers, and those others on fixed incomes without recourse to friendly remuneration boards are suffering? Higher wages are needed to attract the very best. but only for top, the rest of the country are overpaid scroungers.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
If they've made it harder to lend money, then they've also made it harder to borrow money.
When US states targeted payday loan companies it caused a spike in bankruptcies, bounced cheques and utility cutoffs.
A short, sharp, cathartic spike is not necessarily bad if it reduces rate of "bankruptcies, bounced cheques and utility cutoffs" in the long run. If it doesn't, well than I'd think twice about making the change.
Similar arguments can be made about the evil entities that are bookmakers. Or (at a stretch) distillers.
@madasafish Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can? (I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)
I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of alternatives from you.
Please tell us what you think we should have let happen with RBS and the like?
The point he refuses to make is that it was not a failure of banking it was a failure of regulation (a failure born of a socialist attempt to neuter the Bank of England). Plus the source of the failure lay in the left wing (Democrat) politicisation (akin to nationalising the banks) of sub prime loans to people who were always unlikely to repay.
@nigel4england Because the poor are invisible and worthless, they are there to be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford shares and investments. (and I bet you all thought Animal Farm was solely a critique of Soviet communism?)
@madasafish Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can? (I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)
I doubt it - and , for the record, the essence of the welfare state idea could be traced back at least to the Elizabethan Poor Laws and, more recently to the introduction of OAPs and Sickness insurance just b prior to WW1.
As to your spurious nonsense about the 'rich' - the highest proportion of money in banks and business is from the modestly rich who have worked and saved hard and of course the Pension funds. You seem to live in a fairy tale world where a few evil, greedy bankers and Tories spend their ill-gotten gains eating babies and worse. Wake up Cinderella you're talking balls not going to any before or after midnight.
@Flightpath A failure of regulation? You mean that our "betters" are a bunch of money grubbing shysters and need to be brought to book and controlled? Didn't your blessed lady T abolish such insane notions, and show the purity of unconstrained greed and selfishness? Tax dodge in Panama anyone? (trade marked by Ian Cameron, and with a Swiss subsidiary as well in case of emergencies)
Anyway have to disagree... I've met plenty of fairly prominent kippers in the last year, and none have said anything anti immigrant, they just want controlled borders. As O'Flynn said on QT 'we want to give immigration a good name again'
Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics) 24/02/2015 15:25 Douglas Carswell is manoeuvres. But will his pro-immigration rhetoric sink Ukip? tgr.ph/1DkcVQh
@David_Evershed Or those on the bottom of the rung, who have no way of ameliorating the effects? Who benefits most from it, if the pensioners, workers, and those others on fixed incomes without recourse to friendly remuneration boards are suffering? Higher wages are needed to attract the very best. but only for top, the rest of the country are overpaid scroungers.
It's supply and demand.
It takes a degree of intelligence and seven years to train as a doctor and there is considerable demand for them at present. Hence expect them to be high earners.
Some people are not prepared to invest energy and time gaining competencies and skills. As a consequence they can only occupy low paid unskilled jobs.
The people to feel sorry for are those who have invested energy and time gaining competencies and skill for which demand has unexpectedly disappeared. However, many competencies are transferable and hence many scientists and engineers have moved into much higher paying finance jobs.
The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
Also things like key meters for gas and electricity are more expensive, and it is mostly the poor that have to use them.
I don't understand why that is so and why more is not made of it.
They've made progress on that. British Gas prepay customers should be on the same tariff as normal customers.
The other shameful behaviour was restricting bank accounts to the poor which again has now been fixed.
Another Dave, bankruptcy is sometimes for the best.
Plus in the UK we have laws that stop cutting off water and the other utilities that are much better than the U.S. Laws.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
If they've made it harder to lend money, then they've also made it harder to borrow money.
When US states targeted payday loan companies it caused a spike in bankruptcies, bounced cheques and utility cutoffs.
A short, sharp, cathartic spike is not necessarily bad if it reduces rate of "bankruptcies, bounced cheques and utility cutoffs" in the long run. If it doesn't, well than I'd think twice about making the change.
Similar arguments can be made about the evil entities that are bookmakers. Or (at a stretch) distillers.
@nigel4england Because the poor are invisible and worthless, they are there to be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford shares and investments.
'twas ever thus
[I think you're overdoing the whole Dave Spart thing. Have a cup of tea.]
Q: Governments often fail to achieve their aims. Why do you think this is?
Cameron says some matters are within your power; for example, pensions policy.
Then there are goals like cutting migration. You can get the policies right, but the end result is not within your control.
I thought this was an interesting question and choice of answers.
I don't think pensions policy is entirely within the government's control - people may decide not to save for pensions despite the incentives government creates for them to do so.
And with migration he is accepting free movement within the EU as a given. While I'm in favour of free movement, clearly it is a choice. If you wanted to restrict immigration there are certainly policies that you could adopt that would be successful, if you were willing to accept the costs of those policies.
@nigel4england Because the poor are invisible and worthless, they are there to be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford shares and investments.
'twas ever thus
[I think you're overdoing the whole Dave Spart thing. Have a cup of tea.]
I think his beverage of choice is something a little stronger....
The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
From 1 July 2014 payday loan lenders have not (legally) been able to “roll over” a loan more than twice.
@felix I seem to recall you and your friends on here having several frotting sessions over the latest Daily Wail headline about benefit cheats and how they are "all at it". Of course, with banking and finance, and pharma, and the arms industry, and tax evasion, it is just the odd bad apple that gives the rest a bad name. This despite all the evidence to the contrary. No wonder you are such an expert on fairy tales @felix.
I have been writing a quick program to condense posters comments to a single sentence that encapsulates their ideas, by extracting a corpus, removing noise words, synonym replacement, porter stemming, ranking keywords, and then identifying the sentence with the highest rank. But Smareron has thrown the results way off...
The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
From 1 July 2014 payday loan lenders have not (legally) been able to “roll over” a loan more than twice.
I think you can roll it forward so long as you also reduce the principal a bit.
@MarqueeMark Last alcohol I had was a half can of some Mexican lager one of the neighbours handed in by way of an apology, and before that it was two pints of draught with a meal just after Christmas. How are you getting along?
@felix I seem to recall you and your friends on here having several frotting sessions over the latest Daily Wail headline about benefit cheats and how they are "all at it". Of course, with banking and finance, and pharma, and the arms industry, and tax evasion, it is just the odd bad apple that gives the rest a bad name. This despite all the evidence to the contrary. No wonder you are such an expert on fairy tales @felix.
Methinks those post-luncheon cocktails are clouding your judgement. Have a lie down.
Comments
http://www.finborougharms.co.uk/ is Stonch's pub.
Aguero first booking 33/1 VC
If anyone can get on and can get me on small I'll have it for a score?
What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees.
This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses)
You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement.
But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.
What?
Could you find me a reference for your government bailing out Lloyds names allegation please.
Now you might be on stronger ground with Equitable Life customers and the compensation going on there from the taxpayer but that's down to massive UK regulatory failings as I understand it.
Try Googling 'lloyds names bankruptcy'. You might learn something.
My bank is going to charge me £25 if this direct debit bounces, but I can borrow enough to cover the DD and pay back + £5 when I get paid. I either get screwed for £25 by my bank, or £5 from wonga.
Hand-to-mouth financial logic is something I suspect most PB'ers can't relate to. Much easier to pity, shame and condemn them for their stupidity.
http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/shameless-labour-candidate-withdraws-after-benefit-overclaiming-exposed/
Money resting in the account defence.
The shareholders of the failed banks lost the vast majority of their investments. Would you have preferred the depositors to have lost out as well?
I know nothing about Broxtowe but I can swear blind that Al Murray will win there.
"a body corporate (which includes a company, industrial and provident society, Royal Charter body, and statutory corporation) which has two or more of the following
- more than £6.5 million turnover
- more than £3.26 million balance sheet total
- more than 50 employees"
I'll be at the pub too btw.
Last night, I dreamt that the Lib Dems gained Watford with over 50% of the vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-31593237
So she is so toxic for as a Parliamentry candidate, and Labour Group Leader yet stays on as a councillor? Sh
Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.
If you're able to save up a £1000 safety net, and you can see 20% interest on that, paid in weekly (with a nice reminder by text, that you've earned £2.65 interest this week) - the hand-to-mouth mindset starts to change considerably.
Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that.
It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration.
Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members.
No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am.
Again!
"4% loans to rich tory voters."
I think you mean 4% loans to rich tory voters who don't earn enough to pay income tax.
Numeracy is important.
I think it might be over 70%. If it's close, that'll motivate voters both blue and red, and I suspect there'll be a Scottish spike in turnout as well.
Down with This Kind of Thing!
It is easy to show that on reasonable assumptions regarding admin charges and bad debtors, you get to a 300% APR to break even pretty quickly without breaking sweat.
Regrettably their managers placed them on higher-risk/ higher reward syndicates specialising in public/ employers liability - and when the asbestos hit the fan their losses multiplied.
Lloyds has a reputation for paying claims - after the San Francisco earthquake a telegram was cent by CE Heath “pay all of our policyholders in full, irrespective of the terms of their policies”
This they were able to do because they charged sensible premiums for the risk. These days 'underwriters' write for market share, not profitability - with the result that claims aren't paid as quickly and cover provided is reduced substantially.
But if that is what the public want - then that is what the public get.
Either the Government has an extreme commitment to democracy. Or the Guardian is so rich it can afford to mix up its millions and its billions.
Them tax avoiders, huh? Tsk.....
EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe the true headline figure the Guardian are reporting is a BILLION voters missing off the electoral roll. Maybe everyone in Asia just got struck off.....
Presumably all your money is in the Coop?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/feb/24/nobody-immune-science-they-do-not-like-even-liberals
That's how stupid using an APR for short-term loans is.
The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree?
Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets?
Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment?
the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.
We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet.
Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?
Just shows pollsters need to find a way of finding out how committed people are about going to vote on election day. Perhaps pollsters should make people walk to their nearest school or village hall to complete the survey.
"Hic!"
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-horrifying-thought/
Then as asset values fall, more banks have lower asset values and become unstable.. and so on.
It's called a "crash" See 1929.
In the US it happened a lot in 1929. The result was soup kitchens and GDP fell 30% in three years... Yes 30%...
The Greeks are close to the same situation and if their bailout does not happen the same will happen to them but worse..
If you want to "restructure" the system that way, the people who would lose out are all those reliant on jobs to feed themselves.. as there would be far fewer jobs.
I recommend a few weeks reading about the 1929 crash and its aftereffects...you might learn some basic facts about banking crises.
You mean we would have to accept the judgement of the market and take responsibility for it's collapse instead of blaming Gordon Brown for a world disaster?
That would be insane wouldn't it?
Money is never wrong, the people who control it make sure of that.
Pure capitalism, you know it makes sense.
Unless it affects the rich of course, at which point they need "protection"
It's a bit like soviet economics really?
I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.
We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.
Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.
You should be aware that your investment can go up and go down, and as with all quick returns it is not without considerable risk...
I did think the Indyref effect might boost turnout in North Britain but in the Scotland specific polling I've seen nothing to say turnout won't be the usual.
Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can?
(I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)
The people who pay the price are people who suffer from higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, caused by the increased money supply and lower interest rates of QE. Such people are presently those who rely on interest income from savings. In the past pensioners have suffered when pensions have not kept pace with high inflation.
Money from nothing?
You believe in the magic money tree? I thought that was only the thick socialists?
Please tell us what you think we should have let happen with RBS and the like?
Registration changes (1M off the roll in Uk) could make all the difference come election day all over the country.
When US states targeted payday loan companies it caused a spike in bankruptcies, bounced cheques and utility cutoffs.
I don't understand why that is so and why more is not made of it.
Or those on the bottom of the rung, who have no way of ameliorating the effects?
Who benefits most from it, if the pensioners, workers, and those others on fixed incomes without recourse to friendly remuneration boards are suffering?
Higher wages are needed to attract the very best. but only for top, the rest of the country are overpaid scroungers.
Believing that using the magic money tree at the wrong time is a good thing - is something completely different.
Similar arguments can be made about the evil entities that are bookmakers. Or (at a stretch) distillers.
Because the poor are invisible and worthless, they are there to be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford shares and investments.
(and I bet you all thought Animal Farm was solely a critique of Soviet communism?)
Great article, although I am worried that i am only saying that because it backs up what I believe!!
edit - This isn't Sean T trolling us is it?
As to your spurious nonsense about the 'rich' - the highest proportion of money in banks and business is from the modestly rich who have worked and saved hard and of course the Pension funds. You seem to live in a fairy tale world where a few evil, greedy bankers and Tories spend their ill-gotten gains eating babies and worse. Wake up Cinderella you're talking balls not going to any before or after midnight.
A failure of regulation?
You mean that our "betters" are a bunch of money grubbing shysters and need to be brought to book and controlled?
Didn't your blessed lady T abolish such insane notions, and show the purity of unconstrained greed and selfishness?
Tax dodge in Panama anyone? (trade marked by Ian Cameron, and with a Swiss subsidiary as well in case of emergencies)
Anyway have to disagree... I've met plenty of fairly prominent kippers in the last year, and none have said anything anti immigrant, they just want controlled borders. As O'Flynn said on QT 'we want to give immigration a good name again'
Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
24/02/2015 15:25
Douglas Carswell is manoeuvres. But will his pro-immigration rhetoric sink Ukip? tgr.ph/1DkcVQh
It takes a degree of intelligence and seven years to train as a doctor and there is considerable demand for them at present. Hence expect them to be high earners.
Some people are not prepared to invest energy and time gaining competencies and skills. As a consequence they can only occupy low paid unskilled jobs.
The people to feel sorry for are those who have invested energy and time gaining competencies and skill for which demand has unexpectedly disappeared. However, many competencies are transferable and hence many scientists and engineers have moved into much higher paying finance jobs.
The other shameful behaviour was restricting bank accounts to the poor which again has now been fixed.
Another Dave, bankruptcy is sometimes for the best.
Plus in the UK we have laws that stop cutting off water and the other utilities that are much better than the U.S. Laws.
[I think you're overdoing the whole Dave Spart thing. Have a cup of tea.]
I don't think pensions policy is entirely within the government's control - people may decide not to save for pensions despite the incentives government creates for them to do so.
And with migration he is accepting free movement within the EU as a given. While I'm in favour of free movement, clearly it is a choice. If you wanted to restrict immigration there are certainly policies that you could adopt that would be successful, if you were willing to accept the costs of those policies.
Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
24/02/2015 16:13
I know what would solve crisis in the NHS, says Tory MP: astrology tgr.ph/1Dkv9Bk
I seem to recall you and your friends on here having several frotting sessions over the latest Daily Wail headline about benefit cheats and how they are "all at it".
Of course, with banking and finance, and pharma, and the arms industry, and tax evasion, it is just the odd bad apple that gives the rest a bad name.
This despite all the evidence to the contrary.
No wonder you are such an expert on fairy tales @felix.
Is Tredinnick still on the Science and Technology Committee? Absurd/ridiculous if so.
Last alcohol I had was a half can of some Mexican lager one of the neighbours handed in by way of an apology, and before that it was two pints of draught with a meal just after Christmas.
How are you getting along?