Are you saying that the PCS have no influence? He definitely is funded by trade union subscriptions and those same subscriptions also fund the Labour party.
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
isam .. why do you not ansewr the question.. what do the trains run on if the same bed is being used..if it is a new bed then it is a new line.. no doubt the stations will have to be widened and extended, new junctions, wiring going in, viaducts,cuttings, bridges built and a few tunnels..all of which might just affect a few villages enroute..and all of that is not goin to be a NEW line..please go away and sort yourelf out
Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
While the PCS isn't affiliated witht he Labour Party, they do think of themselves as influecing policy:
We are asking members to support the political campaigning strategy we have developed in recent years. We have built Parliamentary Groups and our ‘Make your vote count’ campaign to influence the politicians that make decisions that affect the lives of PCS members at work. We are also asking members if they agree with the proposal to take our political work a step further and support candidates in national elections in circumstances where it would assist our campaigns.*
isam .. why do you not ansewr the question.. what do the trains run on if the same bed is being used..if it is a new bed then it is a new line.. no doubt the stations will have to be widened and extended, new junctions, wiring going in, viaducts,cuttings, bridges built and a few tunnels..all of which might just affect a few villages enroute..and all of that is not goin to be a NEW line..please go away and sort yourelf out
Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
Today at PMQs: Twitter verdict shows Ed Miliband thrashed the Prime Minister http://bit.ly/12pVM2c
You don't need Twitter to conclude that. Any PM loses PMQs when he starts asking the LoO questions. Major did it. Brown did it. Cameron did it today.
Like I posted earlier,cameron will have a problem at PMQ's if ed does what he did today,keep using stats plus a few jokes.
Cameron needs to buck his idea's up,he came to Pmq's unprepared and he needs a strategy when miliband brings out the stats,asking the opposition leader what he would do,doesn't cut it.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
[PS The PSND ex figure is consolidated gross debt and should be adjusted to a net figure (£632,854,000) to give a proper comparison. My mistake. The consolidated PSND figure (i.e. total gross debt) was £2,787,136,000 indicating that the banking groups' liquid assets were £666,605,000)].
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Our member unions: ■ASLEF (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) ■BECTU (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) ■BFAWU (Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union) ■Community ■CWU (Communication Workers Union) ■GMB ■MU (Musicians Union) ■NACODS (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers) ■NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) ■TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) ■UCATT (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) ■UNISON ■Unite ■Unity ■USDAW (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers)
How many working members does NACODS have nowadays. I thought, from one of their officers, that it was in single figures, or close to it. They rely on funds built up over the years and proceeds of winning Care Home cases against the NHS.
Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
time for an Os is crap thread.
Nabavi and Avery versus the rest of PB. :-)
Don't forget ScottP and fitalass. If that affects anything
I have you in the Nabavi camp tim, moving Osborne would cost Labour votes.
@DMiliband Kevin Rudd is one of the sharpest brains in public life. Good he gets the chance to finish what he started.
Pillocky admitation from Ed senior, Rudd had the balls to wield a knife when Miliband could only wave his banana from the sidelines.
I suspect that bottle boy Milliband was equally fawning when Gillard knifed Rudd.
But isn't bottle boy Milliband based now in the same place as Mensch? If so couldn't the two of them get together to create a critical mass of fawning vacuous mediocrity.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
Our member unions: ■ASLEF (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) ■BECTU (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) ■BFAWU (Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union) ■Community ■CWU (Communication Workers Union) ■GMB ■MU (Musicians Union) ■NACODS (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers) ■NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) ■TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) ■UCATT (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) ■UNISON ■Unite ■Unity ■USDAW (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers)
How many working members does NACODS have nowadays. I thought, from one of their officers, that it was in single figures, or close to it. They rely on funds built up over the years and proceeds of winning Care Home cases against the NHS.
Isn't their slogan "The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the foreman's job at last" ?
This may seem a bit random, but I've noticed in the last few weeks that you have stopped posting the somewhat acid posts of the past. I'm pretty sure that I will disagree with much of what you may write now and in the future, but I'm now much happier to acknowledge the wise words when they occur (rarely.. obviously...). Anyway I apologise for any nonsense that I may have sourced, and in your somewhat revised guise I look forward to your posts.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..
I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2
If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line
"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"
Two problems: 1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.
2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(
Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.
It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.
Osborne comes over as too political for his own good – for as soon as as people start thinking that then he’s failed. He’s just another politico trying to hang on to his job. All this is offset by the fact that his opposite number, Ed Balls, is precisely the same.
But does politics have to be like this? Mike Smithson
NO! VOTE UKIP!
I'm happy to vote UKIP, if it's in a PR election. I'm happy to vote UKIP, if I'm in a safe seat. Otherwise, I'll vote Conservative with gritted teeth.
ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..
I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2
If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line
"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"
Two problems: 1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.
2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(
Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.
It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.
I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Offloading Lloyds would make a massive difference. And provided the stock markets don't collapse through to 2015 this looks more likely to happen than not.
Perhaps RBoS could be given to Eck as an independence day present.
I hear that Hitchin Flyover along the ECML is open this week, so that outbound Cambridge Line trains can cross over without conflicting with London bound ECML trains. (Though for the moment, only certain outer suburban trains as far as Letchworth are currently using it).
I hear that Hitchin Flyover along the ECML is open this week, so that outbound Cambridge Line trains can cross over without conflicting with London bound ECML trains. (Though for the moment, only certain outer suburban trains as far as Letchworth are currently using it).
Those are my local stations, I guess I need a trip to give it a go.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
Osborne's always seen being Chancellor as a political rather than economic position.
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
time for an Os is crap thread.
Nabavi and Avery versus the rest of PB. :-)
Don't forget ScottP and fitalass. If that affects anything
I have you in the Nabavi camp tim, moving Osborne would cost Labour votes.
oul Osborne has been a huge asset for Labour over the last five years. Ironically he's done as much damage to the Lib Dems as the Tories - if Hammond had been Shadow Chancellor the Tories would've been a majority govt and saved the LDs a lot of grief.
tim
You really should see a good psychiatrist about your political fantasies.
ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..
I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2
If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line
"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"
Two problems: 1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.
2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(
Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.
It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.
I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2
Fair enough. But UKIP are displaying the same hypocrisy as the Greens over this (yes, they are unusual bedfellows). The Greens campaign for decades for high-speed rail, and the moment one is planned they are automatically against it, saying it does not meet 'strict criteria'. Sadly, it looks like those 'strict criteria' are "We didn't do it."
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
While doing my dough on the Hampshire vs Surrey match tonight (as well as backing Uruguay, Federer & Nadal) I listened to the comms debate on Michael Carberry and England selection. When you consider how many black men represented England in the 80s & 90s it amazing how few have in the 21st Century.
Off the top of my head I can only think of Carberry (1 test) and Mark Butcher since 2000... there must be more...
Why would that be? Are descendents of West Indians choosing football over cricket now?
I hear that Hitchin Flyover along the ECML is open this week, so that outbound Cambridge Line trains can cross over without conflicting with London bound ECML trains. (Though for the moment, only certain outer suburban trains as far as Letchworth are currently using it).
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more about it in the autumn.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.
sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
The Iraqi government is a major player in the Syrian conflict. Firstly it happily let Sunni radicals move into Syria as way of shipping them out of their country, then they let Shiites fighters do the same then started to try to interdict rebel supply routes into Syria. Its army has had clashes with Syrian insurgents near its own borders. It has facilitated overflights of supplies to the Assad regime and provided financial support.
As for Israel, they do not oppose Assad in this war. They dont like him but dont much like the thorns hiding in the alternative. The ideal for Israel is that this carries on but the more it does so the more likelihood of spillover. The overwhelming concern is not Assad or indeed the radical elements of the insurgency, its Hizbollah and Iranian influence which is now massive in the country with what in effect are their own military forces and locally raised but Iranian loyal militias.
Egypt will soon have enough problems of its own, that country is in danger of breaking down into chaos.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.
sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
Ah, I see. There is no formal guarantee of the banks net liabilities (afaik), although obviously the mere fact the banks were bailed out implies a de facto guarantee.
What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down.
Once sold the banks net liabilities will be recorded as private sector debt.
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I like trains and train travel, and have no problem with new lines being built, or expanded to triple or quadruple tracks. £40 Billion for HS2 requires a hel of a strong case, and it has not made it.
We do need to consider who we are building these trains for, and why. HS2 means that tracks need to be straighter, and the stations are not in cities (the Bham one is on the outskirts, and the East Midlands one is in Broxtowe). These will require either big car parks, or other transport to get there, such as extensions to the Nottingham tram. There is little point in getting from London to Nottingham in 65 minutes, then taking another 45 minutes to get to Nottingham centre. The existing Midlands Main line will get you from St Pancras to Nottingham in an hour and 40 minutes.
High Speed trains are less fuel efficient and more expensive to engineer. Fuel consumption rises with the square of speed due to air and rolling resistance, and can make few intermediate stops if they are to use their potental speed. They are simply not very green, except possibly compared with air travel, but in terms of air travel they are far more expensive compared with budget airlines, which, like it or not, are the competition.
HS2 is an expensive white elephant vanity project, rather like Concorde, which was never competitive against subsonic airliners. Invest in rail and rail lines by all means, but build more lines that actually have stations that people can get to easily, and make them slow enough to be fuel efficient and stop at enough places. Fit them with free wifi and tables so people can work on them. There is very little need for trains to go more than 100 mph in a country as small as ours. Not a glamour prospect, but selling a product that people want at a price that they can afford.
ISAM ..That is not the answer to the question which was ..What will the trains run on whilst the tracks are being relaid.and for how long, if they are new tracks which do not replace the old tracks then they are .. new..
I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2
If Spurs, Liverpool & Man Utd wanted to rebuild or improve their stadia, it wouldnt be hypocritical of them if they had opposed Arsenals move from Highbury to the Emirates. Just as it isnt of UKIP to suggest new tracks alongside existing ones but oppose digging up swathes ofcountryside for a brand new line
"I would have thought the new ones would be laid alongside the exisitng ones, which means considerably less digging up of countryside etc than the proposed HS2"
Two problems: 1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.
2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(
Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.
It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.
I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2
Fair enough. But UKIP are displaying the same hypocrisy as the Greens over this (yes, they are unusual bedfellows). The Greens campaign for decades for high-speed rail, and the moment one is planned they are automatically against it, saying it does not meet 'strict criteria'. Sadly, it looks like those 'strict criteria' are "We didn't do it."
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.
sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
Ah, I see. There is no formal guarantee of the banks net liabilities (afaik), although obviously the mere fact the banks were bailed out implies a de facto guarantee.
What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down,
I understood the guarantee to be a govt worse case view of certain bank debts from the crisis. Nobody seriously expects it all to go bad but clearly a percentage will. Frankly we'd just be safer clearing the bad loans up and returning to normal banking. Although it might cost us, it's still probably less than having the economy stuck in first gear and dribbling the bad news over a decade.
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.
sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
Ah, I see. There is no formal guarantee of the banks net liabilities (afaik), although obviously the mere fact the banks were bailed out implies a de facto guarantee.
What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down,
I understood the guarantee to be a govt worse case view of certain bank debts from the crisis. Nobody seriously expects it all to go bad but clearly a percentage will. Frankly we'd just be safer clearing the bad loans up and returning to normal banking. Although it might cost us, it's still probably less than having the economy stuck in first gear and dribbling the bad news over a decade.
Agree fully and that is what will be happening over the next year.
The complications are really only political. How much competition do we want in the retail banking market (TSB spin off, splitting of RBoS divisions); the Scottish Independence outcome; and, the desire of certain government ministers to buy electoral support by 'democratising' share distribution.
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
Which was the perfectly sensible response. You dont slash spending in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis.
In 2009-10 Brown plugged a £98 bn current account deficit with additional borrowing of £157 bn.
That is not the action of a sensible man.
Remember these figures exclude the amount he borrowed to bail out the banks.
Would you like to know how much that was?
I believe Scotland's Brown and Darling sanctioned a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion (approximately $850 billion) in 2008 to save the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland . Apologies if I've underestimated.
You have underestimated, Moniker, but no need to apologise.
Here is the difference between Public Sector Net Debt (excluding "financial interventions") and Public Sector Net Debt at the end of the 2008-9 Fiscal Year. Financial interventions is Brown's euphemism for bank bailouts.
Although a rough and ready calculation this tells us that that the net cost was £1.3 trillion of additional borrowing.
Given our direct stakes in the banks are of an order of magnitude less, presumably this is some other sort of liability?
Yes it is the liabilities of the Public Sector Banking Groups less their liquid assets, with BoE thrown in although it only has a marginal impact,
so shoudn't this be being wound down as the positions turn liquid ?
Absolutely.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000.
To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
hmmm. Not exactly dropping like a stone. If you assume a bank normally rotates money on a 3 to 5 year cycle we should be seeing some of these positions unwinding. I can only assume from the static nature of the data the taxpayer is on the hook continuously or there are bigger problems lurking in balance sheets.
The figures include the rising PSND ex debt (100 bn added per year) so the underlying figures for the bank groups are better than the headline figures suggest. Also there are so many counter-intuitive classification rules in the National Accounts for the treatment of financial interventions that the figures don't really do much more than give us an overall snapshot.
Good point on the rest of the debt rising so the underlying on banks is falling but really the numbers should be going down faster.
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
The banks have all informed the PRA that they will be able to meet the new capital requirements without having to issue new equity and mostly by avoiding CoCos (loan capital convertible to equity in the event of capital falling below regulatory requirements).
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more of it in the autumn.
sure but that sort of raises the question why do they need £1.2 trn of state guarantees ?
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
Ah, I see. There is no formal guarantee of the banks net liabilities (afaik), although obviously the mere fact the banks were bailed out implies a de facto guarantee.
What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down,
I understood the guarantee to be a govt worse case view of certain bank debts from the crisis. Nobody seriously expects it all to go bad but clearly a percentage will. Frankly we'd just be safer clearing the bad loans up and returning to normal banking. Although it might cost us, it's still probably less than having the economy stuck in first gear and dribbling the bad news over a decade.
Agree fully and that is what will be happening over the next year.
The complications are really only political. How much competition do we want in the retail banking market (TSB spin off, splitting of RBoS divisions); the Scottish Independence outcome; and, the desire of certain government ministers to buy electoral support by 'democratising' share distribution.
LOL
now you're just having a laugh Avery. We need lots of competition in the sector and probably more mutuals; the sooner the oligopoly is broken up the better. I'm grumpy anyway today as a business I'd been trying to buy since feb I lost, banking not being helpful in getting over the line :-(
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?
So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?
So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !
You seem to be forgetting the Shi'ite Hezbollah, who are sworn enemies of Israel, seemingly backing Assad to the hilt, literally, on the battlefield.
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?
So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !
You seem to be forgetting the Shi'ite Hezbollah, who are sworn enemies of Israel, seemingly backing Assad to the hilt, literally, on the battlefield.
I am not forgetting anything. Assad is no threat to Israel. Israel has enough experience of him and his father. Why risk an Al-Qaeda led or backed regime ?
Also the premium fares! Take HS1, the current high-speed rail line from London St Pancras out to Kent
HS1 off-peak day return fare from St Pancras to Chatham (for example): 21.10
Normal off-peak day return fare from Victoria to Chatham: 17.70
Price is undoubtably a factor, but the other part is convenience. The problem of HS2 lines is that they have few intermediate stations, so provide few benefits to those who live near the lines, only those who live near the termini.
A new electrified line through the Chilterns to Birmingham, with stations along the way and good commuter services with WIFI would add to house prices along the route, rather than blight them. The turnaround in support in these areas would be dramatic.
Dan Hodges comparing Ed Miliband to a lizard was one of the most striking things today IMO. I wonder why he dislikes Ed so much? After all, his mother is the Labour MP for Hampstead & Highgate.
Syria. Cold War Proxy, Russian evacuations and Ed Miliband
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Strange bedfellows:
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Are you sure Israel really opposes the Assad regime ?
I don't think they'll be negotiating on the Golan for a while, do you?
So Israel will back a Sunni Islamist regime to Assad who will do absolutely zilch against Israel !
You seem to be forgetting the Shi'ite Hezbollah, who are sworn enemies of Israel, seemingly backing Assad to the hilt, literally, on the battlefield.
I am not forgetting anything. Assad is no threat to Israel. Israel has enough experience of him and his father. Why risk an Al-Qaeda led or backed regime ?
Assad backs Hezbollah who definitely are a threat!
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Quite incredible
Yeah, very gracious.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
now you're just having a laugh Avery. We need lots of competition in the sector and probably more mutuals; the sooner the oligopoly is broken up the better. I'm grumpy anyway today as a business I'd been trying to buy since feb I lost, banking not being helpful in getting over the line :-(
I am very sceptical about the willingness of retail banks to compete aggressively. Their first priority is always prudence (retail remember not investment!) and history tells us that those that fail are those which have stretched the bounds of competition too far (the Northern Rock 125% mortgage etc)
Consumers are also very conservative when buying bank services. Once a relationship is established (generally through family or student account) then they stay with the same bank for life, or at least an average of 15 years. This particularly applies to deposits where customers want brick and mortar brand name security rather than, say, high rates from foreign internet banks. This is not so much the case with loans - people are more prepared to borrow from anyone, anywhere - but supplier switching is still low relative to other industries.
Corporate banking through retail branches shares many of the same characteristics as personal banking, especially at the small business end. As business size grows then the need for more specialist services and providers develop. Handelsbanken is a good example of a bank which has entered this market successfully.
So I would put the emphasis more on getting the existing banking sector to function rather than trying to restructure it to make it less concentrated. I am also unconvinced by increasing the number of mutuals - the exceptions do work, e.g. Nationwide (and John Lewis in retailing) but partly because they are exceptions.
Still the UK retail banking sector is too concentrated and new banks do need to be formed but not as a first priority and not to excess.
Am I the only one thinking: couldn't we have slashed our annual EU contribution of 18 billion GBP by 11.5 billion, rather than make all these cuts at home?
They'd still be getting 6.5 billion GBP p.a. from us!
Am I the only one thinking: couldn't we have slashed our annual EU contribution of 18 billion GBP by 11.5 billion, rather than make all these cuts at home?
They'd still be getting 6.5 billion GBP p.a. from us!
You are the only one thinking. Our EU contribution is linked to VAT receipts. We can always cut the rate.
Am I the only one thinking: couldn't we have slashed our annual EU contribution of 18 billion GBP by 11.5 billion, rather than make all these cuts at home?
They'd still be getting 6.5 billion GBP p.a. from us!
You're probably not the only one thinking that, no.
I think we should build some tunnels of air to the moon to save the beetles, and I bet I'm not the only one either!
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Quite incredible
Yeah, very gracious.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!
Messiah Gove getting a good kicking from Chris Leslie on Newsnight
Paxo was even more amusing as Gove struggled and failed to convince that the so called 'welfare cap' was anything other than a gigantic and utterly pointless gimmick that only the likes of Osbrowne could have dreamed up. Possibly after a bad burger or pasty.
Am I the only one thinking: couldn't we have slashed our annual EU contribution of 18 billion GBP by 11.5 billion, rather than make all these cuts at home?
They'd still be getting 6.5 billion GBP p.a. from us!
You are the only one thinking. Our EU contribution is linked to VAT receipts. We can always cut the rate.
You're not saying it's better to cut services at home than to cut contributions to the EU?
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Quite incredible
Yeah, very gracious.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!
Pork, tim, Carl in a row.... That's 60p on the PB fruit machine!
You don't appear to have noticed that you posted before me. Never mind.
One day in the far distant future the media might give a sh*t what Farage thinks about the economy but certainly not today. You can always hope Osbrowne might throw NF a bone by banging on about Europe or immigration again since he has proved his stupidity by doing so before.
The Sun has a laugh at Fop Osborne's common touch attempt.
@suttonnick: Thursday's Sun front page - "Shamburger - Osborne 'fast food' came from posh diner" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/lk2RzskmQY
Wonder where it came from? I don't eat beef anymore but could go a nice burger after seeing The Sun front page... Gourmet Burger Kitchen? deliverance?
Messiah Gove getting a good kicking from Chris Leslie on Newsnight
Paxo was even more amusing as Gove struggled and failed to convince that the so called 'welfare cap' was anything other than a gigantic and utterly pointless gimmick that only the likes of Osbrowne could have dreamed up. Possibly after a bad burger or pasty.
The welfare cap was one of the two Eds first things on the blank sheet of paper.
With the three major parties behind it, it is very likely to be policy soon, though mostly to do with playing to the gallery. When push comes to shove it will be dropped or circumvented.
Pork, tim, Carl in a row.... That's 60p on the PB fruit machine!
You don't appear to have noticed that you posted before me. Never mind.
One day in the far distant future the media might give a sh*t what Farage thinks about the economy but certainly not today. You can always hope Osbrowne might throw NF a bone by banging on about Europe or immigration again since he has proved his stupidity by doing so before.
I confused you with Surbiton... Similar pic.
Although I should have known it wasn't you as the post didn't include those old ribticklers Osbrowne or Cammie!
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Quite incredible
Yeah, very gracious.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!
Um. Omnium, are you under the impression that PCS is affiliated to the Labour Party? Not only are they not, they've toyed with the idea of putting up candidates against us. PCS subscription contributions to Labour are £0.
I was, and I stand corrected. Thank you. So I guess they do have no influence over Labour policy - I apologise if I suggested they did. I was wrong, sorry.
Well done, not many of us say we were wrong quite as straightforwardly as that! Thanks.
I propose June 26th shall henceforth be known as Ominium Day on PB.
Quite incredible
Yeah, very gracious.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
Haha yes in all honesty most people you meet are aware of the basics in life, such as whether or not the PCS is affiliated to Labour!!
PB is a forum about politics, isn't it?
Haha yes it is...
& betting!
Even then most people wouldn't know about he PCS and Labour affiliation.
The old left wing trait of never acknowledging a rick is alive and well!
With respect to OGH I have rarely agreed with a thread header less and not for the reasons that many might think.
Yes, there was a clear political edge to the presentation of the spending review today but in economic terms this may well prove to be one of the most important days of this Parliament.
As Tim points out endlessly, and not particularly accurately, there has been a great deal of talk about austerity in this Parliament but almost no reality. Today we have seen the real thing and it is going to change this country in ways that many will not like.
The most obvious example is local government spending. Governments of all persuasions have been dumping statutory duties on LG for ever and this accelerated under the last government. There has been an increasing trend of LGs being held to account by the courts for these duties which were probably never intended to be more than good intentions.
Parliament is going to need to give this serious thought. Unless there is a major reduction in the statutory obligations of councils we are facing a wave of litigation because they cannot possibly do what they are legally obliged to do with these sorts of cuts.
So we will see fewer care homes, less funding of social care, less money for childrens services, fewer libraries, swimming pools, road repairs etc etc. And more claims.
The cap in spending is being treated as a gimmick. Well, legal aid has a cap. What happens at the end of each financial year is that legal aid does not get granted, accounts do not get paid, decisions are held over for the next financial year. Can we imagine a country where this applies to those wanting HB or JSA? Actually we don't need to imagine. Many southern EU countries are current examples of this.
Today was the day that austerity became real. To dismiss it as mere politics is to seriously misunderstand the situation.
The Sun has a laugh at Fop Osborne's common touch attempt.
@suttonnick: Thursday's Sun front page - "Shamburger - Osborne 'fast food' came from posh diner" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/lk2RzskmQY
Wonder where it came from? I don't eat beef anymore but could go a nice burger after seeing The Sun front page... Gourmet Burger Kitchen? deliverance?
Byrons I guess. Why he tweeted the photo god only knows, clueless fop must've surely known how fake Dave looks when he tries this man of the people crap.
Ridiculous, it only proves how out of touch they are and what fools they think the working class are
People don't mind genuine toffs, inverse snobbery isn't all that common amongst the working class
Comments
As position in which he can use the power which controlling money brings against his enemies within and without the Conservative party.
He has little understanding of or interest in the actual economic side of being Chancellor.
Hence his various attachments to whatever happens to be the current economic fashion and his tendancy to go missing when things are either difficult (eg in the immediate aftermath of the banking crash) or when a more political opportunity is available (eg his preference for political tourism in Washington to preparing the 2012 Budget).
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/political-campaign-ballot/updates-and-resources/guide-to-winning-the-political-campaign-ballot.cfm
*That was in March (year not stated); I wonder if the result is in.
Yes...as in
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mps-at-risk-as-union-plots-challenge-7902914.html
I think you are crazy
Nabavi and Avery versus the rest of PB. :-)
First Nadal, now Federer. Very surprised indeed.
Balls has been neutered, and the MODERATED are truly rattled.
Cameron needs to buck his idea's up,he came to Pmq's unprepared and he needs a strategy when miliband brings out the stats,asking the opposition leader what he would do,doesn't cut it.
[PS The PSND ex figure is consolidated gross debt and should be adjusted to a net figure (£632,854,000) to give a proper comparison. My mistake. The consolidated PSND figure (i.e. total gross debt) was £2,787,136,000 indicating that the banking groups' liquid assets were £666,605,000)].
(only kidding isam!)
But isn't bottle boy Milliband based now in the same place as Mensch? If so couldn't the two of them get together to create a critical mass of fawning vacuous mediocrity.
Provided, of course, that the impaired assets are correctly valued in the balance sheets, which is a reasonable assumption if we exclude black swan events. And if we allow sufficient time for RBoS Group to be restructured.
In fact PSND has been falling across this parliament meaning that Cameron would be technically correct in claiming that the government has reduced debt. Here are the figures in £'000. To be fair though, I am not convinced this is what Cameron had in mind when he made the claim.
This may seem a bit random, but I've noticed in the last few weeks that you have stopped posting the somewhat acid posts of the past. I'm pretty sure that I will disagree with much of what you may write now and in the future, but I'm now much happier to acknowledge the wise words when they occur (rarely.. obviously...). Anyway I apologise for any nonsense that I may have sourced, and in your somewhat revised guise I look forward to your posts.
@others; no chance of babies
"This is divisive politics, no doubt about it. But it's a game few play better than George Osborne."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/26/george-osborne?CMP=twt_fd
Two problems:
1) It would involve a great deal more properties as housing congregated around the lines, especially near stations. For instance, look at the WCML through Berkhamsted or Leighton Buzzard.
2) The actual routes are designed for 1850s train speeds, not 2020 speeds. In other words, trains would not be able to go as fast due to curves. It would be a great help for capacity, but would not be a high-speed line. This was one of the reasons BR developed the APT, then abandoned it, gave the technology to the Italians, and then bought the Pendelinos from them twenty years later. :-(
Anyone talking about upgrading existing lines needs to answer how they will avoid the mess that was the WCML upgrade. Delivered late, at massively over budget, and with a much lower specification than planned, and involved the closure of many local stations. A £2.5 billion estimate soon became at least £9 billion, for relatively limited benefits including a 125 MPH line speed instead of 140 MPH.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/
It is exceptionally difficult and costly to upgrade a line whilst trains are running. Network Rail are about to start spending a whopping £250 million doing alterations at Stafford, including sorting out the Norton Bridge bottleneck. And that is for just a small part of the line.
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/First-stage-of-250m-Stafford-rail-improvements-begin-1d36.aspx
Get your money on Andy Murray
@DPJHodges thinks he's going to lose
LOL
You know a lot more about it than me.
I am not bothered about any of these rail projects, just thought that UKIPs proposals for the three lines in 2010 didnt necessarily contradict their opposition to HS2
Offloading Lloyds would make a massive difference. And provided the stock markets don't collapse through to 2015 this looks more likely to happen than not.
Perhaps RBoS could be given to Eck as an independence day present.
I hear that Hitchin Flyover along the ECML is open this week, so that outbound Cambridge Line trains can cross over without conflicting with London bound ECML trains. (Though for the moment, only certain outer suburban trains as far as Letchworth are currently using it).
Maybe I'm missing a trick, but if our banks need c. £25bn to restore their capital to health wouldn't we the nation be better putting it in as equity and removing £1.2trn of contingent liability ?
You really should see a good psychiatrist about your political fantasies.
Russia announced today that it had evacuated its personnel from Tartus port. The numbers were not great and the Russian Navy had been docking in Beirut for a while but the symbolism of the move cant be understated. Russia's official reason was to avoid a provocation against their troops. Whilst this is true, equally Putin knows that he is involved in a cold war style proxy fight with the collective West and Gulf States, who have to a greater or lesser degree turned on the arms taps again to the rebels, mainly around the critical city of Aleppo but fresh gear has turned up in the South too.
At this stage it is believed that its the Gulf states doing the buying and shipping and others who manage the logistics train. Some vagueness still surrounds the US role.
Another little sign that third party involvement has deepened is Ed Miliband's reported appearance at an NSC meeting in Downing Street. Opposition leaders don't get admitted too often.
Off the top of my head I can only think of Carberry (1 test) and Mark Butcher since 2000... there must be more...
Why would that be? Are descendents of West Indians choosing football over cricket now?
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/black-english-cricketers-are-extinct-fact-or-fiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMzC8p2LVMI
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6397.aspx
Israel, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood govt. in the Egypt opposing Assad
Iraqi Shi'ite (mostly) government supplying fuel to Assad
Iraqi Sunni rebels attacking fuel convoys from Iraq to Syria.
Get your money on Andy Murray
@DPJHodges thinks he's going to lose.
@janemerrick23
@DPJHodges in your eyes, are Murray and Miliband one and the same?
@DPJHodges
@janemerrick23 No. I think Andy Murray has more chance of becoming PM.
The problem is that meeting the new capital requirements out of profits is constraining their business operations. Banks are averse to lending which would disproportionately raise their capital requirements. Hence all the temporary 'pass-through' lending schemes being run by the Treasury and BoE,
The best solution would be for the BoE to buy out large chunks of the mortgage assets (particularly from the RBS-Halifax books). Such mortgages can be run down over term by the government (like the B&B and NR books) and because the central government controlled asset resolution companies are not taking deposits or undertaking new lending they fall outside regulatory capital requirements. The good stuff could even be securitised by the government if it wanted to bring forward cash flow and any residual losses could be charged back to the banks over time.
My guess is that this will be the magic that Carney brings to the BoE and we will be hearing more about it in the autumn.
if their capital base is firm then the guarantees aren't needed and the market should return to normal. I have the feeling you're telling me the banks are still in the critical ward and can only meet the latest requirements if the guarantees stay in place. So maybe they need £75bn, £25bn to meet capital requirements and £50bn to cover write offs.
As for Israel, they do not oppose Assad in this war. They dont like him but dont much like the thorns hiding in the alternative. The ideal for Israel is that this carries on but the more it does so the more likelihood of spillover. The overwhelming concern is not Assad or indeed the radical elements of the insurgency, its Hizbollah and Iranian influence which is now massive in the country with what in effect are their own military forces and locally raised but Iranian loyal militias.
Egypt will soon have enough problems of its own, that country is in danger of breaking down into chaos.
What the National Accounts record as debt is the net liabilities of all public sector corporations, so the £1.2 trn isn't a cash flow so much as a debt transfer. The equity subscription and other BoE liquidity interventions will have involved cash movements but nowhere near the topline figure of the net liabilities and most will now have been wound down.
Once sold the banks net liabilities will be recorded as private sector debt.
We do need to consider who we are building these trains for, and why. HS2 means that tracks need to be straighter, and the stations are not in cities (the Bham one is on the outskirts, and the East Midlands one is in Broxtowe). These will require either big car parks, or other transport to get there, such as extensions to the Nottingham tram. There is little point in getting from London to Nottingham in 65 minutes, then taking another 45 minutes to get to Nottingham centre. The existing Midlands Main line will get you from St Pancras to Nottingham in an hour and 40 minutes.
High Speed trains are less fuel efficient and more expensive to engineer. Fuel consumption rises with the square of speed due to air and rolling resistance, and can make few intermediate stops if they are to use their potental speed. They are simply not very green, except possibly compared with air travel, but in terms of air travel they are far more expensive compared with budget airlines, which, like it or not, are the competition.
HS2 is an expensive white elephant vanity project, rather like Concorde, which was never competitive against subsonic airliners. Invest in rail and rail lines by all means, but build more lines that actually have stations that people can get to easily, and make them slow enough to be fuel efficient and stop at enough places. Fit them with free wifi and tables so people can work on them. There is very little need for trains to go more than 100 mph in a country as small as ours. Not a glamour prospect, but selling a product that people want at a price that they can afford.
A police rookie was asked during an exam, "What would you do if you had to
arrest your own mother?"
He said, "Call for backup."
Also the premium fares! Take HS1, the current high-speed rail line from London St Pancras out to Kent
HS1 off-peak day return fare from St Pancras to Chatham (for example):
21.10
Normal off-peak day return fare from Victoria to Chatham:
17.70
The complications are really only political. How much competition do we want in the retail banking market (TSB spin off, splitting of RBoS divisions); the Scottish Independence outcome; and, the desire of certain government ministers to buy electoral support by 'democratising' share distribution.
now you're just having a laugh Avery. We need lots of competition in the sector and probably more mutuals; the sooner the oligopoly is broken up the better. I'm grumpy anyway today as a business I'd been trying to buy since feb I lost, banking not being helpful in getting over the line :-(
http://news.sky.com/story/1108055/earn-48k-as-a-lap-dancer-careers-advisers-say
Pole dancers coming here, taking our jobs...
A new electrified line through the Chilterns to Birmingham, with stations along the way and good commuter services with WIFI would add to house prices along the route, rather than blight them. The turnaround in support in these areas would be dramatic.
Quite incredible
Hodges has bills to pay like all of us.
He's found a market, the unquestioning and gullible, and it keeps him in work. Fair play to him.
Don't think anyone (apart from the aforementioned) take him seriously any more.
But a pretty basic thing to not know in the first place, let's be honest.
Makes you wonder how many on here simply regurgitate something they "know" to be true, though. Immigrants with cats or whatever.
LOL
now you're just having a laugh Avery. We need lots of competition in the sector and probably more mutuals; the sooner the oligopoly is broken up the better. I'm grumpy anyway today as a business I'd been trying to buy since feb I lost, banking not being helpful in getting over the line :-(
I am very sceptical about the willingness of retail banks to compete aggressively. Their first priority is always prudence (retail remember not investment!) and history tells us that those that fail are those which have stretched the bounds of competition too far (the Northern Rock 125% mortgage etc)
Consumers are also very conservative when buying bank services. Once a relationship is established (generally through family or student account) then they stay with the same bank for life, or at least an average of 15 years. This particularly applies to deposits where customers want brick and mortar brand name security rather than, say, high rates from foreign internet banks. This is not so much the case with loans - people are more prepared to borrow from anyone, anywhere - but supplier switching is still low relative to other industries.
Corporate banking through retail branches shares many of the same characteristics as personal banking, especially at the small business end. As business size grows then the need for more specialist services and providers develop. Handelsbanken is a good example of a bank which has entered this market successfully.
So I would put the emphasis more on getting the existing banking sector to function rather than trying to restructure it to make it less concentrated. I am also unconvinced by increasing the number of mutuals - the exceptions do work, e.g. Nationwide (and John Lewis in retailing) but partly because they are exceptions.
Still the UK retail banking sector is too concentrated and new banks do need to be formed but not as a first priority and not to excess.
They'd still be getting 6.5 billion GBP p.a. from us!
I think we should build some tunnels of air to the moon to save the beetles, and I bet I'm not the only one either!
*My mistake it was surbiton not Pork
One day in the far distant future the media might give a sh*t what Farage thinks about the economy but certainly not today. You can always hope Osbrowne might throw NF a bone by banging on about Europe or immigration again since he has proved his stupidity by doing so before.
With the three major parties behind it, it is very likely to be policy soon, though mostly to do with playing to the gallery. When push comes to shove it will be dropped or circumvented.
Although I should have known it wasn't you as the post didn't include those old ribticklers Osbrowne or Cammie!
Haha yes it is...
& betting!
Even then most people wouldn't know about he PCS and Labour affiliation.
The old left wing trait of never acknowledging a rick is alive and well!
Yes, there was a clear political edge to the presentation of the spending review today but in economic terms this may well prove to be one of the most important days of this Parliament.
As Tim points out endlessly, and not particularly accurately, there has been a great deal of talk about austerity in this Parliament but almost no reality. Today we have seen the real thing and it is going to change this country in ways that many will not like.
The most obvious example is local government spending. Governments of all persuasions have been dumping statutory duties on LG for ever and this accelerated under the last government. There has been an increasing trend of LGs being held to account by the courts for these duties which were probably never intended to be more than good intentions.
Parliament is going to need to give this serious thought. Unless there is a major reduction in the statutory obligations of councils we are facing a wave of litigation because they cannot possibly do what they are legally obliged to do with these sorts of cuts.
So we will see fewer care homes, less funding of social care, less money for childrens services, fewer libraries, swimming pools, road repairs etc etc. And more claims.
The cap in spending is being treated as a gimmick. Well, legal aid has a cap. What happens at the end of each financial year is that legal aid does not get granted, accounts do not get paid, decisions are held over for the next financial year. Can we imagine a country where this applies to those wanting HB or JSA? Actually we don't need to imagine. Many southern EU countries are current examples of this.
Today was the day that austerity became real. To dismiss it as mere politics is to seriously misunderstand the situation.
People don't mind genuine toffs, inverse snobbery isn't all that common amongst the working class
Have you run across Joni Nuutinen's work?
I have Barbarossa on my tablet, best £2.49 I have spent recently:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cloudworth.operationbarbarossa&hl=en