I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.
Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
Well I'm a leading activist in a London CLP - our membership is now about 225% of its May 2015 figure. We've emailed, them, invited them to meetings, generally tried to involve them and to what effect?
Our branch AGMs were much better attended - this is because everybody knew that momentum would try to remove existing officers. A task in which they failed miserably - their candidates were humiliated by 4-1 at the constituency AGM.
But otherwise the new members have done precisely nothing. They do not campaign, they are not involved, the number of activists is, if anything, lower than before.
The truth is that these people are not representative of the electorate, they have done nothing for the Party apart from foist Corbyn on us and the sooner they return whence they came the better for all of us.
FPT Controlling immigration is easy, you stop people entering the country.
Now you may decide that's not a good idea but its perfectly possible and not at all difficult to implement, plenty of countries do it. The EU is just a smokescreen, the govt could change policy this afternoon if it wished.
Which EU countries do it?
All of them. Start by realising Schengen visas aren't given out to all comers like public relations toffees.
Not sure how many times we have to repeat this. Schengen has absolutely nothing to do with the right to move between countries. It is only about not having to stop and show your documentation to someone at a border. So long as you are not on some list of undesirables (terrorists, criminals etc) whether you are in Schengen or not has sweet FA to do with freedom of movement.
Of course it has something to do with this. Freedom of movement only applied to EU citizens not all and sundry. If you're illegally in one Schengen nation you can get into all of them from there without ever passing another border security force. This delegates every nations border to the weakest link.
Crossing land borders in Europe - even before Schengen - has always been a pot of piss.
Not if you're the family Von Trapp.
It was rather easier for those seeking to detail the von Trapps.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Grayling in full flow at Vote Leave on BBC News 24.
Hard to believe Grayling was ex SDP
Equally hard to believe he is ex-BBC....I can't imagine he expressed his right wing views on criminal justice and anti-EU sentiment very loudly when he worked there.
Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
Not turning up for meetings is a different level of disinterest to not voting for a candidate. I am not sure what is new about OGH revelations.
If Labour's branch meetings are anything like Tory ones (and from a friend who was a Labour branch committee member until Corbyn was elected when he resigned his membership in disgust, I understand that they are), I can well sympathise with members not being too enthused by the experience.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.
Before Malcolm has an aneurysm, I've also dealt with a lot of lovely Edinburgh cab drivers.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?
Paedos and Perjury: We Shadowed the Man Behind the Salacious @CourtNewsUK Twitter Account
"You don't see national newspaper reporters turn up for many trials now at all. At the end of the Hatton Garden trial, for example, there wasn't one national newspaper reporter present when they were convicted."
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Just a bit of bants....
The irony is, I was what 33 at the time, I've been to Saudi Arabia twice in my life, and absolutely hated it each time.
Too bloody hot, and far too Muslims enforcing religious laws.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?
Although - of course - they have no control over that. Despite printing massive amounts of money, the Yen remains stubbornly expensive.
Their influence is greatly exaggerated IMO. In my experience their organisational efforts are amatuerish in the extreme and they antagonise long standing members by adopting an air of moral superiority and entitlement. The key footsoldiers in any party are its Councillors - they effectively control branches in many cases - and most Councillors strongly oppose momentum as it threatens them with deselection.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.
Their influence is greatly exaggerated IMO. In my experience their organisational efforts are amatuerish in the extreme and they antagonise long standing members by adopting an air of moral superiority and entitlement. The key footsoldiers in any party are its Councillors - they effectively control branches in many cases - and most Councillors strongly oppose momentum as it threatens them with deselection.
"Privacy" of conversations that the monarch holds with politicians is such a load of crap.
If she's being neutral in public but backing one side in private, is it wrong in some way to reveal her dishonesty?
Has the person who reveals it been a naughty boy? Can't any public person in this country whip up the guts to criticise their beloved hereditary monarch? Anyone got a paper bag?
FWIW I think this is a case of HM asking critical questions of her privvy council on the EU, and this was back in the depths of the eurozone crisis in 2011, rather than declaring one way or another.
Exactly. The Sun Editor was wriggling furiously on R4 Today this morning refusing to answer whether the queen's comments were made after the referendum was called - describing the question as 'semantics' - so I think we know the answer to that one then.....
He made a great comment about Clegg being 'up on his hind legs'.
Wriggling furiously wasn't how I'd have described it - I thought he gave a robust defence, but we all bring our own views to the table.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.
You do know that Uber drivers are vetted to exactly the same extent as mini cab drivers, with special insurance, etc?
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.
We were very long-term shareholders, but we left the party last year. Great bank, just a little expensive.
Would the best bank in the world be on Fleet Street?
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?
Clearly you've never been to Sweden. Your description is entirely accurate.
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.
You do know that Uber drivers are vetted to exactly the same extent as mini cab drivers, with special insurance, etc?
I wasn't comparing them to mini cab drivers. But to cabbies. I never use minicabs. Too many poor experiences.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.
If I were choosing 3 people for Leave I'd have Dan Hannan, Kate Hoey and Priti Patel.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.
Then they lend it on to the ECB at negative rates? Somehow doesn;t sound like a good business model....
Will negative interest rates work? They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.
We were very long-term shareholders, but we left the party last year. Great bank, just a little expensive.
Would the best bank in the world be on Fleet Street?
Selling beer? The old Cheshire Cheese is not bad either
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
you would have thought an investment like that would require a return of some kind....!!
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.
Then they lend it on to the ECB at negative rates? Somehow doesn;t sound like a good business model....
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules. Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No. Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City. Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out. Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked? Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid. Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever. Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.
Heh.
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.
Fwiw Edinburgh & Glasgow allow Uber.
Ahh many thanks - not last time I was there but I see they launched in November last year.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.
Osborne in front of an audience of 12,500. What could possibly go wrong? (Other than booing, cat calls and urine filled plastic bottles flying towards the stage).
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?
Students have forced Cambridge University to cancel an Around The World In 80 Days-themed event over fears that people will wear racially offensive costumes.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.
Another fellow traveller of the terrorist sympathizer movement....
"Hardy supported Irish nationalist Róisín McAliskey, the then-pregnant daughter of Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, when the former was accused of involvement in an IRA mortar attack in Germany, and put up part of the bail money to free her"
Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
Not turning up for meetings is a different level of disinterest to not voting for a candidate. I am not sure what is new about OGH revelations.
If Labour's branch meetings are anything like Tory ones (and from a friend who was a Labour branch committee member until Corbyn was elected when he resigned his membership in disgust, I understand that they are), I can well sympathise with members not being too enthused by the experience.
When I was an MP, I once persuaded my wife, who was a passive party member, to come to a General Committee meeting, and was pleased that it was unusually lively and varied. Afterwards, I eagerly asked what she thought.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Which sounds bad until you consider the alternatives and the track record of these organisations in not returning the money on demand (within the terms of the loan agreement).
Not entirely true about being unsecured either, given the FSCS provisions.
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
I see The Donald has done an interview with Anderson Cooper, where tried his best to appear moderate, to seem less aggressive, and reach out for the Muslim vote....who am I trying to kid...
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.
Banks don't have to charge - If you go overdrawn you get penalised massively. If you are in credit then the bank pays you 0.5% a year on your balance and, thanks to the wonders of fractional reserve banking, can lend money at the equivalent of 75% interest of the money you have in. It's a good margin and not well known by the general public.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.
"See, they hate me..."
I've just backed Rubio in D.C. at 4.77 for £8.
Looks enormous off the back of the Northern Virginia results.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Won't make any difference, they'll 100% go for Marco.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.
"See, they hate me..."
I've just backed Rubio in D.C. at 4.77 for £8.
Looks enormous off the back of the Northern Virginia results.
Except Rubio has had wall-to-wall bad press since. Sure, so has Trump, but still...
I think 4.77 is right - can't say I'd lay at that.
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
GP also says:- "All 9 of Virgin Islands delegates to the National Convention delegates are elected in today's Presidential caucus."
However, we'll have to wait wait and see. It wouldn't surprise me if it changes.
One thing I can say is that the general erasure of the SDs has benefited/will benefit Trump to the tune of about 60 delegates...
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.
Nonsense
George has abolished boom and bust you know.
You really are pathetic. And transparent in your bigotry. Only recently Osborne warned that the UK faces a 'cocktail of threats'. One of them is you.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.
The BBC is very pro-Europe - they get quite a lot of funding. Also: by the debate either Vote Leave (Johnson/ Smith) or Grassroots Out (Farage/ Galloway) will be the official leave campaign.
If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.
Why?
It will damage the Leave campaign and his chance of becoming PM. Boris is the main talisman of the centre for the Leave campaign, putting him on stage with these two chumps would be a disaster.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
REMAIN will walk this with anyone other that committed BREXITERS. That line up will get virtually every Labour, Lib Dem, Green Tory voter lined up in the REMAIN camp.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.
Nonsense
George has abolished boom and bust you know.
You really are pathetic. And transparent in your bigotry. Only recently Osborne warned that the UK faces a 'cocktail of threats'. One of them is you.
Wow, just read that Draghi didn't rule out helicopter money. Seems absolutely insane on the face of it. Surely we'd be looking at Germxit if the ECB started printing money and giving it to people.
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?
You think they're both competent and honest???
Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.
Definitely competent. No comments about anything else.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
Apart from Gove who would have a better claim to be speaking for the BREXITERS?
Delighted Alan Johnson is on the panel, the PB Tories will rubbish him but he has a lot of capital with centre left voters.
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?
GP implies they are all to be pledged now. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
Apart from Gove who would have a better claim to be speaking for the BREXITERS?
Delighted Alan Johnson is on the panel, the PB Tories will rubbish him but he has a lot of capital with centre left voters.
Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom, Gove and Boris would be my panel of choice.
If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.
Why?
It will damage the Leave campaign and his chance of becoming PM. Boris is the main talisman of the centre for the Leave campaign, putting him on stage with these two chumps would be a disaster.
That's an interesting view.
I like Boris, he's entertaining, I can't abide Galloway but I'd be interested in why he wants to Leave.
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
REMAIN will walk this with anyone other that committed BREXITERS. That line up will get virtually every Labour, Lib Dem, Green Tory voter lined up in the REMAIN camp.
I will always remain a leaver, but there must be someway the Galloway can be put somewhere and rot. Farage's invitation for Galloway to come to the podium ( a surprise it was called ) was stupid beyond words.
Comments
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/yeah-youre-making-me-a-crazy-chick
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Our branch AGMs were much better attended - this is because everybody knew that momentum would try to remove existing officers. A task in which they failed miserably - their candidates were humiliated by 4-1 at the constituency AGM.
But otherwise the new members have done precisely nothing. They do not campaign, they are not involved, the number of activists is, if anything, lower than before.
The truth is that these people are not representative of the electorate, they have done nothing for the Party apart from foist Corbyn on us and the sooner they return whence they came the better for all of us.
This chap was an exception to the norm
"You don't see national newspaper reporters turn up for many trials now at all. At the end of the Hatton Garden trial, for example, there wasn't one national newspaper reporter present when they were convicted."
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/court-news-uk-courtroom-reporting
Too bloody hot, and far too Muslims enforcing religious laws.
So Momentum is grinding to shuddering halt?
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
That's flannel aimed at buttering up cabbies. Not the same at all.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/brand-accounts-are-being-run-by-aspiring-comedians
https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/707929762900144128
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
Would the best bank in the world be on Fleet Street?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
The old Cheshire Cheese is not bad either
What a chump agreeing to go and get Brillo'ed. 5 mins in, is when it gets good.
TBH, he sounds like just Jahadi Jez in his responses to difficult questions about terrorist sympathizing.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
I can see him STORMING through the primaries in the US Virgin Islands, Guam and Washington DC. Eat your heart out, The Donald.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules.
Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No.
Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City.
Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
Look at the benefits of the Union!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485738/Cambridge-University-cancel-World-80-Days-theme-party-case-students-dress-offensive-costumes-cultures.html
SAFE SPACE SAFEEEEEE SPACEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Another fellow traveller of the terrorist sympathizer movement....
"Hardy supported Irish nationalist Róisín McAliskey, the then-pregnant daughter of Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, when the former was accused of involvement in an IRA mortar attack in Germany, and put up part of the bail money to free her"
"Are they ALWAYS as f***ing awful as that?"
She never attended another.
"See, they hate me..."
Not entirely true about being unsecured either, given the FSCS provisions.
Mr. Urquhart, Cambridge and the whiners are pathetic.
Incidentally, those who rail against that sort of thing may very well enjoy forthcoming book The Adventures of Sir Edric, by Thaddeus White (me). Hardback pre-order's up here [no e-book pre-order yet]:
http://shop.ticketyboopress.co.uk/index.php?id_product=97&controller=product
Another fine mess.
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us'
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/
https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/707656048946102272
Looks enormous off the back of the Northern Virginia results.
Just bizarre these primaries, and they get such large number of delegates.
I think 4.77 is right - can't say I'd lay at that.
George has abolished boom and bust you know.
However, we'll have to wait wait and see. It wouldn't surprise me if it changes.
One thing I can say is that the general erasure of the SDs has benefited/will benefit Trump to the tune of about 60 delegates...
Only recently Osborne warned that the UK faces a 'cocktail of threats'. One of them is you.
And thinking of Cromwell
Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.
Delighted Alan Johnson is on the panel, the PB Tories will rubbish him but he has a lot of capital with centre left voters.
On the assumption Trump gains nothing from their inclusion, if they weren't in it he'd need 30 fewer delegates from elsewhere in order to win.
I like Boris, he's entertaining, I can't abide Galloway but I'd be interested in why he wants to Leave.