politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Voters old enough to remember WW2 the least likely to be at

SystemSystem Posts: 12,265
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Voters old enough to remember WW2 the least likely to be attracted by Mr. Corbyn and his party

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    edited September 2016
    First!
    File under "No sh1t, Sherlock", that those who remember the Labour Party of the 1970s don't want Corbyn and his ilk anywhere near the levers of power again.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Second. Like the Labour Party. If they're lucky.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm afraid the age group splits aren't showing for me in the thread header.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,963
    So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    edited September 2016
    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Essexit said:

    So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.

    Labour only just made it past 30% under EdM. I reckon they're in 1983 election territory now.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    I suppose that means that youngsters don't want the country to be united.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,450
    Clearly most voters need more time to be "educated" to support Jezza.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,450
    Black_Rook said:

    Essexit said:

    So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.

    Labour only just made it past 30% under EdM. I reckon they're in 1983 election territory now.
    1918 surely? ;)
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    GIN1138 said:

    Clearly most voters need more time to be "educated" to support Jezza.

    Would we be allowed a choice of the paddy fields or the salt mines then?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    Corbynism sweeping the nation.....

    And we know even young Labourites prefer Owen Thingy to Jezza...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,039
    What's baffling to me is that both Corbyn and McDonnell are old enough to know perfectly well that the ideas they are promoting simply don't work.

    I strongly suspect that they haven't been paying attention. For many, many years.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Corbynism sweeping the nation.....

    And we know even young Labourites prefer Owen Thingy to Jezza...

    Owen Jones?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786
    FPT: Max, I'm in a position that I could create a service company. At what sort of money does it become worthwhile?

    Usually about 30k or so the savings are worthwhile. you can utilitise spouses allowances and income as well to make savings. Depends on circumstances
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited September 2016
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Corbynism sweeping the nation.....

    As long as the nation is North Korea. In fairness the 65+ May v Corbyn bar chart does look not far off the sort of poll rating I guess they'd approve of in Pyongyang (!)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,386
    edited September 2016
    HYUFD said:

    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell

    I'd hazard a guess that after the concerted campaign waged by the British press and Churchill to persuade the public that cuddly Uncle Joe was our staunchest ally, many of them would harbour positive feelings for Josip Vissarionovich. And not just the Kippers.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Fpt re service companies. If one is in a position where they could use a service company. What sort of money do you need to earn to make it worthwhile?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786
    FPT: Corporation tax is irrelevant because the shareholder dosent pay it. You might as well claim the real basic rate of income tax is 45.8% by including employers NI as wel as employees.

    It utterly is revelent as the shareholders do pay the corporation tax out of their profits.

    You clearly don't understand how the tax system works.....
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    GIN1138 said:

    Black_Rook said:

    Essexit said:

    So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.

    Labour only just made it past 30% under EdM. I reckon they're in 1983 election territory now.
    1918 surely? ;)
    They won't die off that easily. Even if worn down to 25% of the vote (and I don't think they'll do significantly worse than that, unless there's eventually a split in which case all bets are off,) then Labour should still be good for at least 150 seats, even post-boundary reform.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,769
    What this chart does is tell Corbyn who to target. If he's clever, that is.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Slackbladder said:

    FPT: Max, I'm in a position that I could create a service company. At what sort of money does it become worthwhile?

    Usually about 30k or so the savings are worthwhile. you can utilitise spouses allowances and income as well to make savings. Depends on circumstances

    Thanks for the info
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Slackbladder said:

    FPT: Corporation tax is irrelevant because the shareholder dosent pay it. You might as well claim the real basic rate of income tax is 45.8% by including employers NI as wel as employees.

    It utterly is revelent as the shareholders do pay the corporation tax out of their profits.

    You clearly don't understand how the tax system works.....

    Those who rail against an unfair tax system are generally unaware of how it works. Mr B has not disabused me of this impression.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    Theuniondivvie said:

    HYUFD said:

    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell

    I'd hazard a guess that after the concerted campaign waged by the British press and Churchill to persuade the public that cuddly Uncle Joe was our staunchest ally, many of them would harbour positive feelings for Josip Vissarionovich. And not just the Kippers.
    McDonnell has already declared himself an admirer of Mao, Stalin cannot be too far off!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    edited September 2016
    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    HYUFD said:

    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell

    I'd hazard a guess that after the concerted campaign waged by the British press and Churchill to persuade the public that cuddly Uncle Joe was our staunchest ally, many of them would harbour positive feelings for Josip Vissarionovich. And not just the Kippers.
    McDonnell has already declared himself an admirer of Mao, Stalin cannot be too far off!
    Given Putin's defence of retaining statues of Stalin by comparing him with Cromwell I think UKIP are more likely to be the ones favourable to Uncle Joe.

    Labour prefer another European dictator of the same vintage.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Jonathan said:

    What this chart does is tell Corbyn who to target. If he's clever, that is.

    LOL.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,334
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    Fpt re service companies. If one is in a position where they could use a service company. What sort of money do you need to earn to make it worthwhile?

    It makes more sense for married couples which allows for both tax allowances to be used against a single income.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Jonathan said:

    What this chart does is tell Corbyn who to target. If he's clever, that is.

    True, but then the Shad Chancellor has (if my understanding is right - I've not seen his speech only second hand reports) spent the morning saying he's going to tax the "holders of wealth".

    Well take me: Not born with a silver spoon in my mouth by any means at all (not even slightly), have spent three decades working (in manufacturing) and saving my way to some sort of equity in a house and something put by in a pension and savings, never inherited cumulatively anything that would buy more than a third hand hatchback, and yet I am clearly in his sights. Not exactly much carrot for me is there?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,334
    Slackbladder said:

    FPT: Corporation tax is irrelevant because the shareholder dosent pay it. You might as well claim the real basic rate of income tax is 45.8% by including employers NI as wel as employees.

    It utterly is revelent as the shareholders do pay the corporation tax out of their profits.

    You clearly don't understand how the tax system works.....

    Indeed, the changes to dividend taxation is what put me off bothering with a service company, once you add up corporation tax and the top higher rate of dividend tax, it's not worth it until £100k when allowance withdrawal kicks in.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Unless there has been a material change of approach by the relevant authorities, it's no more than the opening bid. Look at approach taken with other financial institutions.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Black_Rook said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Black_Rook said:

    Essexit said:

    So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.

    Labour only just made it past 30% under EdM. I reckon they're in 1983 election territory now.
    1918 surely? ;)
    They won't die off that easily. Even if worn down to 25% of the vote (and I don't think they'll do significantly worse than that, unless there's eventually a split in which case all bets are off,) then Labour should still be good for at least 150 seats, even post-boundary reform.
    I agree - they've a huge sticky vote.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,334
    edited September 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Yes, markets are down by over 1.5% across Europe. Though one imagines this is just a holding position until September next year and after the election Deutsche will get €40-50bn in taxpayer funds.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Yes, markets are down by over 1.5% across Europe. Though one imagines this is just a holding position until September next year and after the election Deutsche will get €40-50bn in taxpayer funds.
    Do you think they'll pay the full US DoJ fine ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    edited September 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Yes, markets are down by over 1.5% across Europe. Though one imagines this is just a holding position until September next year and after the election Deutsche will get €40-50bn in taxpayer funds.
    Do you think they'll pay the full US DoJ fine ?
    Won't the Septics pull their US banking licence if they don't?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    HYUFD said:

    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell

    I'd hazard a guess that after the concerted campaign waged by the British press and Churchill to persuade the public that cuddly Uncle Joe was our staunchest ally, many of them would harbour positive feelings for Josip Vissarionovich. And not just the Kippers.
    McDonnell has already declared himself an admirer of Mao, Stalin cannot be too far off!
    Point of Order: McD was suggesting that Osborne was an admirer of Mao. Hence he offered him a copy of the Little Red Book.

    (Of course, some may wonder why McD just happened to own a copy....)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    Nein
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Fox
    New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    So Corbyn's hope is the 18-24s, huh? The ones who don't vote much. And when they did vote in the Labour election, preferred Owen Jones.

    Heart of stone not to collapse in giggles....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    “The worry that I have is this suggestion of £500bn. I mean, that’s an awful lot of either borrowing or extra taxation. In order to raise it you’d have to double income tax. You’d have to double National Insurance. You’d have to double council tax. And you’d have to double VAT as well.”

    Says well known Tory...Former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Marcher Lord
    These two wanted the IRA to win. Never forget. #Lab16 https://t.co/uutWiHA3Gq
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    MaxPB said:

    Slackbladder said:

    FPT: Corporation tax is irrelevant because the shareholder dosent pay it. You might as well claim the real basic rate of income tax is 45.8% by including employers NI as wel as employees.

    It utterly is revelent as the shareholders do pay the corporation tax out of their profits.

    You clearly don't understand how the tax system works.....

    Indeed, the changes to dividend taxation is what put me off bothering with a service company, once you add up corporation tax and the top higher rate of dividend tax, it's not worth it until £100k when allowance withdrawal kicks in.
    Whatever happened with the changes in service company expenses, did that idiocy get put on hold in the end?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296
    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    HYUFD said:

    More like voters old enough to remember Stalin the least likely to be attracted to Corbyn and McDonnell

    I'd hazard a guess that after the concerted campaign waged by the British press and Churchill to persuade the public that cuddly Uncle Joe was our staunchest ally, many of them would harbour positive feelings for Josip Vissarionovich. And not just the Kippers.
    McDonnell has already declared himself an admirer of Mao, Stalin cannot be too far off!
    Point of Order: McD was suggesting that Osborne was an admirer of Mao. Hence he offered him a copy of the Little Red Book.

    (Of course, some may wonder why McD just happened to own a copy....)
    Osborne's remark about it being McDonnell's very own signed copy was genuinely funny, especially as Osborne made it up on the spot.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    PlatoSaid said:

    Marcher Lord
    These two wanted the IRA to win. Never forget. #Lab16 https://t.co/uutWiHA3Gq

    Has the IRA lost?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,928
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Yes, markets are down by over 1.5% across Europe. Though one imagines this is just a holding position until September next year and after the election Deutsche will get €40-50bn in taxpayer funds.
    The DB denial is fantastically specific: At no point John Cryan has asked Chancellor Merkel to intervene in the RMBS issue with the US Department of Justice.

    So, what about other members of DB's management team? And what about other members of the German government? And note that the denial is about the RMBS issue...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    Fox
    New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp

    Not much sign of swing back to Hilary....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,423
    McDonnell's speech is the first serious policy statement I have heard from the Corbynista faction. Jeremy Corbyn is often accused of not caring whether he wins elections or not. This could be a realisation that performance does matter and that they have to reach out beyond the true believers.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    If Corbyn/McDonnell actually got into power, the smartest people in this country will be queuing at the airport, waiting to leave.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,928
    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,571
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    “The worry that I have is this suggestion of £500bn. I mean, that’s an awful lot of either borrowing or extra taxation. In order to raise it you’d have to double income tax. You’d have to double National Insurance. You’d have to double council tax. And you’d have to double VAT as well.”

    Says well known Tory...Former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie.

    Actually I believe the full policy is to spend £350bn, with the rest to come from multiplier effects etc.

    But the real point is, who cares? Trump is showing you don't need to bother with pesky facts or details, and with interest rates flatlining globally, there's a smidgeon of plausibility to the idea of a mass splurge on the never-never.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,928
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She's looking to secure vital cocaine for the UK market?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,571
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    Obviously seeking a FTA, since everyone else has told us to get to the back of the queue.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    rcs1000 said:

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.

    The failure of so many people to understand this most basic fact is astonishing, and very worrying.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    I'd certainly hope I wasn't, I'm not taking only 4 or 5% interest at TSB and Lloyds for FSCS protection to be null and void :)
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    Slackbladder said:

    FPT: Corporation tax is irrelevant because the shareholder dosent pay it. You might as well claim the real basic rate of income tax is 45.8% by including employers NI as wel as employees.

    It utterly is revelent as the shareholders do pay the corporation tax out of their profits.

    You clearly don't understand how the tax system works.....

    No they dont. Those who are given them free might effectively do so, but if I buy shares the lower dividend caused by corporation tax is reflected in a lower buying price, so corporation tax is irrelevant.

    Whatever the complications of Osbornes changes it is still the case that someone living off £30k coming from the dividends of shares he inherited is still paying a fraction of the tax someone who earns £30k by working. Both because the income tax rate is lower and the former dosent pay 12% NI.

    That is utterly iniquitous.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    PlatoSaid said:

    Fox
    New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp

    Latest RCP projection has Clinton 272, Trump 266 in terms of electoral college votes.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    Because - although our Govt. will no doubt deny it - we had plenty of undercover SAS operatives in that country.... I once chatted to one who told me he had been round Escobar's famous hacienda.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2016
    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,112
    edited September 2016
    Thornberry really is a moronic idiot. On the radio today, and currently on R5 she is proving this every time she opens her mouth.

    I really do think she believes she is at an Islington dinner party, rather than Shadow FS.

    FFS.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    FARC knows.

    I'll get my coat...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296
    edited September 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,386
    edited September 2016
    Military manoeuvres.

    'Clive Lewis makes U-turn on Trident replacement'

    http://tinyurl.com/hqp7jdx

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Alanbrooke said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?
    I know someone on that visit.

    It's actually Brexit related.

    The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.

    Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    TOPPING said:

    Thornberry really is a moronic idiot. On the radio today, and currently on R5 she is proving this every time she opens her mouth.

    I really do think she believes she is at an Islington dinner party, rather than Shadow FS.

    FFS.

    One of my better results for next Labour leader. I think she's in as good a position as anyone for it (Except for lacking some equipment...)
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    rcs1000 said:

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.

    The failure of so many people to understand this most basic fact is astonishing, and very worrying.
    Banks = evil vampires. Obvious, innit.

    Also bonuses = evil (unless it's not a bank bonus, in which case they're just hunky dory).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,928
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    I'd certainly hope I wasn't, I'm not taking only 4 or 5% interest at TSB and Lloyds for FSCS protection to be null and void :)
    That is a separate matter between you and the FSCS. You are an unsecured creditor.

    ALso don't forget, the FSCS doesn't cover businesses. If your employer has its cash at Lloyds (and it goes bust), or your employer's biggest customer keeps its bank balances there, you are unlikely to get paid this month.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    Gardenwalker said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    “The worry that I have is this suggestion of £500bn. I mean, that’s an awful lot of either borrowing or extra taxation. In order to raise it you’d have to double income tax. You’d have to double National Insurance. You’d have to double council tax. And you’d have to double VAT as well.”

    Says well known Tory...Former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie.

    Actually I believe the full policy is to spend £350bn, with the rest to come from multiplier effects etc.

    But the real point is, who cares? Trump is showing you don't need to bother with pesky facts or details, and with interest rates flatlining globally, there's a smidgeon of plausibility to the idea of a mass splurge on the never-never.
    That's completely bonkers economics, a 50% uplift in tax take if they're not just going to print it and be like Zimbabwe.

    Imagine VAT at 26.5%, income tax at 30% and 60%, Employer NI at 18%, corp tax at 30%, stamp duty, council tax, petrol up 40p a litre, sin taxes all up 50%. Who wouldn't emigrate?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    Look at the "How the odds have changed" chart on that page....the Maomentum is all with The Donald....I am starting to get worried.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,423
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    Probably standing in for Theresa May and Boris Johnson has opted out as well. I suspect this one isn't seen as plum trip.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    The stress on Hillary going into tonight's debate must be immense.
  • vikvik Posts: 159
    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    On the now-cast, it's

    Trump 54.9%
    Clinton 45.1%

    :)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    Sandpit said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    “The worry that I have is this suggestion of £500bn. I mean, that’s an awful lot of either borrowing or extra taxation. In order to raise it you’d have to double income tax. You’d have to double National Insurance. You’d have to double council tax. And you’d have to double VAT as well.”

    Says well known Tory...Former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie.

    Actually I believe the full policy is to spend £350bn, with the rest to come from multiplier effects etc.

    But the real point is, who cares? Trump is showing you don't need to bother with pesky facts or details, and with interest rates flatlining globally, there's a smidgeon of plausibility to the idea of a mass splurge on the never-never.
    That's completely bonkers economics, a 50% uplift in tax take if they're not just going to print it and be like Zimbabwe.

    Imagine VAT at 26.5%, income tax at 30% and 60%, Employer NI at 18%, corp tax at 30%, stamp duty, council tax, petrol up 40p a litre, sin taxes all up 50%. Who wouldn't emigrate?
    Non-working vegan tee totallers who only cycle because they object to the use of cars based upon the damage they are doing to the worlds environment....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,928
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: a few Malaysian markets up. No safety car as yet (I'll check the No Safety Car odds).

    I suspect it'll be, like Monza, a clear 1-2 for Mercedes. Ferrari should be next best.

    Interesting to see whether Hamilton can recover. Can't blame him for not winning in Belgium, given he started more or less last, but recently Rosberg's been driving very well.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The failure of so many people to understand this most basic fact is astonishing, and very worrying. ''

    Given what Central banks have done with interest rates, its only amazing that banks have any depositors left.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    Sounds like the whole system is a touch rickety to me.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?
    I know someone on that visit.

    It's actually Brexit related.

    The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.

    Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,
    "to butter them up"

    so it's like last Tango in Paris then ?

    In that case the President of Colombia has my sympathy
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    vik said:

    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    On the now-cast, it's

    Trump 54.9%
    Clinton 45.1%

    :)
    Aren't you suppose to shout Bingo Cross-Over before posting that?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    williamglenn said:

    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    The stress on Hillary going into tonight's debate must be immense.
    I'd put it at about 10/1 that she's going to faint, or at least need a little sit down.

    pressure + tv lighting heat + age + recovery from pneumonia = wobbly legs
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Princeton Electoral Consortium still has it for Hillary

    As of September 26, 8:04AM EDT:
    Snapshot (147 state polls): Clinton 291, Trump 247 EV Meta-margin: Clinton +1.4%
    RSS
    Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift 68%, Bayesian 79%

    Big swing to Trump there though.
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    You do realise that if RBS went bust, it was so large - several times UK GDP- it would have taken every UK bank with it, and every building society and ALL teh credit cards /brank debit cards/direct debits/standing orders which you rely on would not happen.

    And you could not get get cash out of a hole in the wall cash machine, as they would ALL be closed..


    Even Richard Murphy agrees.. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/08/should-we-just-let-the-baks-go-bust/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    Doesn't it come down to the too big to fail problem? In the US a long list of banks were closed and received during the financial crisis with no systemic issues.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2016
    tlg86 said:

    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.

    Blimey.

    RBS accounted for about 20% of UK banking. On your suggestion, that means in very rough terms one in five businesses would immediately be unable to pay salaries or pay creditors, and would be bankrupt. Thats means that another large chunk of companies would also be at risk of bankruptcy. The entire UK economy would have collapsed.

    This isn't difficult stuff, surely?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    I know somewhere you can put it if you want to.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: a few Malaysian markets up. No safety car as yet (I'll check the No Safety Car odds).

    I suspect it'll be, like Monza, a clear 1-2 for Mercedes. Ferrari should be next best.

    Interesting to see whether Hamilton can recover. Can't blame him for not winning in Belgium, given he started more or less last, but recently Rosberg's been driving very well.

    Interestingly, Betfair have both Mercs odds-against. Lewis is 2.2 and Nico 2.8. Bet on those and hope they don't crash into each other again!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall. ''

    I thought banks were no longer 'too big to fail'.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    tlg86 said:

    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.

    Blimey.

    RBS accounted for about 20% of UK banking. On your suggestion, that means in very rough terms one in five businesses would immediately be unable to pay salaries or pay creditors, and would be bankrupt. Thats means that another large chunk of companies would also be at risk of bankruptcy. The entire UK economy would have collapsed.

    This isn't difficult stuff, surely?
    The difficult stuff is more why didnt we break the too big to fail monolith up ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?
    I know someone on that visit.

    It's actually Brexit related.

    The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.

    Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,
    "to butter them up"

    so it's like last Tango in Paris then ?

    In that case the President of Colombia has my sympathy
    Exactly, except with less x rated fornication.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.
  • wasdwasd Posts: 276
    SeanT said:

    vik said:

    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    On the now-cast, it's

    Trump 54.9%
    Clinton 45.1%

    :)
    Donald Trump is one realtime televised Hillary Clinton coughing fit from the presidency of the United States.
    There's been another shooting in Texas. Unfortunately this might be what does it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited September 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.
    That's thanks to the EU right?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,112
    edited September 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Indeed

    Danny Shaw
    I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?

    She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?
    I know someone on that visit.

    It's actually Brexit related.

    The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.

    Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,
    It takes a particular wilfulness not to understand why a Home Secretary should be at an event, in any country, which marks the end of a vicious drugs war which claimed thousands of lives, domestically.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,591
    SeanT said:

    vik said:

    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    On the now-cast, it's

    Trump 54.9%
    Clinton 45.1%

    :)
    Donald Trump is one realtime televised Hillary Clinton coughing fit from the presidency of the United States.
    Can anyone confirm just how "live" the debates actually are, on TV?

    Are they as live as a sporting event, as live as a radio show with a ten-second swearing loop that can be dialled out, or are they a couple of minutes delayed to account for anything "unforeseen" happening?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    wasd said:

    SeanT said:

    vik said:

    AndyJS said:

    538 — chance of victory for each candidate:

    Clinton 51.5%
    Trump 48.5%

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112

    On the now-cast, it's

    Trump 54.9%
    Clinton 45.1%

    :)
    Donald Trump is one realtime televised Hillary Clinton coughing fit from the presidency of the United States.
    There's been another shooting in Texas. Unfortunately this might be what does it.
    https://www.rt.com/usa/360633-shooting-houston-injured-active/

    Reports say a black male has gone nuttso early in the morning firing 100+ shots, before being shot by the police.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Sandpit, it's entirely possible. The main factor against a collision is Hamilton buggering up the starts.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Merkel isn't going to bail out Deutsche apparently...

    Is that plausible in any universe?
    From the point of view of avoiding moral hazard, I'd hope so.

    From my RBS punt perspective, I hope Merkel will come up with the cash.
    The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.

    When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
    That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.
    What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?

    If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
    The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.
    That's thanks to the EU right?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
    I thought it was down to the exchange rate.
This discussion has been closed.