Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
Allowing the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth to walk away with taxpayer funded fortunes while tens of thousands of bank workers receied the minimum redundancy payments wasn't the best move.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I have long said he should have let Northern Rock at least go bust, though with some compensation scheme for savers even if by 2008 he had to pursue the bailout
Would have been indefensible poltically, and disasterous economicslly.
The British government (largely Darling, from what I've heard) acted pretty well during the financial crisis. I'd hate to see Britain today if they'd have allowed a run on banks following a NR going into administration.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
This is what I wrote.
Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.
Fuck’s sake man. Do you think she wasn’t damaged by it?
Brown did not call a snap election in 2007 though unlike May in 2017 but waited until 2010 hence Brown will go down in the history books as having got just 29% of the vote to May's 42% and 258 seats to May's 318.
His reputation still got trashed by a snap election (an election he didn't call and which didn't happen). You can't deny surely that his dithering over whether to call a snap election or not did him a lot of harm. TSE's point in his last post is logically accurate.
Had Brown called a snap election in 2007 he would likely have done far better than he did in 2010, especially as it was pre crash, however he abandoned it after Osborne's inheritance tax cut boosted the Tories.
May at least had the balls to call a snap election even if her poor manifesto meant she did less well than expected that snap election means the history books will judge her electoral record as better than Brown's
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Yes he did but that was the effect of the global economic meltdown, not of domestic policy. Interestingly, there were reports last week that Osborne had conceded that Labour's response was right, though I've not seen any details.
I believe even Osborne said he would not have bailed out Northern Rock
May will certainly try to go on until June 2022, however if she is replaced as Tory leader before then, probably after Brexit is completed in March 2019, any new Tory leader may want to try and get a renewed mandate and at least a small majority although that depends on them getting a polling bounce.
By 2022 we will also have had the 2020 US presidential election, which on current US polling will be comfortably won by Bernie Sanders, while the next French presidential election is due to be in April and May 2022 and in which Melenchon is likely to be perhaps Macron's main rival. So by June 2022 a PM Corbyn may not seem so outlandish after all but in line with the international trend.
I think on balance that OGH is correct, this will run five years. But it is very hard to say that is other than a reasoned guess.
A lot, indeed, perhaps all, will rest on the personality of the new Tory leader in 2019. A Boris type figure with a decent sized ego may take the risk in order to have a mandate.
The optics of UC continue to deteriorate for the Cons.
Tezza should be bold, step in, promise no one will lose out as a result of its roll-out, and that she is setting up a taskforce to ensure that families are protected, and then move on.
All this bolleaux from ministers saying how advance payments will sort all the problems while hundreds of examples are paraded of this transparently not being the case just adds a bit more substance to the nasty party narrative, and a bit longer to the time the Cons will be out of power.
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I'd have preferred an Icelandic solution personally.
It does seem to have worked out quite well for them. I think in reality Iceland had no option to bail out their banks - too much leverage.
But when the public moan that UK bankers got away with it... it's hard to say they are wrong...
"If you want a bet on the timing of the next general election it means locking up your stake for nearly five years." Surely laying each year 2017-21 inclusive on betfair is the same bet and means (if you are right) a ladder of 5 payouts starting in 10 weeks time.
"If you want a bet on the timing of the next general election it means locking up your stake for nearly five years." Surely laying each year 2017-21 inclusive on betfair is the same bet and means (if you are right) a ladder of 5 payouts starting in 10 weeks time.
Not only that, but you have diminishing losses.
The only question is the size of the spread on each of the options.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I agree ,however did not agree with bailing British customers who had placed money in Icelandic Banks.Surely that was not the UK government responsibility.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
Allowing the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth to walk away with taxpayer funded fortunes while tens of thousands of bank workers receied the minimum redundancy payments wasn't the best move.
No, but that's a different question. I think - given the seriousness of the job - that there should be much stricter liability rules for bank management.
you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?
She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.
Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.
I was worse than that.
I suspected she was like that all along, I had a bad experience with her wayback in 2002, convinced myself it was an outlier and I'd got her wrong - because I wanted to believe that - and then my original view was vindicated.
There wasn't a great deal she had to do in order to steer the ship uneventfully.
Keep her head down, not rock the boat, quietly keep on keeping on: not too much to ask.
And OK, the polls tell you you are going to get a stonking majority, sure, let's go for it, try to realise that landslide. But don't all of a sudden think you are Boadicea when you have hitherto been, well, Theresa May.
The only conclusion I can reach is that her political aggression, so she is seen as a fighter and ruthless, is cover for her own insecurities and weaknesses.
A failure to engage socially, and to think on her feet, being chief amongst them.
The optics of UC continue to deteriorate for the Cons.
Tezza should be bold, step in, promise no one will lose out as a result of its roll-out, and that she is setting up a taskforce to ensure that families are protected, and then move on.
All this bolleaux from ministers saying how advance payments will sort all the problems while hundreds of examples are paraded of this transparently not being the case just adds a bit more substance to the nasty party narrative, and a bit longer to the time the Cons will be out of power.
UC will ensure nobody will lose all their benefits if they work more than 16 hours a week.
However if you have not worked the previous month at all I would ensure you are paid your benefits straight away and receive them regularly on the same day until you do. Whether the government does similar is another matter.
The optics of UC continue to deteriorate for the Cons.
Tezza should be bold, step in, promise no one will lose out as a result of its roll-out, and that she is setting up a taskforce to ensure that families are protected, and then move on.
All this bolleaux from ministers saying how advance payments will sort all the problems while hundreds of examples are paraded of this transparently not being the case just adds a bit more substance to the nasty party narrative, and a bit longer to the time the Cons will be out of power.
Here's a quick thought - now that there are means to transfer bank accounts between banks would it be possible / practical to allow a bank to be shut down with all accounts transferred to the remaining banks....
The problem is that any firm has a strict heirarchy of liabilities. In the event of bankruptcy, payment needs to be made to the highest class of creditors first, all the way down to (finally) equity (if there's any money left).
Your bank account, or your firm's bank account, are the liabilities of the bank.
If you start transferring assets outside the heirarchy of liabilities you open an enormous can of worms. And the government would almost certainly lose any case brought by creditors higher up the scale as to why Joe Bloggs got his money before they did.
Now: could banking be regulated in the future so that it is impossible for banks to have liabilities that are higher priority that their customers accounts. Yes they could. But this in turn would have the effect of making wholesale funding almost impossible, and it would mean that banks could not engage in secured borrowing or repos.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I have long said he should have let Northern Rock at least go bust, though with some compensation scheme for savers even if by 2008 he had to pursue the bailout
Would have been indefensible poltically, and disasterous economicslly.
The British government (largely Darling, from what I've heard) acted pretty well during the financial crisis. I'd hate to see Britain today if they'd have allowed a run on banks following a NR going into administration.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
Except, of course, that the equity holders and subordinated debt holders of Northern Rock were completely wiped out.
Now, should there have been greater consequences for the management of Northern Rock? Yes.
But the people who were bailed out at Northern Rock, and the other banks, were the depositors.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I agree ,however did not agree with bailing British customers who had placed money in Icelandic Banks.Surely that was not the UK government responsibility.
Agreed (with the caveat that some of peoples' savings were covered by the deposit protection scheme). Furthermore, unlike with RBS and even Northern Rock, there was no systematic risk with the Icelandic banks. People put money in there simply to earn a higher interest rate than they would have gotten with a Barclays or Lloyds.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
And the other problem is that the stark contrast between the state's approach to bankrupt banks in the 2000s and its approach to bankrupt industries in the 1980s and 1990s fuelled resentment and alienation in some sections of the population. Bankers appeared to get off scot free and continued to receive outrageous and unjustifiable salaries which are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. Miners and steel workers, on the other hand, were thrown on the scrapheap.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
And the other problem is that the stark contrast between the state's approach to bankrupt banks in the 2000s and its approach to bankrupt industries in the 1980s and 1990s fuelled resentment and alienation in some sections of the population. Bankers appeared to get off scot free and continued to receive outrageous and unjustifiable salaries which are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. Miners and steel workers, on the other hand, were thrown on the scrapheap.
Yes there is no doubt the 2008 bailouts added further fuel to the rise of the anti austerity and anti big business populism we have today exacerbating the resentment already felt over lack of immigration controls
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
And the other problem is that the stark contrast between the state's approach to bankrupt banks in the 2000s and its approach to bankrupt industries in the 1980s and 1990s fuelled resentment and alienation in some sections of the population. Bankers appeared to get off scot free and continued to receive outrageous and unjustifiable salaries which are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. Miners and steel workers, on the other hand, were thrown on the scrapheap.
Indeed I think Andy Haldane did some analysis that suggested Britain's banks are only profitable because of the implicit taxpayer subsidy.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I agree ,however did not agree with bailing British customers who had placed money in Icelandic Banks.Surely that was not the UK government responsibility.
Agreed (with the caveat that some of peoples' savings were covered by the deposit protection scheme). Furthermore, unlike with RBS and even Northern Rock, there was no systematic risk with the Icelandic banks. People put money in there simply to earn a higher interest rate than they would have gotten with a Barclays or Lloyds.
From memory 6.5% rather than the paltry 5.5% available elsewhere. A different era.
For those that were covered by the scheme, the govt also bailed them for all money in excess of the scheme limit, and - astonishingly - they allowed fixed term deposits to run to the end of the term at the same rate as Iceland were paying. I've had a soft spot for Alistair Darling ever since.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Whilst unlikely the Radicals will win a seat, we live in the turbulent times where such a thing is a plausible outcome. A good candidate in the right sort of seat could do it. Do they have any big names on their side?
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite why this needs explaining to either the Left or the Right is quite mind-boggling.
I agree that the next election will be in 2022 -and that means a Tory government because Labour does not have the numbers. It will take a long time for the Tories to lose 7 by elections and in last 4 months have lost none. It means that the Tories will have a new leader, will have a better campaign and manifesto, it means that Brexit will be complete so people will not as in 2017 be voting against the Tories to prevent a hard Brexit, it means that Labour will be led by 73 year old Corbyn.
So those forecasting a Labour victory are possibly very foolish indeed.
On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.
The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.
So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.
I think either of these are credible reasons for an earlier election, but the question is how many Tory MPs would put country ahead of party? Not many, I think.
On the other hand, those in marginals may see Brexit as ending their political careers, so jumping ship not suicidal.
Let me make this very clear for you: in any one of an infinite number of parallel universes it will never be in this country's interests to put Corbyn in power, or anywhere near it.
You misunderstand the country's interests.
You also misunderstand your fellow countrymen.
Look at the polls. Trust the voters.
They are not misunderstood, and do not require educating.
Whilst unlikely the Radicals will win a seat, we live in the turbulent times where such a thing is a plausible outcome. A good candidate in the right sort of seat could do it. Do they have any big names on their side?
When I was in uni, some students got put on wikipedia by their friends standing for numerous joke parties - a staunch Catholic for the Communist Party, some guy for the BNP, etc. It got picked up from wikipedia by the betting sites and they got exactly the same odds to win as this Radicals party (incidentally, also the same odds as the genuine Lib Dem candidate).
A Radicals party divorced from any history, a Whig party divorced from any history, etc. I'll say it every time one of these silly parties pops up - they make less of an impact than the Trotskyist sects do.
Another reason why a second referendum on the EU would be a bad idea. If this is what hardcore Remainers are up to, they clearly don't understand this country or its politics any better than they did in the last referendum. There's no reason to think they would be more effective a second time, when their whole explanation is still 'the other side were naughty and we were just too devoted to reason and facts'.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
So far she has told EU citizens that their only role in life is to be bargaining chips in the EU negotiations and has floated the idea of using the army to manage every day life in No Deal Brexit Britain. Has she done anything else? I suppose Amber Rudd has usefully exposed the moral bankruptcy of this government. But it seems she supports, rather than critiques.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
Lloyds free cinema tickets are one of the best perks of any UK bank in my opinion.
So far she has told EU citizens that their only role in life is to be bargaining chips in the EU negotiations and has floated the idea of using the army to manage every day life in No Deal Brexit Britain. Has she done anything else? I suppose Amber Rudd has usefully exposed the moral bankruptcy of this government. But it seems she supports, rather than critiques.
There is not much wiggle room under a Tezza administration. She is making some for herself now.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
I agree ,however did not agree with bailing British customers who had placed money in Icelandic Banks.Surely that was not the UK government responsibility.
Agreed (with the caveat that some of peoples' savings were covered by the deposit protection scheme). Furthermore, unlike with RBS and even Northern Rock, there was no systematic risk with the Icelandic banks. People put money in there simply to earn a higher interest rate than they would have gotten with a Barclays or Lloyds.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
I don't disagree with your general point.... but the average Lloyds customer doesn't have anything like 100k in the bank.
Evidence of the government's weakness -- or its stupidity and heartlessness? Seriously, who thought a premium rate hotline was a good idea in the first place?
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
Evidence of the government's weakness -- or its stupidity and heartlessness? Seriously, who thought a premium rate hotline was a good idea in the first place?
Yes - they are clearly not on top of the implementation. Which doesn't exactly bode well...
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
I don't disagree with your general point.... but the average Lloyds customer doesn't have anything like 100k in the bank.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
They seem to be free if within bundle on tesco and bt - no different from 01, 02 numbers. Possibly the point is that UC claimants are very likely to have gone out of bundle and not be able to pay for more.
I agree with Betfair that the chances of us actually leaving the EU by 29 March 2019 are less than evens. Betfair has it as a 40% probability.
I envisage a negotiation up to the wire with a crash out exit looming that neither the UK nor the EU want, and both sides agreeing to push back the A50 termination date. Politically, neither side can concede so this can go on for a long time - a bit like the NI negotiation between SF and the DUP.
With a two year transition following a much delayed agreement, I can see our final exit extending beyond the next GE, even if it is in 2022. If Labour wins the GE, I can see the single market, customs union transition going on and on. The EU would be happy with that, and so would Remainers (who will be in the majority by then) as the least bad choice.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
I don't disagree with your general point.... but the average Lloyds customer doesn't have anything like 100k in the bank.
Change it to £1,000. The point remains.
Covered by the depositor protection scheme, no need to worry
@BethRigby: Interesting ALL benefit helplines to go freephone. MP told me govt was worried about opening floodgate scrapping #UC charges. Changed mind?
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
You know that. I know that.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
Open an HSBC account and transfer £50,000 over ?
Here's the thing. Even if you know the Deposit Protection Scheme will cover you eventually, you'd still want your money out. Who wants to sit around waiting for the DPS to pay out in six months?
This is becoming a regular occurrence.Seems May has a tin ear especially to the roll out of Universal Credit.
I assume the helpline will be the same as a local rate call now (Which seems sensible enough). I don't get how that suggests a tin ear ?
No, it's going freephone (0800). It's local rate already. Edit sorry that's wrong, it is national rate atm, but effectively free to anyone with a mobile which hasn't gone through its call allowance.
Evidence of the government's weakness -- or its stupidity and heartlessness? Seriously, who thought a premium rate hotline was a good idea in the first place?
It isn’t a premium rate number.
It is a local call number that is very high cost for PAYG users.
On a small technical point, under the FTPA the next election is scheduled for 5th May 2022 - not June - unless a Statutory Instrument were to be issued delaying the poll for up to two months.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
They seem to be free if within bundle on tesco and bt - no different from 01, 02 numbers. Possibly the point is that UC claimants are very likely to have gone out of bundle and not be able to pay for more.
I need to backup. I think a free helpline is a good idea. My point was that calls to the old number are no more expensive than calls from the same mobile to landlines,ie the cheapest calls that aren't actually free. They may be included in the bundle or you may pay per minute. But if you are paying 55p to call the helpline, you are paying the same to call your family and friends (on a landline - mobiles cost more).
This is becoming a regular occurrence.Seems May has a tin ear especially to the roll out of Universal Credit.
Isn't reversing policy to account for public criticism the opposite of a tin ear?
Not in this instance the main concern is the rollout of UC and it's implementation.Once it starts to migrate millions of existing people, currently recieving child tax credits , working tax credits and child disability elements it needs to be as far as possible a smooth transition. Not causing major problems.They started this in 2010 you would think a competent department could sort it out.
I agree with Betfair that the chances of us actually leaving the EU by 29 March 2019 are less than evens. Betfair has it as a 40% probability.
I envisage a negotiation up to the wire with a crash out exit looming that neither the UK nor the EU want, and both sides agreeing to push back the A50 termination date. Politically, neither side can concede so this can go on for a long time - a bit like the NI negotiation between SF and the DUP.
With a two year transition following a much delayed agreement, I can see our final exit extending beyond the next GE, even if it is in 2022. If Labour wins the GE, I can see the single market, customs union transition going on and on. The EU would be happy with that, and so would Remainers (who will be in the majority by then) as the least bad choice.
Yes I think that is quite a strong possibility. I think the EU are going to push us to the very edge of the cliff in order to make sure as much economic activity as possible relocates to the EU27. They also calculate that the UK will back off and accept an EU-dictated "transition" deal rather than jump. The Tory ultras would see that as surrender and the government would collapse at that point. This could lead to either a Labour minority government or some form of coalition and in either case parliament would accept the EU's terms. The Tories would take the blame for not getting a better deal.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly. UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs. They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.
The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.
In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
In October/November 1978 Labour was 5% ahead in Gallup polls and there was actually a swing to Labour at the Berwick & East Lothian by election following the death of John Mackintosh.
Evidence of the government's weakness -- or its stupidity and heartlessness? Seriously, who thought a premium rate hotline was a good idea in the first place?
It isn’t a premium rate number.
It is a local call number that is very high cost for PAYG users.
I wonder how many other GOV helplines operate the same way?
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly.
UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs.
They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
In a way this is about predatory pricing by the phone cos. I particularly loathe "the poorer you are the more you pay" deals, like prepaid electricity/gas.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
They seem to be free if within bundle on tesco and bt - no different from 01, 02 numbers. Possibly the point is that UC claimants are very likely to have gone out of bundle and not be able to pay for more.
I need to backup. I think a free helpline is a good idea. My point was that calls to the old number are no more expensive than calls from the same mobile to landlines,ie the cheapest calls that aren't actually free. They may be included in the bundle or you may pay per minute. But if you are paying 55p to call the helpline, you are paying the same to call your family and friends (on a landline - mobiles cost more).
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
@JohnRentoul: Fine analysis by @BethRigby: Tory abstentions would lose vote on Labour Universal Credit motion, so Tory whips will ask MPs not to vote
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
And letting the shareholders go hang (I was one) was another correct call.....
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly. UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs. They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
The system is designed to be as cheap as possible for the taxpayer.
It's the tory way.
F*ck the poor.
You really should stop trolling.
You do realise Labour rejected freephone numbers for benefit hotlines when they were in government.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly.
UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs.
They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
In a way this is about predatory pricing by the phone cos. I particularly loathe "the poorer you are the more you pay" deals, like prepaid electricity/gas.
This....I thought it was some mistake when they said people were being charged 55p / minute for an 0345 number. On my mobile contract (as I presume most people on a contract these days), they are all included as part of my unlimited minutes, and I don't even have a particularly pricey monthly package.
@JohnRentoul: Fine analysis by @BethRigby: Tory abstentions would lose vote on Labour Universal Credit motion, so Tory whips will ask MPs not to vote
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
Why are Tory MPs rebelling at all.
Don't they know HYUFD said it was all going fine and those on benefits vote Labour anyway.
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
...
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits.
The problem here is not that the private sector gets any profit at all but that they are not paying a fair share of the risk. As it is the government who underwrites the banks, there should be an appropriate payment from the banks to the government as an insurance.
A theoretical approach would be to split the banks into two groups. "Safe" who are underwritten by the government and "Risky", who will never be bailed out by the government. The Safe banks will have to pay an insurance to the government and adhere to quite strict trading rules. A Risky bank could be an independent arm of a Safe back for stock market trading etc so long as the bankrupcy of the subsiduary does not bring the Safe arm down. There could be further ruels to avoid the escalation mentioned by rcs1000 such as payroll must be processed via a Safe bank.
The customer then decides whether to put their money in Safe, Risky or half and half.
If you claim that this is essentially the system we have at the moment, then there is still the problem currently that the Safe banks are operating as Risky banks.
The main problem I see with this is that (ignoring the one off reorganisation of the banking sector) there would probably be enough people betting that a very large Risky bank will still be "too large to fail" and that the government would still be under pressure to bail out a Risky bank.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly.
UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs.
They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
In a way this is about predatory pricing by the phone cos. I particularly loathe "the poorer you are the more you pay" deals, like prepaid electricity/gas.
This....I thought it was some mistake when they said people were being charged 55p / minute for an 0345 number. On my mobile contract (as I presume most people on a contract these days), they are all included as part of my unlimited minutes, and I don't even have a particularly pricey monthly package.
Out of bundle minutes on contract and on PAYG are quite pricey.
Comments
The British government (largely Darling, from what I've heard) acted pretty well during the financial crisis. I'd hate to see Britain today if they'd have allowed a run on banks following a NR going into administration.
May at least had the balls to call a snap election even if her poor manifesto meant she did less well than expected that snap election means the history books will judge her electoral record as better than Brown's
Tezza should be bold, step in, promise no one will lose out as a result of its roll-out, and that she is setting up a taskforce to ensure that families are protected, and then move on.
All this bolleaux from ministers saying how advance payments will sort all the problems while hundreds of examples are paraded of this transparently not being the case just adds a bit more substance to the nasty party narrative, and a bit longer to the time the Cons will be out of power.
I think in reality Iceland had no option to bail out their banks - too much leverage.
But when the public moan that UK bankers got away with it... it's hard to say they are wrong...
And when you look at Ireland...
The only question is the size of the spread on each of the options.
A failure to engage socially, and to think on her feet, being chief amongst them.
Mr. Royale, indeed.
However if you have not worked the previous month at all I would ensure you are paid your benefits straight away and receive them regularly on the same day until you do. Whether the government does similar is another matter.
Your bank account, or your firm's bank account, are the liabilities of the bank.
If you start transferring assets outside the heirarchy of liabilities you open an enormous can of worms. And the government would almost certainly lose any case brought by creditors higher up the scale as to why Joe Bloggs got his money before they did.
Now: could banking be regulated in the future so that it is impossible for banks to have liabilities that are higher priority that their customers accounts. Yes they could. But this in turn would have the effect of making wholesale funding almost impossible, and it would mean that banks could not engage in secured borrowing or repos.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
Now, should there have been greater consequences for the management of Northern Rock? Yes.
But the people who were bailed out at Northern Rock, and the other banks, were the depositors.
For those that were covered by the scheme, the govt also bailed them for all money in excess of the scheme limit, and - astonishingly - they allowed fixed term deposits to run to the end of the term at the same rate as Iceland were paying. I've had a soft spot for Alistair Darling ever since.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/920574984292126721
It means that the Tories will have a new leader, will have a better campaign and manifesto, it means that Brexit will be complete so people will not as in 2017 be voting against the Tories to prevent a hard Brexit, it means that Labour will be led by 73 year old Corbyn.
So those forecasting a Labour victory are possibly very foolish indeed.
A Radicals party divorced from any history, a Whig party divorced from any history, etc. I'll say it every time one of these silly parties pops up - they make less of an impact than the Trotskyist sects do.
Another reason why a second referendum on the EU would be a bad idea. If this is what hardcore Remainers are up to, they clearly don't understand this country or its politics any better than they did in the last referendum. There's no reason to think they would be more effective a second time, when their whole explanation is still 'the other side were naughty and we were just too devoted to reason and facts'.
Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
How much would the average Lloyds bank customer know that?
Assume you have £100,000 in savings in your Lloyds Bank account. Would you risk it? Or would you stand in a queue outside your local branch to try and withdraw your savings, just in case.
Which doesn't exactly bode well...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1CG2BE
I envisage a negotiation up to the wire with a crash out exit looming that neither the UK nor the EU want, and both sides agreeing to push back the A50 termination date. Politically, neither side can concede so this can go on for a long time - a bit like the NI negotiation between SF and the DUP.
With a two year transition following a much delayed agreement, I can see our final exit extending beyond the next GE, even if it is in 2022. If Labour wins the GE, I can see the single market, customs union transition going on and on. The EU would be happy with that, and so would Remainers (who will be in the majority by then) as the least bad choice.
Edit sorry that's wrong, it is national rate atm, but effectively free to anyone with a mobile which hasn't gone through its call allowance.
It is a local call number that is very high cost for PAYG users.
Tory MP misses vote to be assistant referee at Champions League game
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41660040
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
You do realise Labour rejected freephone numbers for benefit hotlines when they were in government.
Don't they know HYUFD said it was all going fine and those on benefits vote Labour anyway.
A theoretical approach would be to split the banks into two groups. "Safe" who are underwritten by the government and "Risky", who will never be bailed out by the government. The Safe banks will have to pay an insurance to the government and adhere to quite strict trading rules. A Risky bank could be an independent arm of a Safe back for stock market trading etc so long as the bankrupcy of the subsiduary does not bring the Safe arm down.
There could be further ruels to avoid the escalation mentioned by rcs1000 such as payroll must be processed via a Safe bank.
The customer then decides whether to put their money in Safe, Risky or half and half.
If you claim that this is essentially the system we have at the moment, then there is still the problem currently that the Safe banks are operating as Risky banks.
The main problem I see with this is that (ignoring the one off reorganisation of the banking sector) there would probably be enough people betting that a very large Risky bank will still be "too large to fail" and that the government would still be under pressure to bail out a Risky bank.