The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
I had two current accounts for a couple of years - one being a shadow account where the SLC could pay money in, as I wouldn’t give them the details to my main account - and it didn’t trip any flags.
It is completely mainstream and sensible to have multiple current accounts.
I do find multiple accounts comforting in the same (perhaps illogical) way I like accumulating different pots of hard cash ie in the car (for parking and emergencies) , in my parkrun barcode wallet (so dont cart a bigger wallet round with me when i run) , in the kitchen (for petty cash) and of course a wad in my wallet.
As for joint accounts with partners i find it best not to be too anal (as that can cause arguments and resentment) but have some individual freedom and money so to not feel guilt about indulgent spending /punting
I just have a few joint current accounts and my wife and I spend what we want when we want where we want, though I struggle to keep up with her. I have a large stash just in case I ever need cash
On the paragraph about the growth of media, I'll just throw out that Scottish Broadsheet journalism is largely of very low quality. There's nowhere really to go if you want to read what's happening in Scotland from a non-partisan source.
Absolutely right. I really, really miss the Scotsman from before Mr Neil took over.
Hard to believe how bad the Herald and Scotsman both are nowadays, absolute crap. No decent newspaper in Scotland at all, just full of London propaganda.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Something far wrong if you have to ask to spend money , would be time to go your own ways.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Something far wrong if you have to ask to spend money , would be time to go your own ways.
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.
On the paragraph about the growth of media, I'll just throw out that Scottish Broadsheet journalism is largely of very low quality. There's nowhere really to go if you want to read what's happening in Scotland from a non-partisan source.
Absolutely right. I really, really miss the Scotsman from before Mr Neil took over.
Hard to believe how bad the Herald and Scotsman both are nowadays, absolute crap. No decent newspaper in Scotland at all, just full of London propaganda.
No decent newspapers anywhere in the UK. Some of the more traditional ones have their moments, but seems a lost cause.
I wonder if this is a shared experience with the other European nations. Is Allgenmeine Zeitung what it once was, or Le Figaro? (These may not be the best choices in terms of asking the question)
For many years I used to buy the Independent every morning (without fail for perhaps 20 years) - I bought it in part to balance my natural right-wing views, but also because it was actually quite a good paper. Often well written too. It's an absolute horror story now.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
My parents took the joint account thing to what in retrospect was an extreme - they gave me signatory rights as soon as I was of legal age in Denmark (16, I think). Fortunately I was as boringly sober kid who would hesitate to waste their money on amn extra newspaper, but they were perhaps taking a risk.
Having more than one account is a pain when you need to docuiment your accounts (for a mortgage or tax or whatever), though the £85K rule nudges you to do it if you've got more than that in savings. Apparently, too, every extra account nudges your credit rating down. Life would be so much simpler if there was just one national bank that we all used and which was guaranteed without limit - it's not as though the huge choice actually produced any significant competition in rates.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Something far wrong if you have to ask to spend money , would be time to go your own ways.
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.
Comments
NEW THREAD
I wonder if this is a shared experience with the other European nations. Is Allgenmeine Zeitung what it once was, or Le Figaro? (These may not be the best choices in terms of asking the question)
For many years I used to buy the Independent every morning (without fail for perhaps 20 years) - I bought it in part to balance my natural right-wing views, but also because it was actually quite a good paper. Often well written too. It's an absolute horror story now.
https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1332402560842522630
Having more than one account is a pain when you need to docuiment your accounts (for a mortgage or tax or whatever), though the £85K rule nudges you to do it if you've got more than that in savings. Apparently, too, every extra account nudges your credit rating down. Life would be so much simpler if there was just one national bank that we all used and which was guaranteed without limit - it's not as though the huge choice actually produced any significant competition in rates.
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1332749362280108033