politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Voters old enough to remember WW2 the least likely to be at
Options
Comments
-
Those letters which were sent out by the banks in the middle of the referendum campaign informing people of the change citing the fall in the value of the Euro must have shifted a few votes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
Personally I would cover active business accounts, but within reason. I get that cash flow can mean that a business may have at any one time a lot of money in its accounts but that it will fluctuate. But my question is, why do you have £85,000 in a business account? Why isn't this being paid as a dividend at the end of the year? <***Innocent face***>rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
It is a conversation/exchange that I would expect on CiF, not PB...Richard_Nabavi said:
The failure of so many people to understand this most basic fact is astonishing, and very worrying.rcs1000 said:When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
0 -
538 is giving similar results. Needless to say, this is so close that Trump wouldn't have to flip Pennsylvania into his column. Colorado, or even New Hampshire, would be enough.AndyJS said:
Latest RCP projection has Clinton 272, Trump 266 in terms of electoral college votes.PlatoSaid said:Fox
New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can trust the polls in the first place. If there's any significant shy Trump voter effect which hasn't been modelled, then he's probably already in pole position.0 -
Indeed, the original tweet is from a journalist who works for the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, what do you expect?TOPPING said:
It takes a particular wilfulness not to understand why a Home Secretary should be at an event, in any country, which marks the end of a vicious drugs war which claimed thousands of lives, domestically.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know someone on that visit.Alanbrooke said:
She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?PlatoSaid said:Indeed
Danny Shaw
I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
It's actually Brexit related.
The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.
Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,0 -
The US (and Spain for that matter) have (a) much more sensible system for the closing of banks and the moving of businesses to other healthier institutions (this basically involved effectively unlimited guarantees as part of that clean-up process); and (b) had far fewer 'too big to fail' institutions (which were bailed out in the same way as in the UK).williamglenn said:
Doesn't it come down to the too big to fail problem? In the US a long list of banks were closed and received during the financial crisis with no systemic issues.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
Well, first of all it's not obvious that that is a good idea. Yes, it might be nice in itself, but having dozens of small banks isn't necessarily better for customers. It's not even necessarily safer - after all, if one small bank goes under, you are likely to get bank runs on other similar small banks (as happened in the US in the thirties).Alanbrooke said:The difficult stuff is more why didnt we break the too big to fail monolith up ?
Even if it is a good idea, you've got to make banking attractive to new entrants. Vilifying banks and piling ever more ludicrous fines on them doesn't exactly make it easy to get more competition. See RBS, Williams & Glyn, for more info0 -
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought it was down to the exchange rate.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.0 -
Nah, the letters went out in the summer of 2015.williamglenn said:
Those letters which were sent out by the banks in the middle of the referendum campaign informing people of the change citing the fall in the value of the Euro must have shifted a few votes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
The logic is that banks with deposits in sterling would have an unfair advantage over their Euro denominated rivals. Of course, once we're out of the EU we can do as we like.Charles said:
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought it was down to the exchange rate.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.0 -
What's happened to 'tipping point'? it used to be very popular here iirc.FrancisUrquhart said:
Aren't you suppose to shoutvik said:
On the now-cast, it'sAndyJS said:538 — chance of victory for each candidate:
Clinton 51.5%
Trump 48.5%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112
Trump 54.9%
Clinton 45.1%
BingoCross-Over before posting that?0 -
If ever two charts proved that age giveth wisdom, it's the two at the top of this page.0
-
I know *why* the EU does it. But that also means that the reduction in protection was their fault.tlg86 said:
The logic is that banks with deposits in sterling would have an unfair advantage over their Euro denominated rivals. Of course, once we're out of the EU we can do as we like.Charles said:
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought it was down to the exchange rate.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.0 -
I'm not talking about me (personally), I'm talking about businesses I'm involved in such as PythonAnywhere, Genius Sports Group, and the superlative CrowdScores.tlg86 said:
Personally I would cover active business accounts, but within reason. I get that cash flow can mean that a business may have at any one time a lot of money in its accounts but that it will fluctuate. But my question is, why do you have £85,000 in a business account? Why isn't this being paid as a dividend at the end of the year? <***Innocent face***>rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
Well the Nats lost the referendum, tipping point was avoided for a generation.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
What's happened to 'tipping point'? it used to be very popular here iirc.FrancisUrquhart said:
Aren't you suppose to shoutvik said:
On the now-cast, it'sAndyJS said:538 — chance of victory for each candidate:
Clinton 51.5%
Trump 48.5%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112
Trump 54.9%
Clinton 45.1%BingoCross-Over before posting that?0 -
Is this related to the missing Michael Deacon blog ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I know someone on that visit.Alanbrooke said:
She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?PlatoSaid said:Indeed
Danny Shaw
I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
It's actually Brexit related.
The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.
Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,0 -
100000 Euro equalsCharles said:
I know *why* the EU does it. But that also means that the reduction in protection was their fault.tlg86 said:
The logic is that banks with deposits in sterling would have an unfair advantage over their Euro denominated rivals. Of course, once we're out of the EU we can do as we like.Charles said:
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought it was down to the exchange rate.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.
86928.16 British Pound0 -
So, ironically, the Brexit vote has increased the amount of protection we getPulpstar said:
100000 Euro equalsCharles said:
I know *why* the EU does it. But that also means that the reduction in protection was their fault.tlg86 said:
The logic is that banks with deposits in sterling would have an unfair advantage over their Euro denominated rivals. Of course, once we're out of the EU we can do as we like.Charles said:
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought it was down to the exchange rate.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.
86928.16 British Pound 0 -
What missing blog?TGOHF said:
Is this related to the missing Michael Deacon blog ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I know someone on that visit.Alanbrooke said:
She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?PlatoSaid said:Indeed
Danny Shaw
I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
It's actually Brexit related.
The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.
Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,0 -
They disappear if a credible rival appears with its vote spread relatively evenly - so the Tories can beat them but not finish them off. The SNP managed it in Scotland, but PC looks unlikely to do so in Wales as its vote isn't so well distributed and the language issue remains a drag. In England it's either UKIP or the LibDems, neither of which look well placed at the moment. But the one thing undoubtedly true is that things can change very fast in politics nowadays.Black_Rook said:
They won't die off that easily. Even if worn down to 25% of the vote (and I don't think they'll do significantly worse than that, unless there's eventually a split in which case all bets are off,) then Labour should still be good for at least 150 seats, even post-boundary reform.GIN1138 said:
1918 surely?Black_Rook said:
Labour only just made it past 30% under EdM. I reckon they're in 1983 election territory now.Essexit said:So even the young age groups that prefer Labour see May as the better leader/uniter. After the last election I'm inclined to trust supplementary polls over headline VI. Looking at these figures Labour will be lucky to hit 30%.
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
It's still the same: €100,000.
0 -
http://news.anotao.com/link/gb/20160901138284/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-has-an-odd-little-habit-and-it-says-a-lot-about-hi/TheScreamingEagles said:
What missing blog?TGOHF said:
Is this related to the missing Michael Deacon blog ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I know someone on that visit.Alanbrooke said:
She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?PlatoSaid said:Indeed
Danny Shaw
I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
It's actually Brexit related.
The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.
Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,0 -
Bet you the government forgets to increase it.rcs1000 said:
So, ironically, the Brexit vote has increased the amount of protection we getPulpstar said:
100000 Euro equalsCharles said:
I know *why* the EU does it. But that also means that the reduction in protection was their fault.tlg86 said:
The logic is that banks with deposits in sterling would have an unfair advantage over their Euro denominated rivals. Of course, once we're out of the EU we can do as we like.Charles said:
The EU fixes the level of protection at Eur 100,000.
Given we have our own currency it would seem more logical to have a level of protection set in sterling and fixed at that. It doesn't really matter whether it is £75K or £85K.
86928.16 British Pound0 -
The trouble is that at a time when government needs more money, a wealth tax is seen as likely to be supplemental. It would be different if there was a genuine rebalancing with a wealth tax coming in at the same time as income tax and/or VAT is reduced.welshowl said:
True, but then the Shad Chancellor has (if my understanding is right - I've not seen his speech only second hand reports) spent the morning saying he's going to tax the "holders of wealth".Jonathan said:What this chart does is tell Corbyn who to target. If he's clever, that is.
Well take me: Not born with a silver spoon in my mouth by any means at all (not even slightly), have spent three decades working (in manufacturing) and saving my way to some sort of equity in a house and something put by in a pension and savings, never inherited cumulatively anything that would buy more than a third hand hatchback, and yet I am clearly in his sights. Not exactly much carrot for me is there?0 -
''Well, first of all it's not obvious that that is a good idea. Yes, it might be nice in itself, but having dozens of small banks isn't necessarily better for customers.''
What makes a banking system safer isn't more banks per se, its more diversity of business model. The more diverse the business model, the more robust the system.0 -
4 Labour parliamentary candidates at the 2015 general election have so far resigned from the party AFAIK: Portsmouth North, Guildford, Rayleigh & Wickford, Folkestone & Hythe.0
-
Hog washRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, first of all it's not obvious that that is a good idea. Yes, it might be nice in itself, but having dozens of small banks isn't necessarily better for customers. It's not even necessarily safer - after all, if one small bank goes under, you are likely to get bank runs on other similar small banks (as happened in the US in the thirties).Alanbrooke said:The difficult stuff is more why didnt we break the too big to fail monolith up ?
Even if it is a good idea, you've got to make banking attractive to new entrants. Vilifying banks and piling ever more ludicrous fines on them doesn't exactly make it easy to get more competition. See RBS, Williams & Glyn, for more info
since when has all your eggs in one basket been better for managing risk ? Or for Competition ?
Richard Nabavi - the Konstantin Chernenko of banking0 -
As the kidz say, Dafuq
Via Sam Coates
I'm told Clive Lewis speech was altered at last moment - Seumas Milne went into autocue room and changed the text
The suggestion that Trident was a settled issue in Lewis speech was watered down. Lewis informed by yellow post it note on podium
Lewis said to be irritated and did not do Daily Politics as scheduled
The speech backing Trident was meant to have been agreed last night as part of peace deal with the GMB.0 -
At least it hasn't made the PB verboten list.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well the Nats lost the referendum, tipping point was avoided for a generation.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
What's happened to 'tipping point'? it used to be very popular here iirc.FrancisUrquhart said:
Aren't you suppose to shoutvik said:
On the now-cast, it'sAndyJS said:538 — chance of victory for each candidate:
Clinton 51.5%
Trump 48.5%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/780396156295770112
Trump 54.9%
Clinton 45.1%BingoCross-Over before posting that?0 -
It is reviewed every five years, and has nothing to do with the government.Charles said:Bet you the government forgets to increase it.
0 -
Taking a look in the mirror would provide them with most of the reasons.FrancisUrquhart said:Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
0 -
£85k is really not a lot to have in a business account. If a business has a turnover of as little as £300k a year it will probably have more than that in accounts to cover tax and VAT liabilities. Bear in mind the £85k (or rather £75k now) is not per account but the total sum of all accounts you hold with a particular bank. So if you have say £20k in a VAT account and £70k on a tax account then you are already over the limit just to cover your basic tax bills.tlg86 said:
Personally I would cover active business accounts, but within reason. I get that cash flow can mean that a business may have at any one time a lot of money in its accounts but that it will fluctuate. But my question is, why do you have £85,000 in a business account? Why isn't this being paid as a dividend at the end of the year? <***Innocent face***>rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
The compensation is fixed at €100,000 Euros - when the Pound is at €1.35 then £75,000 was sufficient. When the FCA revise it again @ €1.15 then it will be increased again, probably to £90,000. (per person per organisation)Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
It also affects my own PI Insurance - the level of cover needed is also fixed in Euros (which normally is sensible since firms in my business line do a lot of business in the EU. So it might go up from £1.2M to £1.5M.0 -
''Hog wash''
In order to punish rubbish lenders and poor management, you need a system where sufficient banks aren;t in that business so that the 'shockwave' of a collapse can be absorbed easily.
In the era of the global banking giant, its virtually impossible.
0 -
Safer lending + capital cushion = safer banks.taffys said:''Well, first of all it's not obvious that that is a good idea. Yes, it might be nice in itself, but having dozens of small banks isn't necessarily better for customers.''
What makes a banking system safer isn't more banks per se, its more diversity of business model. The more diverse the business model, the more robust the system.
Diversity of business model? You mean like investment banking, principal trading, etc, etc, etc...0 -
Mr. Eagles, there has been no revisionism.
All know that we've been at war with Eurasia for years, and Big Brother invented the helicopter.0 -
The guarantee limit is €100,000. When sterling strengthened against the euro, it reduced the sterling equivalent to £75,000 from £85,000. Following Brexit and the weakening of sterling, it should now go back to £85,000. The movements are not thanks to the EU but movements in exchange rates.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html0 -
Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
0 -
But presumably you wouldn't have that level of money on a continuous basis? What I'm getting at is that I'm happy to cover business accounts so long as they aren't being used to keep money away from the tax man.Richard_Tyndall said:
£85k is really not a lot to have in a business account. If a business has a turnover of as little as £300k a year it will probably have more than that in accounts to cover tax and VAT liabilities. Bear in mind the £85k (or rather £75k now) is not per account but the total sum of all accounts you hold with a particular bank. So if you have say £20k in a VAT account and £70k on a tax account then you are already over the limit just to cover your basic tax bills.tlg86 said:
Personally I would cover active business accounts, but within reason. I get that cash flow can mean that a business may have at any one time a lot of money in its accounts but that it will fluctuate. But my question is, why do you have £85,000 in a business account? Why isn't this being paid as a dividend at the end of the year? <***Innocent face***>rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.0 -
So would a market comprising a hundred equal-sized banks be better than 50? Than 20? Than 10? Than the four we have?Alanbrooke said:Hog wash
since when has all your eggs in one basket been better for managing risk ? Or for Competition ?
Richard Nabavi - the Konstantin Chernenko of banking
IMO four is too few, but I'm pretty certain that banks would still be too big to fail on any reasonable number. That's even more the case in view of the systemic importance of the UK as a world centre of banking and financial services.
0 -
Diversity of business model? You mean like investment banking, principal trading, etc, etc, etc...
Absolutely. building society, pure retail operator, pure private bank, new entrants, it all helps to absorb the impact.
In the last collapse, retail lenders like Bank of America and Lloyds weren't affected by the contagion and contributed massively to saving the system.
0 -
that depends what you mean by banking. On the retail side lots of small local banks function adequately across the world.taffys said:''Hog wash''
In order to punish rubbish lenders and poor management, you need a system where sufficient banks aren;t in that business so that the 'shockwave' of a collapse can be absorbed easily.
In the era of the global banking giant, its virtually impossible.0 -
So what happens, politically, when the casino element takes down the s&l element? All happy?taffys said:Diversity of business model? You mean like investment banking, principal trading, etc, etc, etc...
Absolutely. building society, pure retail operator, pure private bank, new entrants, it all helps to absorb the impact.
In the last collapse, retail lenders like Bank of America and Lloyds weren't affected by the contagion and contributed massively to saving the system.0 -
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
0 -
Um retail lenders? You mean like Northern Rock?taffys said:Diversity of business model? You mean like investment banking, principal trading, etc, etc, etc...
Absolutely. building society, pure retail operator, pure private bank, new entrants, it all helps to absorb the impact.
In the last collapse, retail lenders like Bank of America and Lloyds weren't affected by the contagion and contributed massively to saving the system.0 -
I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.Richard_Nabavi said:
So would a market comprising a hundred equal-sized banks be better than 50? Than 20? Than 10? Than the four we have?Alanbrooke said:Hog wash
since when has all your eggs in one basket been better for managing risk ? Or for Competition ?
Richard Nabavi - the Konstantin Chernenko of banking
IMO four is too few, but I'm pretty certain that banks would still be too big to fail on any reasonable number. That's even more the case in view of the systemic importance of the UK as a world centre of banking and financial services.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.0 -
@MrHarryCole: Just about sums it up - you can fit Labour's entire defence policy on a post it note.0
-
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/780404048340082688
The revolution continues to go really well, I see.0 -
Interestingly though Hillary is still favourite to gain the 'key' swing state of Colorado.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
I assume the matrix of {NH, MI, PA, CO, WI} Trump is favoured to win at least one. And he only needs 1 of those 5.0 -
Anyone who has more than £75K with a single bank, or with banks which count as a single bank for FSCS purposes, is an idiot, and a business which does so is run by idiots.Richard_Tyndall said:Bear in mind the £85k (or rather £75k now) is not per account but the total sum of all accounts you hold with a particular bank. So if you have say £20k in a VAT account and £70k on a tax account then you are already over the limit just to cover your basic tax bills.
0 -
And that's his now cast. Silver says Clinton has a sub 1% lead overall based on the other indicators. But tonight will be vital for both, considering how tight and partisan it is.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
0 -
Your simply confusing retail banking and casino banking. Much like Fred Goodwin.Richard_Nabavi said:
So would a market comprising a hundred equal-sized banks be better than 50? Than 20? Than 10? Than the four we have?Alanbrooke said:Hog wash
since when has all your eggs in one basket been better for managing risk ? Or for Competition ?
Richard Nabavi - the Konstantin Chernenko of banking
IMO four is too few, but I'm pretty certain that banks would still be too big to fail on any reasonable number. That's even more the case in view of the systemic importance of the UK as a world centre of banking and financial services.
Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.0 -
@Peston: Tomorrow's NEC meeting has been cancelled, so @jeremycorbyn concedes loss of his majority on ruling body facebook.com/pestonitv/post…0
-
I don't think he's defected. His twitter feed is enthusiastic about Corbyn's victory.IanB2 said:
I though Surrey Heath also?AndyJS said:4 Labour parliamentary candidates at the 2015 general election have so far resigned from the party AFAIK: Portsmouth North, Guildford, Rayleigh & Wickford, Folkestone & Hythe.
0 -
I think Nate's forecast is in the hinterland of Trump loses popular vote, wins ECV on a probabilistic sum basis (Though each state as an absolute 1,0 result still ends up Hillary).Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
0 -
The block on British ships docking in Argentina has been lifted as well, so we could get a decent Mercosur deal sorted in leaving.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know someone on that visit.Alanbrooke said:
She thinks FARC stands for Fking Amber Rudd's Clueless ?PlatoSaid said:Indeed
Danny Shaw
I have to ask this question: why is Amber Rudd, British Home Secretary (with a huge in-tray), in Colombia to witness FARC-Govt peace deal?
It's actually Brexit related.
The Colombian President is visiting before Christmas, and the plan is to butter him up for a future trade deal with South America.
Apparently we're not very popular down there, and it fits in with trying to butter them up, with support in the war on drugs, trafficking, and flattery,0 -
So now they're editing speeches as they're about to be delivered - without telling the speaker until after they've done it? What the...TheScreamingEagles said:As the kidz say, Dafuq
Via Sam Coates
I'm told Clive Lewis speech was altered at last moment - Seumas Milne went into autocue room and changed the text
The suggestion that Trident was a settled issue in Lewis speech was watered down. Lewis informed by yellow post it note on podium
Lewis said to be irritated and did not do Daily Politics as scheduled
The speech backing Trident was meant to have been agreed last night as part of peace deal with the GMB.0 -
It is currently fixed in Euros.Richard_Nabavi said:
It is reviewed every five years, and has nothing to do with the government.Charles said:Bet you the government forgets to increase it.
Within 5 years we are likely to no longer be part of the EU
In this circumstance the UK government will have a strong interest in the level of protection.0 -
The 'living wills' policy, and forcing banks to hold more capital, are both good ideas. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, there is no such thing as a 100% safe banking system. The most basic, boring banks (with zero 'casino' element) borrow short and lend long, which is intrinsically unstable. In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. Nothing to do with investment banking, hedge funds, or the 'City' as most people think of it at all. And very little to do with bonuses.DavidL said:I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.0 -
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.SeanT said:
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)Black_Rook said:
538 is giving similar results. Needless to say, this is so close that Trump wouldn't have to flip Pennsylvania into his column. Colorado, or even New Hampshire, would be enough.AndyJS said:
Latest RCP projection has Clinton 272, Trump 266 in terms of electoral college votes.PlatoSaid said:Fox
New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can trust the polls in the first place. If there's any significant shy Trump voter effect which hasn't been modelled, then he's probably already in pole position.
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.0 -
Apologies. I typed too fast. I meant to say he had Trump in the lead, with a probability of winning 10% higher than Clinton's.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
0 -
Wasn't the Surrey Heath guy the Guildford candidate? (SH council area, Guildford constituency)AndyJS said:0 -
Tonight's debate -
hosted by NBC's Lester Holt, will last for 90 minutes, with NO commercial interruptions. The debate will be divided into 6 segments, and the topics (chosen by the moderator) will be - America's direction, achieving prosperity, and securing America.
Hofstra is the first university to stage a debate in 3 successive presidential cycles.
Conventional wisdom (read: the blabberverse of TV talking heads) is that if Trump doesn't drool, say anything whacky, or foam at the mouth, but looks 'presidential', he wins.
Clinton has set the bar for Trump so low. If she even coughs once, that could be real trouble for her.
Continuing the idiocy, the Clinton campaign - who should by now know much better than this - tried to needle Trump by announcing that Mark Cuban would be in the front row. Trump immediately responded by saying that he had asked Gennifer Flowers to the debate.
Flowers won't be there, Cuban possibly.
It all starts at 9pm eastern this evening.0 -
On topic, one stat that really shone out was in response to the question
Q4. Now that Jeremy Corbyn is widely expected to be re-elected as leader of the Labour Party. Do you think he should or should not....
- Withdraw Britain from NATO
Age group 75+:
Should: *
Should not: 83%
Don't know: 17%.
Yep, out of 106 respondents (weighted up to 183), withdrawing from NATO received the support of precisely one person.0 -
The movements are because the amount is fixed in Euros.Barnesian said:
The guarantee limit is €100,000. When sterling strengthened against the euro, it reduced the sterling equivalent to £75,000 from £85,000. Following Brexit and the weakening of sterling, it should now go back to £85,000. The movements are not thanks to the EU but movements in exchange rates.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
It is fixed in Euros because otherwise it could be a competitive advantage for the UK
Post-EU it will be under the control of the UK government.0 -
Well that would be better, but as you say ain't gonna happen, in the real world.IanB2 said:
The trouble is that at a time when government needs more money, a wealth tax is seen as likely to be supplemental. It would be different if there was a genuine rebalancing with a wealth tax coming in at the same time as income tax and/or VAT is reduced.welshowl said:
True, but then the Shad Chancellor has (if my understanding is right - I've not seen his speech only second hand reports) spent the morning saying he's going to tax the "holders of wealth".Jonathan said:What this chart does is tell Corbyn who to target. If he's clever, that is.
Well take me: Not born with a silver spoon in my mouth by any means at all (not even slightly), have spent three decades working (in manufacturing) and saving my way to some sort of equity in a house and something put by in a pension and savings, never inherited cumulatively anything that would buy more than a third hand hatchback, and yet I am clearly in his sights. Not exactly much carrot for me is there?
However, my point is what I and my wife have, we have earned and paid for out of taxed income. We've never dodged tax, or offshored (or anything like that), or inherited stuff other than "loose change", or even worked in anything remotely reprehensible even by planet Corbyn standards. But I can still feel the cross hairs on the back of my neck from the Shad Chancellor. If I'm going to get utterly screwed over (and I would be I am sure), what was the point of me having worked hard, saved, played by the rules, and "done the right thing", for over 30 years? May as well have sat on the beach, pissed it against the wall, and wait for my "Corbyn dividend a la Venezuela" to bail me out at the end. Trouble is if we all come to that conclusion, we are all stuffed together - which is why it never ever works.0 -
As a Conservative voter of many moons, I would suggest it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will never become PM. No-one, especially in my party, should be complacent. Jeremy Corbyn is playing the "good cop" extremely well, but it's all those "bad cops" who are working with him/for him who are the biggest danger. Whilst this may be a statement of the bleeding obvious, it's amazing how many people I speak to, are fooled by him.
My gut feeling is, Tony Blair, David Miliband and cohorts are working behind the scenes to engineer a change. I've no idea what, whether it's to form a new party, but there is no way they will let the Labour party continue in this state.0 -
The Brexit comparison has merit. Establishment puts clapped out, unloved proposition (that far more people loathe than love) to the vote. Insurgent campaign rallies support of collection of uncommitted and neglected voters to join those already deeply opposed. The insurgency wins?SeanT said:
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)Black_Rook said:
538 is giving similar results. Needless to say, this is so close that Trump wouldn't have to flip Pennsylvania into his column. Colorado, or even New Hampshire, would be enough.AndyJS said:
Latest RCP projection has Clinton 272, Trump 266 in terms of electoral college votes.PlatoSaid said:Fox
New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can trust the polls in the first place. If there's any significant shy Trump voter effect which hasn't been modelled, then he's probably already in pole position.
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
The likely French presidential run-off may be a foretaste of Britain's political future if Labour goes into terminal decline, albeit that the two leading British parties would probably both be somewhat more moderate: a centre-right party as the natural party of Government, and a populist/nationalist right-wing party as the main Opposition. Socialists left holding a separate race for third largest party with the SNP.0 -
''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.0 -
Well it's a view.Richard_Nabavi said:
The 'living wills' policy, and forcing banks to hold more capital, are both good ideas. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, there is no such thing as a 100% safe banking system. The most basic, boring banks (with zero 'casino' element) borrow short and lend long, which is intrinsically unstable. In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. Nothing to do with investment banking, hedge funds, or the 'City' as most people think of it at all. And very little to do with bonuses.DavidL said:I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.0 -
One thing that I think stands out compared with the last time is that there are comparatively few very safe Trump states. The result is that some or maybe even all of the built in advantage in the EC that the Democrats have has been removed. Trump is getting more votes where he needs them and less where they make no difference.Pulpstar said:
I think Nate's forecast is in the hinterland of Trump loses popular vote, wins ECV on a probabilistic sum basis (Though each state as an absolute 1,0 result still ends up Hillary).Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.Dromedary said:Nate Silver has Trump with a lead of 10% now, on his indicator with the fastest time decay anyway: Clinton 45.1%, Trump 54.9%.
It is interesting that Michigan and New Hampshire are both more likely to break for Trump than Pennsylvania.0 -
I'm involved with a small charity in the UK with turnover of less than £100m.Dromedary said:
Anyone who has more than £75K with a single bank, or with banks which count as a single bank for FSCS purposes, is an idiot, and a business which does so is run by idiots.Richard_Tyndall said:Bear in mind the £85k (or rather £75k now) is not per account but the total sum of all accounts you hold with a particular bank. So if you have say £20k in a VAT account and £70k on a tax account then you are already over the limit just to cover your basic tax bills.
We have a limit of £5m of exposure to any one bank, and struggle to find enough AA rated banks globally to place our cash.
It really isn't much for a business of any material size0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
The 'living wills' policy, and forcing banks to hold more capital, are both good ideas. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, there is no such thing as a 100% safe banking system. The most basic, boring banks (with zero 'casino' element) borrow short and lend long, which is intrinsically unstable. In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. Nothing to do with investment banking, hedge funds, or the 'City' as most people think of it at all. And very little to do with bonuses.DavidL said:I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.
In the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems were caused by boring property lending.
Crazy, stupid, ridiculous property lending, I think you meant.
0 -
Didn't they used to be called building societies?taffys said:''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.0 -
they were called building societies !taffys said:''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.
then we killed them all off and the new CEOs had to do something to prove they were worth their inflated salaries.0 -
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.0 -
110% mortgages was not particularly boring lending as it turned out, especially with self-certification of income.Richard_Nabavi said:
The 'living wills' policy, and forcing banks to hold more capital, are both good ideas. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, there is no such thing as a 100% safe banking system. The most basic, boring banks (with zero 'casino' element) borrow short and lend long, which is intrinsically unstable. In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. Nothing to do with investment banking, hedge funds, or the 'City' as most people think of it at all. And very little to do with bonuses.DavidL said:I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.0 -
The reason, IMHO for Trump's surge is almost certainly the batch of Pro-Trump Colorado Polls, which have increased substantially the number of possible routes to 270. Looking at the 538 Snake, Clinton is still ahead in more EV state votes than Trump BUT now the probability of losing one of them (Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire where Clinton's lead is <2%) is much greater than Trump losing one of (North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Ohio where Trump's lead >2%)
0 -
It was doing exactly what you suggested a bank should do, i.e. sticking to boring lending , but it was doing it badly. It was a failure of management, and a failure of regulation (an unsurprising one, given that Brown had deliberately dismantled banking supervision).Alanbrooke said:Well it's a view.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.
You said that banks 'store cash'. Of course they don't. The most basic banking model is to borrow cash from some customers and lend it to other customers.0 -
*ahem*taffys said:''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.
(Model pretty much as @Alanbrooke describes it. Except for the interest bit...)0 -
Are the snowbirds registered to vote in Florida though or in New York? I can't see it making a difference as the US always have their elections in November.Barnesian said:
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.SeanT said:
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)Black_Rook said:
538 is giving similar results. Needless to say, this is so close that Trump wouldn't have to flip Pennsylvania into his column. Colorado, or even New Hampshire, would be enough.AndyJS said:
Latest RCP projection has Clinton 272, Trump 266 in terms of electoral college votes.PlatoSaid said:Fox
New poll has Trump up by two 43% - 41% in a 4-way matchup https://t.co/SMpKT2sKJp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can trust the polls in the first place. If there's any significant shy Trump voter effect which hasn't been modelled, then he's probably already in pole position.
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.0 -
"Police surround building after Paris supermarket shooting"
http://news.sky.com/story/police-surround-building-after-paris-supermarket-shooting-105942970 -
To be fair to Northern Rock, the default rate on its 125% mortgages was actually lower than the market default rate for all mortgages.Alanbrooke said:
Well it's a view.Richard_Nabavi said:
The 'living wills' policy, and forcing banks to hold more capital, are both good ideas. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, there is no such thing as a 100% safe banking system. The most basic, boring banks (with zero 'casino' element) borrow short and lend long, which is intrinsically unstable. In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. Nothing to do with investment banking, hedge funds, or the 'City' as most people think of it at all. And very little to do with bonuses.DavidL said:I can see the point you are making Richard when a major bank's trading is so interlinked with everyone else that the systemic risk becomes unacceptable. The answer, however, surely has to be the "living wills" that Banks were supposed to be developing so that they can be wound up very quickly and in an orderly fashion.
Bankers basically blackmailing taxpayers to underwrite risks whose main upside is an additional bonus for them is not just not a good look; it is unacceptable.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.
Their issue was that they grew too fast, and plugged their funding gap with securitisations (via Granite). When that market dried up they rapidly became illiquid - it was a liquidity issue not a solvency issue which brought them to their knees.0 -
which sort oif says that if the bankers are crap and the regulators useless why would you want all your risk in a handful of banks ? Why not spread it around on the hope you can pick up more people who know what they are doing ?Richard_Nabavi said:
It was doing exactly what you suggested a bank should do, i.e. sticking to boring lending , but it was doing it badly. It was a failure of management, and a failure of regulation (an unsurprising one, given that Brown had deliberately dismantled banking supervision).Alanbrooke said:Well it's a view.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.0 -
Tim_B said:
Tonight's debate -
hosted by NBC's Lester Holt, will last for 90 minutes, with NO commercial interruptions. The debate will be divided into 6 segments, and the topics (chosen by the moderator) will be - America's direction, achieving prosperity, and securing America.
Hofstra is the first university to stage a debate in 3 successive presidential cycles.
Conventional wisdom (read: the blabberverse of TV talking heads) is that if Trump doesn't drool, say anything whacky, or foam at the mouth, but looks 'presidential', he wins.
Clinton has set the bar for Trump so low. If she even coughs once, that could be real trouble for her.
Continuing the idiocy, the Clinton campaign - who should by now know much better than this - tried to needle Trump by announcing that Mark Cuban would be in the front row. Trump immediately responded by saying that he had asked Gennifer Flowers to the debate.
Flowers won't be there, Cuban possibly.
It all starts at 9pm eastern this evening.
I don't see the Flowers thing hurting Clinton. It makes Trump look like he can be easily baited.Tim_B said:Tonight's debate -
hosted by NBC's Lester Holt, will last for 90 minutes, with NO commercial interruptions. The debate will be divided into 6 segments, and the topics (chosen by the moderator) will be - America's direction, achieving prosperity, and securing America.
Hofstra is the first university to stage a debate in 3 successive presidential cycles.
Conventional wisdom (read: the blabberverse of TV talking heads) is that if Trump doesn't drool, say anything whacky, or foam at the mouth, but looks 'presidential', he wins.
Clinton has set the bar for Trump so low. If she even coughs once, that could be real trouble for her.
Continuing the idiocy, the Clinton campaign - who should by now know much better than this - tried to needle Trump by announcing that Mark Cuban would be in the front row. Trump immediately responded by saying that he had asked Gennifer Flowers to the debate.
Flowers won't be there, Cuban possibly.
It all starts at 9pm eastern this evening.0 -
It's fixed in Euros because the EU wants to give the same level of protection to all members of the Single Market. Nothing to do with giving a competitive advantage to anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact.Charles said:The movements are because the amount is fixed in Euros.
It is fixed in Euros because otherwise it could be a competitive advantage for the UK.0 -
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.0 -
And set in guineas.Charles said:
The movements are because the amount is fixed in Euros.Barnesian said:
The guarantee limit is €100,000. When sterling strengthened against the euro, it reduced the sterling equivalent to £75,000 from £85,000. Following Brexit and the weakening of sterling, it should now go back to £85,000. The movements are not thanks to the EU but movements in exchange rates.Charles said:
That's thanks to the EU right?TheScreamingEagles said:
The guarantee level is now at 75k, not 85k.rcs1000 said:
What about businesses (whose deposits are not covered by insurance)?tlg86 said:
That's not the whole story, is it? By bailing out RBS and HBOS our government also ensured that the people who work for these institutions get to keep their jobs. Far better to let them go under and pick up the insurance tab for depositors. Back in 2008 I believe it was £35k per person per institution. So it would have cost a lot of money (and anyone with more than that in the bank, tough, you should have spread it around), but what we wouldn't have had to endure is years of a bank continuing to lose money whilst a small number of its employees continue to earn a fortune.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that you - as the customer of a bank - are an unsecured creditor. If it goes bust, you'll be way down the capital structure. Who know what, if anything, you'll get back.Pulpstar said:
When governments bail out banks, what they are doing is bailing out depositors.
If you allow a major bank to go bust, then those of us with balances about £85k will go and withdraw every penny out of our accounts today. That will then send a whole bunch of other banks to the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11715807/Banks-to-cut-protection-on-deposits-to-75000-from-January.html
It is fixed in Euros because otherwise it could be a competitive advantage for the UK
Post-EU it will be under the control of the UK government.0 -
Where's Rod Crosby ?MTimT said:New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.0 -
To be fair, I think @alanbrooke said that customers are *looking for somewhere to store cash*. He wasn't saying that the banks actually do so!Richard_Nabavi said:
It was doing exactly what you suggested a bank should do, i.e. sticking to boring lending , but it was doing it badly. It was a failure of management, and a failure of regulation (an unsurprising one, given that Brown had deliberately dismantled banking supervision).Alanbrooke said:Well it's a view.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.
You said that banks 'store cash'. Of course they don't. The most basic banking model is to borrow cash from some customers and lend it to other customers.0 -
He got the ban hammer....he went all Red Ken...Alanbrooke said:
Where's Rod Crosby ?MTimT said:New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.0 -
From looking at the LA Times tracker it looks like the various shootings are what's given Trump an uptick0
-
BandAlanbrooke said:
Where's Rod Crosby ?MTimT said:New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.0 -
Jeez it really is CiF day on here. Yes that was the catalyst. And then those boring old banks which provided mortgages (and yes the point is well made about self-certifying, 125% ones) found that when liquidity tightened, they found themselves in trouble.taffys said:''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.0 -
You must have misread my post (or I mistyped)Richard_Nabavi said:
It's fixed in Euros because the EU wants to give the same level of protection to all members of the Single Market. Nothing to do with giving a competitive advantage to anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact.Charles said:The movements are because the amount is fixed in Euros.
It is fixed in Euros because otherwise it could be a competitive advantage for the UK.
Fixing in Euros was to *prevent* the UK having a potential competitive advantage (of fixing in a different currency)0
This discussion has been closed.