politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the coalition collapsed then the LDs are NOT going to ke

More evidence of terrible media management at No. 10?

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

It's in neither party's interest to break up the coalition at the moment.

As for preparatory work: it makes sense. Any business should try and be prepared for as many possible contingencies as possible, and that can involve thinking through or wargaming scenarios.

I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems and Labour were not also thinking through the scenarios.

The problem occurs when, as here, such thinking becomes public.

"The main story in the Times this morning is a report that preparatory work is going on in Downing Street to deal with the consequences of a break-up of the coalition.

The report seems to be based on wishful thinking that it would be the LDs who would want to close it down not the Tories.",

Or, as is far more likely, in the face of the continuing Europe chaos in the tory party from disgruntled backbenchers, Cammie is trying to appease them by trying to stop banging on about Europe for five minutes and blame the lib dems for his inability to manage his party.
Posturing is what he has always done and to be fair it's always worked. He's still leader and they are still unlikely to change that. They are suckers for empty posturing as has been proved so many times before, particularly on Europe.

The argument about fearing going to the polls works both ways. Much as the lib dems would be in severe trouble so would the tories. Going to electorate when the kippers are riding their protest wave might not seem that great idea to quite a few tory MPs in marginal seats.

We've seem this before after Lords reform was killed and then boundary changes dumped.
There is an optimal time for disentanglement and decoupling and it sure ain't this far out from the GE, for either party.

The only way this gets to a catastrophic game of no-confidence 'chicken' is if the tory backbenchers lose their minds completely over Europe and pull the trigger. While it can never be ruled out completely (it's not exactly unprecedented) it's still very unlikely.

The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

Millsy said:

The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

You don't have to want one to recognise the need to plan for the possibility.

With the Tories seemingly bent on mass Sepuku it would seem foolish not to do some contingency planning.

On the face of it I agree with Jessop that it doesn't look like its in either party's interest. However that hasn't stopped the Tories before. Their Kamikaze wing is capable of anything.....

And the Lib Dems are nothing if not opportunists. At the moment they're going down to certain defeat drowning in the trenches with their ill fitting partners but if only they could find something sufficiently 'principled'* and left wing they might see a way out....... It's a long shot but if they could bring down the Tories with it they might just get back their voters who have moved to Labour. Europe might just be just the thing....

(I know the words "principled" and 'Lib Dem' struggle in the same sentence which is why I put it in parenthesis)

I think Mick is right here. This story is part of the ongoing Tory strategy of taking responsibility for absolutely nothing. It is always someone else's fault: Labour, the LD's, the EU, immigrants, the poor and the vulnerable seem to be mostly to blame three year's in. Funnily enough, though, when the Tories look at what is happening in France, they blame a man who has been in power for much less time for everything. Go figure.

There is always the alternative of a Minority Government.

Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.

This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.

Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.

16/1 represents the chance that the zombie apocalypse on the Tory backbenches isn't brought under control.

OldKingCole said:

Surely the main difference between now and 2010 is that Labour has, more or less, got it's act together.

Really?

Still shackled to the corpse of Gordo's economic catastrophe. No policies. Anti-democratic.

Is the 'act' they have together the 3 Stooges?

The Queens speech demonstrated how little is left in the Coalition agenda, and there is something to be said for having a 2013 election in the autumn. UKIP will struggle more with organization this year than next, when they can reasonably expect a big Euros boost.

The biggest problem for the LibDems is that collapsing the coalition leaves them facing an election with an unpopular leader, and having shredded any credibility as a coalition party in a future govt of any stripe. Tory and LibDems will still be sitting together on the opposition benches.

All calls for electoral reform hinge on the people wanting permenant coalition governments. A bitter end to this one is hardly going to enthuse the voters with the idea of LibDems as permanent junior members of govt.

Of course just because something is stupid and self defeating doesn't mean that it will not happen. Maybe the turkeys will vote for early Christmas.

JosiasJessop said:

Edin_Rokz said:

There is always the alternative of a Minority Government.

Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.

This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.

Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.

There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book. The Conservatives have a much greater number of MPs, and the larger the number, the greater the variance in opinion. Add a media who are interested in magnifying any split, and a number of MPs who prefer their own profile to the party's, and you have trouble.

We saw similar splits under Labour post-2005 on any number of issues. The larger the number of MPs, the harder it is to exercise central control. And perhaps that's a good thing: should MPs be following central diktat from their parties, or doing what they think is best for their constituents?

Hi Mr Jessop,

MP's doing what they think is best for their constituents? Individually, sometimes, maybe! As a pack, busy tearing themselves apart?

Er! 16/1 is still pretty good odds don't you think?

I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

Why? Well, self-preservation for a start. There may be a great deal of griping about what the government is/is not doing on various issues but the backbench pressure is with a twofold objective: partly to edge the government in the direction of the pressure (or, if you prefer, to apply counter-pressure to that from the Lib Dems), but the main one is a PR job: to put forth openly a manifesto for majority government. It's not about bringing the government down now.

The Tories are also accustomed to government and know that another two years is both necessary to carry forward plans started three years ago - and so enable the recovery in the polls - and to keep Labour's mitts off the levers of power for as long as possible. By contrast, what's the Lib Dem plan for government? Ideas like the Mansion Tax are just random outpourings aimed at Focus leaflets.

There's also the question of mechanism. The 1922 Committee's own name does indicate one possibility but the backbenchers will only move to disassociate if they realistically feel that the chances favour going it alone and all sorts of perils lie in that direction, from the public opprobrium that comes with both foisting unwanted elections on the people and appearing to put party above country, to the obvious fact that Labour and UKIP are both doing better than the Tories would like in the polls.

By contrast, the Lib Dem party conference has real power and has proven awkward in the past. With an ever growing number of ex-councillors and a final batch of pre-government councillors up for election next year, I'd make the Yellows the more likely to break up the coalition. There may also be a belief among some that the LDs could align with Labour following a break-up and so re-establish equidistance. I'd rate that belief naïve but that doesn't mean it won't exist.

The timetable is another issue. It's probably too late now to have an election before October. There's no imminent crisis and unless one blows up in the next fortnight or so, the possible election dates start running into the summer holidays, and were that the timing for the election, it would go down with everyone from politicians to media to public very poorly. After that is the recess, when nothing serious will happen. It's only the conference season and the month thereafter which offers an opportunity for such a crisis, and then it's the Lib Dems, with their conference first and way below their 2010 poll, who'd have to do it. I'll pass.

UK set to become the largest economy in Europe as the Eurozone destroys itself through deliberate policy insanity:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coming-soon-europes-biggest-economy-will-be-uk-2013-05-15?link=home_carousel

That will change the In / Out dynamics pretty powerfully just as a BOO Tory leader leader is elected to sweep away the wreckage of Redward's premiership.

Mick_Pork said:

JosiasJessop said:

<
There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book.

Though obviously hugely important that unity is still useless if the majority opposition parties pull the trigger. Which bring up the irony of a minority administration. Much as the governing party clearly has to be unified so does the opposition if they want to bring it down for whatever reason. If any of the opposition parties feels they would be at a big electoral disadvantage then why would they bring the governing party down?

Triggering an election by bringing down a minority administration is also no trifling matter. The electorate likely won't be kind if they feel they are being dragged to the polls by cheap party machinations. So it then becomes a blame game and that would get ugly.

Mr Pork,

Agreed, but the SNP had the appearance of competence as well as a sense of being in opposition to the other parties to maintain solidarity.

Different circumstances here.

Mr Wifflestick

It's possible. Germany is having a demographic collapse - they ain't breeding and are in dire need of immigrants. They're getting some but not enough. We have wide open doors and seem to be reproducing - so the relative population sizes will narrow over time (more them down than us up).

Plus - and this is the key point in the article, the Euro is going to fail. It is not sustainable as is. The PIIGS and France will stay in depression for as long as they are unable to devalue. Their only allowed mechanism to become externally competitive is through internal cost / wage / GDP reduction. Many (esp France) have no apparent desire to become competitive. Their debt / GDP dynamics are going to pop - the debts will rise as deficits worsen and GDP falls. Germany shares a currency with that lot and contingent liabilities via the ECB will morph into real cash liabilities. A wholesale Eurozone banking collapse is coming along. 2008 will look like a party in comparison. We'll get some of that - but they'll get it worse. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We look set to become the one eyed man of Europe.

2013! Please no!!! Just finished the locals.

That said I imagine a 2013 GE would be More attractive to the Tories than Spring 2014, coincident with the Euros.

What would be mischievous, would be an Autumn GE coinicident with the Independence vote.

david_herdson said:

I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could eventually be overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.

Mike smithson is right - the LDs will stay in coalition but if the Toies have had enough then it's straight to General Election, no negotiation. Just nothing in it for the Lib Dems any other way, and the idea that there's a way of making the next election easy for the LDs is fanciful, whenever it is.

David Herdson's comments seem unusually tribal to me; Prof Tim Bale is on the money for me http://t.co/GmN38BSmiM in saying that the Lib Dems keeping their heads is helping the Tories lose theirs.

Interestingly a 2014 election could lance the UKIP boil as it would be held on the same day as the Euros. 'Vote for them in the Euro Parliament if you must, but stick with us for Westminster' is a message all three parties could make work

After watching This House last night and then switching on my phone to be confronted with headlines about a minority Government, I did smile.

Cameron would be bonkers trying to govern as a minority relying on "The odds and sods" like the Nationalists and Irishmen.

I agree with Mike there's fat chance of it happening, although he did use stronger language last night when I sent him the Times' pieces.

But the article did raise an interesting point

Senior Lib Dems said that Mr Clegg needed to act to prevent the Lib Dems “drifting into a four-party situation with us as the fourth party”.

One said that, in terms of the coalition’s future “the plates are shifting”.

What does happen if the Lib Dems do become the fourth party, such as losing a parliamentary seat to UKIP.

Mick_Pork said:

david_herdson said:

I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could eventually be overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.

Question is, will the LDs realise that this administration just about represents the pinnacle of their ambition. They are in government; ok, they didn't implement their manifesto and had to make compromises (to say the least) on other policies, but they are at the table. I've always thought the tuition fees issue was missing the point. Broadly, they have contributed to the government of the country and I think that in the lead up to the election (which won't be an early one) enough of them will be reluctant to go back to "idealist but hopeless" status. Especially as the role of protest party is now up for grabs.

Don't be surprised at another coalition - of course whether that's with Lab or Cons is the interesting point but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.

As for the Cons if the backbenchers are indeed setting out their stall for the next election that's fine but I can't quite believe they are so masterfully guided.

And all this in the context of a vastly improved economic climate and forecast.

I would be quietly confident of a Cons overall majority with LDs polling better than expected such as to deny Lab.

Financier said:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

Was thinking about this a couple of threads ago, but couldn't post from rural Germany.

I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?

@ Financier

Yes. The Euro is going to break. That means the whole 'project' has a question mark against it. If it all falls apart and we revert to the EU being a club rather than a Frankenstein's monster superstate then all conclusions are to be revised.

DavidL said:

My only concern would be that tory backbenchers really do seem to believe that their position on the EU is a winner

@JohnRentoul: David Cameron, stuck in the middle with public opinion on the EU: my article for the @Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/everyone-thinks-david-cameron-has-screwed-up-over-the-eu--except-for-the-voting-public-8618606.html

Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

Charles said:

Financier said:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

Was thinking about this a couple of threads ago, but couldn't post from rural Germany.

I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?

@Charles:
If we look at the recent IpsosMori poll:

The VI for all respondents was:
Cons: 31; LAB 38; LD 10; UKIP 11

When only 100% certain to vote was taken into consideration, the VI changed to:
Cons: 31; LAB 34; LD 10; UKIP 13.

Also it should be noted that on many polls LAB gets more support from the youngest age group, but they are least likely to vote.

The headline looks to me to be a silly (and self-harming) attempt by Downing St to pretend to frothing Tory back-benches that Cameron is one of them because he hates the LDs. Yet more silly posturing by Cameron, which could easily get out off hand and lead to the loss of more legislation if he isn't careful.

The problem here is that it's the Tories, not the LDs, who are losing discipline. All those laughable articles in The Telegraph about the LDs not being nature enough for government were about the wrong party...

Patrick said:

UK set to become the largest economy in Europe as the Eurozone destroys itself through deliberate policy insanity:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coming-soon-europes-biggest-economy-will-be-uk-2013-05-15?link=home_carousel

That will change the In / Out dynamics pretty powerfully just as a BOO Tory leader leader is elected to sweep away the wreckage of Redward's premiership.

The author of that piece is Mathew Lynn who wrote an excellent book on Greece called Bust: Greece, the Euro and the Sovereign Debt Crisis.

As an aside, it is worth noting that one of the key reasons he expects the UK's economy to exceed Germany's (by 2050) in size is population. Specifically, it mentions immigration - and Britain's attractiveness to immigrants - as a reason why Britain will overtake Germany.

Patrick said:

Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

Comment from one of my colleagues: "Marriage is fucking shit. I don't see why gay people should be exempt."

Differences between marriages and civil partnerships:

1) the name
2) adultery isn't a ground of divorce for civil partnerships (gay infidelity would be "unreasonable behaviour")
3) civil partnerships can't be carried out in church
4) a highly technical pensions difference that is a requirement of EU law
5) civil partnerships can be dissolved after one year

Number one is the important one.

@antifrank

Thanks. So the whole argument is a giant storm in a teacup! FFS.

Dave should move on and spend time on something substantive.

Mick_Pork said:

TOPPING said:

but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.

I have no doubt whatsoever that is what Clegg and those around him want to think.
The lib dem base, activists, members and MPs remaining after 2015? I somehow doubt it. Power at any cost is a dangerous thing to advocate as almost the sole measure of success.
The quirk of electoral math which gave us the coalition is also not going to the arbiter of success or failure.

It will indeed be the lib dems as well as the electorate who will count the cost and pass judgement which will manifest itself in what the lib dems choose to do for 2015 and beyond.

Should they stick with Clegg, both for the election and afterwards, then that would be a vindication of the success you consider them to have had. Should they move to a distinctly post Clegg era which firmly but politely distances itself from Clegg's leadership then I would suggest that may indicate a less favourable judgement.

Politicians who wait for history to look kindly on them are doing so because the judgement of the present is not to their liking.

The base was pretty enthusiastic in 2010 although of course that was early days and compromises a distant cloud. But politics is about compromises. And the LDs are not (all!) idiots or idealists wanting hypothecated taxes.

If politics is a game, to get the value of the game they will choose to maximise their power and influence rather than cast themselves out again and that means sticking with it. Power at any cost seems a great sin but look at the ridiculous pre-election pledges on matching incumbents’ spending. Power is necessary to “do what you really want to do”. If I were a libdem (!) I would be happy with what the party has achieved and would see no reason, unless I was a fanatical “anyone but Tories” Lab => LD switcher, to change my vote. Of course it is precisely how many of those Lab=>LD switchers there are that will determine the next election.

I still see UKIP as likely to melt away.

Patrick said:

Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

No material difference in legal rights.

The argument for marriage is that it provides a single, uniform and non-discriminatory method of recognising partners who commit to a 'lifelong' partnership.

In the words of Peter Tatchell, a two-tier system is a form of "apartheid".

Patrick said:

Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/seven-ways-civil-partnership-isnt-same-marriage250113

The two that appear to be valid concerns are:

Civil partnerships don't have the same pension rights as marriage.

"Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.

The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.

For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund."

Travel/living abroad

Travel restrictions apply to civil partners but not married couples.

Countries like Sweden, Argentina and Portugal, where same-sex marriage is legal, do not see civil partnerships as marriage.

This means UK civil partners living abroad do not enjoy the same rights as same-sex married couples in the 11 countries where equal marriage is legal.

In addition, the marriages of foreign gay couples who travel to the UK are not legally viewed as marriages.

dr_spyn said:

If it takes 50 Edinburgh students two minutes to disrupt a political speech, how long does it take Alex to say something about it?

a) Five minutes.
b) 12 hours.
c) 24 hours.
d) Never.

Eck's still trying to work out how to change a lightbulb.

Give him time.

Seth O Logue said:

Give him time.

How much time are you now predicting before Lansley becomes PM, Seth?

Patrick said:

@antifrank

Thanks. So the whole argument is a giant storm in a teacup! FFS.

Dave should move on and spend time on something substantive.

No it isn't. What you were given by the other respondents were personal opinions not actual differences. There are a couple of serious differences which, if I were gay, I would be very unhappy with.

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

It depends what you mean by turning out alright - remember he ended up trashing the equivalent of banks like a member of Uncut, running riot in a holy building, chemically engineering water into alcohol at parties, setting up a gang of young men, disrupting traffic whilst riding a donkey through the streets, practising medicine without a licence, doling out food to five thousand people without any regard for health and safety laws and causing such trouble to the authorities that they had to expend huge resources dealing with him through the justice system. He did not even serve his sentence properly and escaped.....

Well Christians still worship him.

And according to this history book by Dan Brown I read, Jesus knocked up a prostitute.

@Richard

In which case the activity should be to upgrade the rights / practical effects of civil partnership so there is no real world difference and leave the name issue well alone.

Lewis_Duckworth said:

Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

@BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1

Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.

Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.

Financier said:

Lewis_Duckworth said:

Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

They have to sell them per EU regs.

They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.

TheScreamingEagles said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

It depends what you mean by turning out alright - remember he ended up trashing the equivalent of banks like a member of Uncut, running riot in a holy building, chemically engineering water into alcohol at parties, setting up a gang of young men, disrupting traffic whilst riding a donkey through the streets, practising medicine without a licence, doling out food to five thousand people without any regard for health and safety laws and causing such trouble to the authorities that they had to expend huge resources dealing with him through the justice system. He did not even serve his sentence properly and escaped.....

Well Christians still worship him.

And according to this history book by Dan Brown I read, Jesus knocked up a prostitute.

He's a very naughty boy.....

TheScreamingEagles said:

Financier said:

Lewis_Duckworth said:

Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

They have to sell them per EU regs.

They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.

The trouble with this is that they are not selling the ones they took over. They are selling the ones they want to sell to meet the target.

This means that I, as a Lloyds customer in both business and personal banking (plus mortgage) for 20 years, for whom the online banking system they use is essential, was told last year that my business account was being kept with Lloyds but my personal account was being sold off.

So my integrated banking system was to be completely ruined. I have had to appeal to the ombudsman to get them to finally agree to move my account to a new Lloyds branch because they point blank refused to do it for me.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Financier said:

Lewis_Duckworth said:

Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

They have to sell them per EU regs.

They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.

The trouble with this is that they are not selling the ones they took over. They are selling the ones they want to sell to meet the target.

This means that I, as a Lloyds customer in both business and personal banking (plus mortgage) for 20 years, for whom the online banking system they use is essential, was told last year that my business account was being kept with Lloyds but my personal account was being sold off.

So my integrated banking system was to be completely ruined. I have had to appeal to the ombudsman to get them to finally agree to move my account to a new Lloyds branch because they point blank refused to do it for me.

Quite a few RBS customers are in a similar boat.

tim said:

foxinsoxuk said:

tim said:

@Patrick

"That matters. As the biggest economy in the region, the U.K. will have greater political weight, it will attract more migrants and investment, and the London stock market will receive a much-needed boost."

There's a good chunk of the population who would rather not have the growth if it involved attracting more migrants

Absolutely. It is not GDP growth that matters so much as GDP growth percapita. 2% growth with 3% population growth means we are on average poorer and more overcrowded. Not a good outcome.

How the hell do you get a population growth of 3% per annum, thats two million people

My figures were illustrative. If our population expands then GDP needs to expand at the same rate in order for average GDP to remain stable. With an expanding population we need to run to stand still.

It is not GDP growrh that matters to voters it is whether their standard of living is increasing, one measure being GDP per capita.

When you subtract the effect of population growth from the figures for GDP growth we see why voters are so unhappy with their personal stagnation economically, a problem stretching back a decade or more.