How the LDs are using their by-election victories – politicalbetting.com

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

BartholomewRoberts said:

squareroot2 said:

Victory, singular not plural.

Plural, they're using their victories across the past couple of years, not just the most recent victory.

Clever and an honest bar chart. Are we sure this is the Lib Dems?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Mexicanpete said:

...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Rose had to go on the basic principle of inappropriate disclosure

Although there is an alternative (political) view.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/sunak-hunt-uk-natwest-alison-rose

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.

Because she thought she was so brilliant she knew better.

You meet the same phenomenon with OFSTED inspectors.

The fact that they might actually have quite poor judgement doesn't cross their minds.

I can't comment on OFSTED inspectors but the 'they thought they were so brilliant they knew better' attitude is prevalent in many senior executives (and politicians) .

Maybe it's a function of their success in climbing the slippery pole - they come to believe in their own brilliance.

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

PEP? Presumably not a Personal Equity Plan

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

PEP? Presumably not a Personal Equity Plan

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his
private details to a journalist is beyond me.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

RochdalePioneers said:

Stuartinromford said:

We're back in the times when the LibDems can win in lots of places, some very surprising, provided they throw the sink at a constituency.

In which case, the limiting factor at a General Election is how many catapults, trebuchets and other sink-throwing apparatuses (apparatae?) they possess

I'm not sure how much focus will be needed. So many of these seats have been LD in recent memory, often with large majorities. It is only after Nick Meta decided to more heavily back Tory lunacy policies (NHS reform etc) than the Tories did that these seats were lost.

You need an army to win a byelection from 25%+ behind. Less so when there's a GE and everyone is looking at politics, especially when the swing needed is less.

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Sandpit said:

Mexicanpete said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.

Because she thought she was so brilliant she knew better.

You meet the same phenomenon with OFSTED inspectors.

The fact that they might actually have quite poor judgement doesn't cross their minds.

I can't comment on OFSTED inspectors but the 'they thought they were so brilliant they knew better' attitude is prevalent in many senior executives (and politicians) .

Maybe it's a function of their success in climbing the slippery pole - they come to believe in their own brilliance.

Thank **** such hubris never afflicted Nigel Farage.

Although to be fair he has been particularly deft in his takedown of these particular liberal elitists. These might even be a hatful of compo at the end of this particular rainbow.

Farage is now setting up a campaign group on the de-banking issue, after many people have shared their similar stories with him over the last few weeks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/26/my-war-on-woke-banks-is-just-getting-started/

“ Now it is time to fight back. A common feeling that has been expressed to me over these past few weeks is one of helplessness bordering on despair. It is clear that nobody has been speaking up for everyday people. Now, I intend to be their voice and to campaign for the cultural and legal changes that our banking system needs. Every law-abiding citizen in this country should have the right to a bank account. The resignation of Dame Alison Rose is the first step to ensuring this can happen. Banks must return to operating as they used to do. Then – and only then – can we return to business as usual.

“I am now seriously motivated by this issue. The desperation of those that have been wronged by the big banks means that I simply have to do something. I may not have picked this fight, but I now find myself right in the middle of it. I will be launching, over the course of the next few days, an exercise designed to gather together all of those that have been de-banked. I’m hoping to build a very large database of cases to find out which banks are the worst offenders and what the commonest reasons are, so that we can prepare and present a lobby to ministers, and to Parliament, in order to achieve fundamental change.”

Fair play to him, if he can use his story to bring wider attention to the issue.

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

Sandpit said:

Mexicanpete said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.

Because she thought she was so brilliant she knew better.

You meet the same phenomenon with OFSTED inspectors.

The fact that they might actually have quite poor judgement doesn't cross their minds.

I can't comment on OFSTED inspectors but the 'they thought they were so brilliant they knew better' attitude is prevalent in many senior executives (and politicians) .

Maybe it's a function of their success in climbing the slippery pole - they come to believe in their own brilliance.

Thank **** such hubris never afflicted Nigel Farage.

Although to be fair he has been particularly deft in his takedown of these particular liberal elitists. These might even be a hatful of compo at the end of this particular rainbow.

Farage is now setting up a campaign group on the de-banking issue, after many people have shared their similar stories with him over the last few weeks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/26/my-war-on-woke-banks-is-just-getting-started/

“ Now it is time to fight back. A common feeling that has been expressed to me over these past few weeks is one of helplessness bordering on despair. It is clear that nobody has been speaking up for everyday people. Now, I intend to be their voice and to campaign for the cultural and legal changes that our banking system needs. Every law-abiding citizen in this country should have the right to a bank account. The resignation of Dame Alison Rose is the first step to ensuring this can happen. Banks must return to operating as they used to do. Then – and only then – can we return to business as usual.

“I am now seriously motivated by this issue. The desperation of those that have been wronged by the big banks means that I simply have to do something. I may not have picked this fight, but I now find myself right in the middle of it. I will be launching, over the course of the next few days, an exercise designed to gather together all of
those that have been de-banked. I’m hoping to build a very large database of cases to find out which banks are the worst offenders and what the commonest reasons are, so that we can prepare and present a lobby to ministers, and to Parliament, in order to achieve fundamental change.”

Fair play to him, if he can use his story to bring wider attention to the issue.

Mexicanpete said:

Sandpit said:

Mexicanpete said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.

Because she thought she was so brilliant she knew better.

You meet the same phenomenon with OFSTED inspectors.

The fact that they might actually have quite poor judgement doesn't cross their minds.

I can't comment on OFSTED inspectors but the 'they thought they were so brilliant they knew better' attitude is prevalent in many senior executives (and politicians) .

Maybe it's a function of their success in climbing the slippery pole - they come to believe in their own brilliance.

Thank **** such hubris never afflicted Nigel Farage.

Although to be fair he has been particularly deft in his takedown of these particular liberal elitists. These might even be a hatful of compo at the end of this particular rainbow.

Farage is now setting up a campaign group on the de-banking issue, after many people have shared their similar stories with him over the last few weeks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/26/my-war-on-woke-banks-is-just-getting-started/

“ Now it is time to fight back. A common feeling that has been expressed to me over these past few weeks is one of helplessness bordering on despair. It is clear that nobody has been speaking up for everyday people. Now, I intend to be their voice and to campaign for the cultural and legal changes that our banking system needs. Every law-abiding citizen in this country should have the right to a bank account. The resignation of Dame Alison Rose is the first step to ensuring this can happen. Banks must return to operating as they used to do. Then – and only then – can we return to business as usual.

“I am now seriously motivated by this issue. The desperation of those that have been wronged by the big banks means that I simply have to do something. I may not have picked this fight, but I now find myself right in the middle of it. I will be launching, over the course of the next few days, an exercise designed to gather together all of those that have been de-banked. I’m hoping to build a very large database of cases to find out which banks are the worst offenders and what the commonest reasons are, so that we can prepare and present a lobby to ministers, and to Parliament, in order to achieve fundamental change.”

Fair play to him, if he can use his story to bring wider attention to the issue.

Maybe, but with Farage there is always an angle.

viewcode said:

Sandpit said:

Mexicanpete said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Agreed, Big G.

Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.

What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.

Because she thought she was so brilliant she knew better.

You meet the same phenomenon with OFSTED inspectors.

The fact that they might actually have quite poor judgement doesn't cross their minds.

I can't comment on OFSTED inspectors but the 'they thought they were so brilliant they knew better' attitude is prevalent in many senior executives (and politicians) .

Maybe it's a function of their success in climbing the slippery pole - they come to believe in their own brilliance.

Thank **** such hubris never afflicted Nigel Farage.

Although to be fair he has been particularly deft in his takedown of these particular liberal elitists. These might even be a hatful of compo at the end of this particular rainbow.

Farage is now setting up a campaign group on the de-banking issue, after many people have shared their similar stories with him over the last few weeks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/26/my-war-on-woke-banks-is-just-getting-started/

“ Now it is time to fight back. A common feeling that has been expressed to me over these past few weeks is one of helplessness bordering on despair. It is clear that nobody has been speaking up for everyday people. Now, I intend to be their voice and to campaign for the cultural and legal changes that our banking system needs. Every law-abiding citizen in this country should have the right to a bank account. The resignation of Dame Alison Rose is the first step to ensuring this can happen. Banks must return to operating as they used to do. Then – and only then – can we return to business as usual.

“I am now seriously motivated by this issue. The desperation of those that have been wronged by the big banks means that I simply have to do something. I may not have picked this fight, but I now find myself right in the middle of it. I will be launching, over the course of the next few days, an exercise designed to gather together all of those that have been de-banked. I’m hoping to build a very large database of cases to find out which banks are the worst offenders and what the commonest reasons are, so that we can prepare and present a lobby to ministers, and to Parliament, in order to achieve fundamental change.”

Fair play to him, if he can use his story to bring wider attention to the issue.

I am very very cynical that he will do so. His case attracted attention because he was rich and politically powerful, and the fact that his cause turned out to be just was just coincident to the support: were it not he would still be supported. With the possible caveat that a court case would provide a precedent that could be used by poor people, I doubt that this will help the poor. Happy to be proved wrong, though.

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

Rose had to go on the basic principle of inappropriate disclosure

Although there is an alternative (political) view.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/sunak-hunt-uk-natwest-alison-rose

And that confirms just how wrong the Guardian and others are on this issue

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic
number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

I said SPADs. Plural.

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

StillWaters said:

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

There will only ever be one Lady X as far as I’m concerned 😏

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

Baroness X, I believe.

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The Tories should be worried about the rise and fall and rise again of Reginald Farage. As an almost millionaire he practically an Ordinary Man compared to our billionaire Prime Minister. And now that he has pledged himself to Stand Up for the ordinary people in a crusade against the woke establishment, he could be a serious threat to the Tories.

It is increasingly clear that the Tories are going to fight an insurgent campaign against Keir Starmer's government - the blob, the establishment, the lawyers, the regulators - all the people ruining the lives of the ordinary.

If Farage is there to point out that the Tories ARE the government, it won't work. Especially if he is leading another crusade to motivate all the let behind people to vote against the amassed forces stopping them from succeeding.

There has been an assumption that ReFUK will be an irrelevance. The fall out from the Coutts affair suggests that may not be true.

There is a wider issue on the conduct of banks. Farage has found something to elevate his profile with, or re-elevate it. There will be, I expect, more stories like this one which, on the face of it, is inexcusable.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/crane-on-the-case-my-vulnerable-in-laws-got-debanked-by-hsbc/ar-AA1epGGQ?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=5377dd238d794d1b942c9ec60d0bfe48&ei=14

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

Baroness X, I believe.

Owen to things frankly beyond comprehension.

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?

I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

It’s a breach of confidentiality

If you choose to supply an explanation that’s up to you.

FWIW, I’ve never been asked for an explanation about any banking transfer. But perhaps I live a simpler life than you.

I have an HSBC Premier account. And like @Heathener I get asked for a reason for transfers of funds to other accounts - even when it is clearly a business account. I assume this all relates to money laundering, but it does mean that my bank is generating records of who I am paying *and why*.

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

FWIW, I’ve never been asked for an explanation about any banking transfer. But perhaps I live a simpler life than you.

All the time now with many banks. And that complicated high level bank of which you speak is Virgin (Clydesdale).

Every transfer requires one to choose an explanation from a drop-down e.g. 'paying a member friend or family'; 'paying for a product' etc.

It's supposedly for anti-fraud. But if you think anything you do online is private, including banking, then you aren't aware of the all-pervasive privacy invasions.

p.s. had yet another of these yesterday. I was discussing the merits of Wales in verbal conversation with a friend.

Half an hour later, links to Wales appeared on my internet searches.

RochdalePioneers said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The Tories should be worried about the rise and fall and rise again of Reginald Farage. As an almost millionaire he practically an Ordinary Man compared to our billionaire Prime Minister. And now that he has pledged himself to Stand Up for the ordinary people in a crusade against the woke establishment, he could be a serious threat to the Tories.

It is increasingly clear that the Tories are going to fight an insurgent campaign against Keir Starmer's government - the blob, the establishment, the lawyers, the regulators - all the people ruining the lives of the ordinary.

If Farage is there to point out that the Tories ARE the government, it won't work. Especially if he is leading another crusade to motivate all the let behind people to vote against the amassed forces stopping them from succeeding.

There has been an assumption that ReFUK will be an irrelevance. The fall out from the Coutts affair suggests that may not be true.

There is a wider issue on the conduct of banks. Farage has found something to elevate his profile with, or re-elevate it. There will be, I expect, more stories like this one which, on the face of it, is inexcusable.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/crane-on-the-case-my-vulnerable-in-laws-got-debanked-by-hsbc/ar-AA1epGGQ?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=5377dd238d794d1b942c9ec60d0bfe48&ei=14

There is a much wider issue, absolutely. And not just for individuals - opening a business bank account is also difficult. And for a lengthy spell during Covid banks were simply not opening new accounts - not good if you had just started a new business.

I suspect we will hear a lot of stories about very good people having very bad things done to them by high street banks, and on that front action will need to be taken.

What won't need to happen is Coutts breaking their own financial rules and offering sub-millionaire Farage a bank account. He isn't rich enough, and ultimately that was and remains their legal protection. Because whatever they think about him, their formal reason for pulling the plug was that he fell below £1m. Which their website makes very clear is the bar for membership.

"My private bank wouldn't accept my £900k" doesn't make Farage a man of the people. I expect we will quickly see Coutts dropped as news. I am far more interested in the
supposed long list of other banks who also
refused him.

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

FWIW, I’ve never been asked for an explanation about any banking transfer. But perhaps I live a simpler life than you.

All the time now with many banks. And that complicated high level bank of which you speak is Virgin (Clydesdale).

Every transfer requires one to choose an explanation from a drop-down e.g. 'paying a member friend or family'; 'paying for a product' etc.

It's supposedly for anti-fraud. But if you think anything you do online is private, including banking, then you aren't aware of the all-pervasive privacy invasions.

p.s. had yet another of these yesterday. I was discussing the merits of Wales in verbal conversation with a friend.

Half an hour later, links to Wales appeared on my internet searches.

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

There will only ever be one Lady X as far as I’m concerned 😏

Did she make videos?

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

Stuartinromford said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.

Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.

I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.

As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.

Good morning

Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible

On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice

Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme

Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing

This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response

And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice

But it is not about trust and confidentiality, not really. It is about the government having created rules so onerous that banks would rather turn away business than jump through the hoops the government has placed in their way. Forget Coutts and remember the dozen or so other banks that declined to open a new account for Nigel Farage.

As for Dame Alison Rose, did she breach confidentiality or just pass on water-cooler gossip? The latter seems more likely. She was not involved in Coutts, after all, and it is claimed that what she said wasn't true anyway. Should this over-promoted and overpaid woman have resigned? Of course, but for saying anything at all; for not having the nous to keep her trap shut when speaking to a reporter about a politically-sensitive and newsworthy topic on which she had at best incomplete information.

How many PEPs read pb? Or rather, how many PBers will be identified as PEPs? How many councillors, and lurking MPs? How many punters will be caught up in similar rules for betting? Or savings? Last year it took me three goes to convince a savings trust that it was my own money going into my ISA.

The base issue is politicians creating rules without any consideration of their practicability and consequences, from terrorists with their pavement-fouling dogs, through to this.

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

Don't be silly, it's to put random third rate SPADs into.

I’m told that she’s not third rate.

Although three might be the magic number…

Andrew Adonis is a she?

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the delectable Ms X. Who’s at least a 6 on anyone’s scale

That's Lady X to you.

There will only ever be one Lady X as far as I’m concerned 😏

Did she make videos?

And tweet them?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

Isn't that what the HoL is supposed to be for, to sense check and challenge legislation?

To be fair to the House of Lords, Charlotte Owen had not been ennobled when these laws were passed.

@NickPalmer might be better placed to comment but there seems to have been a growing reluctance on the part of governments (plural) to accept amendments to legislation. I can't quantify this but perhaps there is some politics PhD student counting amendments to bills.

RochdalePioneers said:

The Tories should be worried about the rise and fall and rise again of Reginald Farage. As an almost millionaire he practically an Ordinary Man compared to our billionaire Prime Minister. And now that he has pledged himself to Stand Up for the ordinary people in a crusade against the woke establishment, he could be a serious threat to the Tories.

It is increasingly clear that the Tories are going to fight an insurgent campaign against Keir Starmer's government - the blob, the establishment, the lawyers, the regulators - all the people ruining the lives of the ordinary.

If Farage is there to point out that the Tories ARE the government, it won't work. Especially if he is leading another crusade to motivate all the let behind people to vote against the amassed forces stopping them from succeeding.

There has been an assumption that ReFUK will be an irrelevance. The fall out from the Coutts affair suggests that may not be true.

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

FWIW, I’ve never been asked for an explanation about any banking transfer. But perhaps I live a simpler life than you.

All the time now with many banks. And that complicated high level bank of which you speak is Virgin (Clydesdale).

Every transfer requires one to choose an explanation from a drop-down e.g. 'paying a member friend or family'; 'paying for a product' etc.

It's supposedly for anti-fraud. But if you think anything you do online is private, including banking, then you aren't aware of the all-pervasive privacy invasions.

p.s. had yet another of these yesterday. I was discussing the merits of Wales in verbal conversation with a friend.

Half an hour later, links to Wales appeared on my internet searches.

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?

I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.

What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.

Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

This is actually much more important than the number of swans counted on the Thames

Is it really though? Every time I make a bank tx, even if it's a few £'s I have to supply an explanation.

Banking privacy doesn't exist in Britain anymore. She shouldn't have talked to the media but the news will move on.

The days when a leading politician could spend their election expenses on any way they see fit have sadly gone (with acknowledgement to Peter Cook)

FWIW, I’ve never been asked for an explanation about any banking transfer. But perhaps I live a simpler life than you.

All the time now with many banks. And that complicated high level bank of which you speak is Virgin (Clydesdale).

Every transfer requires one to choose an explanation from a drop-down e.g. 'paying a member friend or family'; 'paying for a product' etc.

It's supposedly for anti-fraud. But if you think anything you do online is private, including banking, then you aren't aware of the all-pervasive privacy invasions.

p.s. had yet another of these yesterday. I was discussing the merits of Wales in verbal conversation with a friend.

Half an hour later, links to Wales appeared on my internet searches.

Choose a less intrusive bank would be my recommendation