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

TOPPING said:

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

Such a thing doesn't exist and if it tried to
be, the FCA would be on it like a ton of bricks. Plus in any case wholesale financial information - your financial details - is readily available from any number of sources.

As I said - I don’t have to give a reason for any transaction.

And it doesn’t talk to credit agencies

StillWaters said:

TOPPING 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.

Friend of mine who knows these things, was involved with Cambridge Analytica, spelled it out thus:

Would you be happy if a stranger knew your birthday, your children's names, your travel arrangements? The answer, because you plaster it all over social media, is no, not really.

Would you be happy if a stranger knew your bank account details, your payment history, your credit rating? The answer, because you believe these things are important, is yes very much.

To which he responds that the first set of info is extremely difficult to obtain, requiring
passwords and invitations; while the second is super easily available to anyone who wants to know.

Did you mean “unhappy” in both cases?

Nope. People are generally much more relaxed about telling people what they had for breakfast than what they spent that £250 on the other day.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TimS said:

It doesn’t feel to me that the Farage story has cut through to the public. Certainly not in the way he would like.

- there’s no detectable general outrage about banks acting arbitrarily, certainly not outside the limited world of PEPs.
- Nobody thinks Coutts (if they’ve even heard of it) is woke.

I think for a story like this to really grab the imagination and have a political effect it needs to resonate with a large section of the public - as did partygate, as did Labour antisemitism, Labour vacillation on ULEZ, the Kamikwaze budget and the ongoing sewage debacle.

I think the danger is that he now uses this platform to increase his profile and as we near the election become very political with unknown consequences

He is very much a lose cannon, and his appearances on the media recently have been more than anytime since his time fighting the EU

Hopefully for Sunak he’ll use it to bang on about banks, because that’s a lot less dangerous than banging on about small boats or how unfairly the poor Russians are being treated.

But the media always give him a generous hearing regardless of the topic. He has a privileged position in that regard, rather like Boris used to, because he’s charismatic. I don’t think he needed Couttsgate to get back into the public eye.

TheScreamingEagles said:

What this Farage story tells you.

So many of our media and political classes know bugger all about banking/AML regulations.

I think that is very accurate, indeed how many do ?

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

Monbiot has been championing a new tactical voting wheeze:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/totnes-election-democracy-change

As he says, this also put in an appearance in Godalming, with a false claim that Opposition parties had been consulted. I kicked up a fuss and the anonymous sponsors hastily withdrew it, though I expect it will be back in less devious terms. Tactical voting is fair enough if people want to use their vote that way, but lying isn't.

StillWaters said:

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*.

Well if you are enough of an idiot to bank with hsbc - the money launders bank of choice - you deserve everything you get

I should bank with Coutts! Oh that's right, like Farage I don't enough money...

Nigelb said:

Amateur (but fairly competent looking) effort to reproduce the RT superconductor research reported this week.

Should be interesting to follow.

Meissner effect or bust. Day 1.

Made good progress on the list of to-dos. I'm doing this all after-hours, so it's been a long day. Since we're gated by the delivery of the PbO + Pb(SO4), which should be tomorrow, we're working on infrastructure first.
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684433849781202944

Must be fun to be someone like that. Just doing things like making space capsules or replicating ground breaking physics experiments as a hobby.

Best bit of that thread is that he - a proud American based in LA - refers to a vacuum as sucky mcsuckface, surely a sign of British popular culture memes making their way across the Atlantic.

TheScreamingEagles said:

What this Farage story tells you.

So many of our media and political classes know bugger all about banking/AML regulations.

Perhaps they assumed AML regulations were there to catch money launderers ?

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx 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.

HYUFD is always assuring us that the average Tory voter in the south-east is a millionaire anyway - in fact, his eagerness to abolish IHT would suggest many of them are doing better than that. (OK, some of Mr F's dosh is in a house, I expect, but logic won't always apply).

Mr F definitely a man of the Tory people. Hence the threat to the "Conservative" Party.

Depends, HYUFD could be right. Add south east average property values, home ownership stats, average salaries, average age, and then add Tory voter and it isn't a million miles away from being likely.

Oh, that's indeed my point.

Ah I see. Soz.

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx 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.

HYUFD is always assuring us that the average Tory voter in the south-east is a millionaire anyway - in fact, his eagerness to abolish IHT would suggest many of them are doing better than that. (OK, some of Mr F's dosh is in a house, I expect, but logic won't always apply).

Mr F definitely a man of the Tory people. Hence the threat to the "Conservative" Party.

Depends, HYUFD could be right. Add south east average property values, home ownership stats, average salaries, average age, and then add Tory voter and it isn't a million miles away from being likely.

Oh, that's indeed my point.

Ah I see. Soz.

A Blue Wall thing, though. Not exactly one for Sedgefield I would think. Other than a general **** the Establishment kind of thing.

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Amateur (but fairly competent looking) effort to reproduce the RT superconductor research reported this week.

Should be interesting to follow.

Meissner effect or bust. Day 1.

Made good progress on the list of to-dos. I'm doing this all after-hours, so it's been a long day. Since we're gated by the delivery of the PbO + Pb(SO4), which should be tomorrow, we're working on infrastructure first.
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684433849781202944

Must be fun to be someone like that. Just doing things like making space capsules or replicating ground breaking physics experiments as a hobby.

Best bit of that thread is that he - a proud American based in LA - refers to a vacuum as sucky mcsuckface, surely a sign of British popular culture memes making their way across the Atlantic.

There's been rather a lot of scepticism expressed about the paper - but there'll be dozens of efforts like this (mostly professional), so it ought not to be very long before it's either confirmed or exploded.

NickPalmer 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

Monbiot has been championing a new tactical voting wheeze:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/totnes-election-democracy-change

As he says, this also put in an appearance in Godalming, with a false claim that Opposition parties had been consulted. I kicked up a fuss and the anonymous sponsors hastily withdrew it, though I expect it will be back in less devious terms. Tactical voting is fair enough if people want to use their vote that way, but lying isn't.

I read it - briefly - is he saying that there is a caucus of "progressive" parties and then whoever wins in each meeting everyone is asked to vote for that candidate?

What is the lying bit?

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

I understand why Coutts fired him as a customer.

Farage caught them out

Rose made a serious error for a banker

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

At the same time Suella Braverman illegally stopped payments of £3 to asylum seekers so they can eat. Which has had approximately 0% of the media attention spent on a semi politician ineligible for private banking services being denied those services. I don't think I'm being Whataboutist in thinking the priorities are wrong.

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

StillWaters said:

TOPPING said:

StillWaters said:

TOPPING 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.

Friend of mine who knows these things, was involved with Cambridge Analytica, spelled it out thus:

Would you be happy if a stranger knew your birthday, your children's names, your travel arrangements? The answer, because you plaster it all over social media, is no, not really.

Would you be happy if a stranger knew your bank account details, your payment history, your credit rating? The answer, because you believe these things are important, is yes very much.

To which he responds that the first set of info is extremely difficult to obtain, requiring
passwords and invitations; while the second is super easily available to anyone who wants to know.

Did you mean “unhappy” in both cases?

Nope. People are generally much more relaxed about telling people what they had for breakfast than what they spent that £250 on the other day.

You said people are not happy for a third party to know birthdays etc but they are happy for them to know financial details

I find that counter intuitive

You are absolutely right please re-read the post with as you acutely note - "unhappy" for "happy".

Gah

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

FF43 said:

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

The Farage bank row is a classic summer holiday news story

I understand why Coutts fired him as a customer.

Farage caught them out

Rose made a serious error for a banker

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

At the same time Suella Braverman illegally stopped payments of £3 to asylum seekers so they can eat. Which has had approximately 0% of the media attention spent on a semi politician ineligible for private banking services being denied those services. I don't think I'm being Whataboutist in thinking the priorities are wrong.

I *think* I posted that here. But memory has been swamped by the Faragian tsunami, which makes your point.

Benpointer said:

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.

Rightly, or wrongly, being poor remains a legitimate reason for a bank to reject you, surely?

Um, no. Where else is a poor person to put their pennies?

If functioning in society requires the ownership of a bank account, then people must be able to have bank accounts. To do otherwise is to ostracise that person. Consequently if banks do not want to provide one then the state must.

PB has a marked tendency to service the needs of the rich whilst neglecting the needs of the poor, or even imposing upon them against their will.

There is something that has been missed in the comments above.

Cowardice.

If Coutts has invited Farage round, to tell him he was no longer The Thing, and given him his NatWest card, there would have been no story. Because they would have acted according to the law and regulations.

Instead they tried to play a game -

1) we don’t give a reason
2) this makes it look like an investigation under the no tipping off rule
3) if Farage raises it, everyone will say “Russia” and run the sides of their noses
4) trebles all round

There was a small flaw in their plan. Due to the people involved forgetting that they weren’t the only actors in the drama.

What do you do when you’ve been binned by one bank? You go to another.

If Farage got an account at another bank, this would suggest that there wasn’t an investigation, red flags etc. He would *know*

So when other banks started asking Coutts what had happened, as part of their due diligence, what did Coutts say? Did they add some more lies to the pile? Is the story about not getting accounts at other banks true?

It goes to show something I’ve said for a long time, in business. If you lie, you are creating an alternate reality. You now have to maintain that story to end. It doesn’t go away. It will get you in the end.

kamski said:

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

Then that will be more in the borderlands of misleading. Though not @dishonest” as such. And of course traditional.

kamski said:

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

That is absolutely fine. I double checked the chart before saying that. Such a statement is still completely honest. Also coming from 3rd happened in one of the by elections.

Malmesbury said:

There is something that has been missed in the comments above.

Cowardice.

If Coutts has invited Farage round, to tell him he was no longer The Thing, and given him his NatWest card, there would have been no story. Because they would have acted according to the law and regulations.

Instead they tried to play a game -

1) we don’t give a reason
2) this makes it look like an investigation under the no tipping off rule
3) if Farage raises it, everyone will say “Russia” and run the sides of their noses
4) trebles all round

There was a small flaw in their plan. Due to the people involved forgetting that they weren’t the only actors in the drama.

What do you do when you’ve been binned by one bank? You go to another.

If Farage got an account at another bank, this would suggest that there wasn’t an investigation, red flags etc. He would *know*

So when other banks started asking Coutts what had happened, as part of their due diligence, what did Coutts say? Did they add some more lies to the pile? Is the story about not getting accounts at other banks true?

It goes to show something I’ve said for a long time, in business. If you lie, you are creating an alternate reality. You now have to maintain that story to end. It doesn’t go away. It will get you in the end.

In the end, yes, but only after you become a billionaire and President of the US apparently.......

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.

Alexa or similar? (scooped by Benpointer)

Malmesbury said:

There is something that has been missed in the comments above.

Cowardice.

If Coutts has invited Farage round, to tell him he was no longer The Thing, and given him his NatWest card, there would have been no story. Because they would have acted according to the law and regulations.

Instead they tried to play a game -

1) we don’t give a reason
2) this makes it look like an investigation under the no tipping off rule
3) if Farage raises it, everyone will say “Russia” and run the sides of their noses
4) trebles all round

There was a small flaw in their plan. Due to the people involved forgetting that they weren’t the only actors in the drama.

What do you do when you’ve been binned by one bank? You go to another.

If Farage got an account at another bank, this would suggest that there wasn’t an investigation, red flags etc. He would *know*

So when other banks started asking Coutts what had happened, as part of their due diligence, what did Coutts say? Did they add some more lies to the pile? Is the story about not getting accounts at other banks true?

It goes to show something I’ve said for a long time, in business. If you lie, you are creating an alternate reality. You now have to maintain that story to end. It doesn’t go away. It will get you in the end.

Valery Legasov's line from Chernobyl comes to mind: "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid".

HYUFD said:

I suspect Greg Hands will be delighted with that new LD barchart.

In 2019 he won with 49% of the vote ie less than half the votes but there was only 2% between the LDs and Labour for second. On current polls Starmer Labour would be a clear second so anything which helps divide his opposition also helps him cling on and keeps Chelsea and Fulham Tory blue

Anywhere the Lib Dems were second last time they will be the challenger in voters’ minds this time.

The harder ones are seats where Labour were second but the demographics suggest they might have a cap in support. It’s seats like that where FPTP really helps the Tories (and SNP).

Carnyx 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.

HYUFD is always assuring us that the average Tory voter in the south-east is a millionaire anyway - in fact, his eagerness to abolish IHT would suggest many of them are doing better than that. (OK, some of Mr F's dosh is in a house, I expect, but logic won't always apply).

Mr F definitely a man of the Tory people. Hence the threat to the "Conservative" Party.

At most they would only be a millionaire in terms of house price only a fraction of them would be earning a million pounds a year.

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Amateur (but fairly competent looking) effort to reproduce the RT superconductor research reported this week.

Should be interesting to follow.

Meissner effect or bust. Day 1.

Made good progress on the list of to-dos. I'm doing this all after-hours, so it's been a long day. Since we're gated by the delivery of the PbO + Pb(SO4), which should be tomorrow, we're working on infrastructure first.
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684433849781202944

Must be fun to be someone like that. Just doing things like making space capsules or replicating ground breaking physics experiments as a hobby.

Best bit of that thread is that he - a proud American based in LA - refers to a vacuum as sucky mcsuckface, surely a sign of British popular culture memes making their way across the Atlantic.

Good thread by someone who know what they're talking about (unlike me).

Superconducting magnet engineer chiming in.

This result could be very big news, and overnight revolutionize all of electronics and energy. It might not.

Here's a mental model for the non-expert to understand what's going on.

RTAPS: The good, the bad, and the ugly: 🧵
https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1684339092635496449

The fusion engineers seem quite excited by this, even if they remain a bit sceptical.

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

kjh said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

That is absolutely fine. I double checked the chart before saying that. Such a statement is still completely honest. Also coming from 3rd happened in one of the by elections.

I think it is definitely dishonest (although within the normal bounds of cherry-picking you'd expect) in seats where Labour (or someone else) actually has a better objective claim to being the best-placed to defeat the sitting Conservative (or sitting someone else).

It might also be counterproductive if not carefully targeted. It already has the disadvantage of being seen as just another dodgy LibDem bar chart.

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

A

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

Since paying mortgages has been banned from expenses, the following arrangement is said to have occurred.

Politician A buys a house in London. Rents it to politician B.
Politician B buys a house in London. Rents it to politician A.

Isn’t that lovely? Two happy families, cooperation, investment….

kamski said:

kjh said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

That is absolutely fine. I double checked the chart before saying that. Such a statement is still completely honest. Also coming from 3rd happened in one of the by elections.

I think it is definitely dishonest (although within the normal bounds of cherry-picking you'd expect) in seats where Labour (or someone else) actually has a better objective claim to being the best-placed to defeat the sitting Conservative (or sitting someone else).

It might also be counterproductive if not carefully targeted. It already has the disadvantage of being seen as just another dodgy LibDem bar chart.

Where this one gets interesting is considering how voters will behave. People look at the polls and start considering stuff like UNS - in which case a seat like Chelski and Fulham should be a Labour target.

In reality we know that the ABC tactical voting machine is already slewing results and will do so even more gratuitously as we approach the election. The electorate want ABC. Seats will reasonably clearly be seen as for Labour of LD. As we are seeing consistently with byelections in this parliament.

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

You might clear a couple of billion from the Saudis.

Singapore to execute its first woman in twenty years for heroin smuggling

"Singapore to execute woman on drugs charge for the first time in 20 years - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66309347

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Now, listen...!'

'No, you listen. That is the sound of your country Senator, telling you it deserves better.'

Malmesbury said:

A

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx 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

I get very twitchy about the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport, but at least I have one to prove my identity.

There's a related issue - access to Government services online. It has proved difficult to get through the Government Gateway and then the HMRC process in my experience esp if one doesn't have a photographic drivers' licence - demands to send mobile phone photos of passports (insane security wise), questions about one's credit record (not easy if one last took out a loan in 1992), and so on. And on top of that there seems to be a random element (as well as the sort of recursive loop in the website which drives one potty). @DavidL was unsurprisingly complainiong about it a few weeks back.

(And even when one does get to the HMRC site the tax information seems pretty pathetic. No clear statements of tax charged and why - just that "tax is sorted for year Y". If HMRC have done it for you it seems to be impossible to correct it once that has happened. But that is another matter.)

Another issue with "the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport" is the number of banks and lawyers you hope have got their IT security ducks in a row so your passport is not for sale on the dark web.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Anyway. I have a long, complicated surname. Cossacks stole all the vowels when we lived in the shtetl…

So I have my surname as an internet domain.

So my email is firstname@surname.com

Because I run it, anything before the @ that isn’t a proper, setup email address goes to me.

So i often give out, online, an email address specific to a purpose.

Say I fill in a form with - isuspectthisbsnkissellingdata@surname.com

Then find that email address on the web in hours…

Genius.

When I finally sort out the business email system, I'm doing that.

kamski said:

kjh said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

theProle said:

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?

It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.

Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.

But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?

That is absolutely fine. I double checked the chart before saying that. Such a statement is still completely honest. Also coming from 3rd happened in one of the by elections.

I think it is definitely dishonest (although within the normal bounds of cherry-picking you'd expect) in seats where Labour (or someone else) actually has a better objective claim to being the best-placed to defeat the sitting Conservative (or sitting someone else).

It might also be counterproductive if not carefully targeted. It already has the disadvantage of being seen as just another dodgy LibDem bar chart.

I get the point that you are making, but anywhere where it is not clear cut is fair game. The chart is completely accurate and in somewhere like Chelsea and Fulham fair game, even though both LDs and Lab have a claim to be the challenger. Do you expect the LDs to just go 'Oh you have it cos you are doing so well in the polls even though we are in 2nd place?'.

Electoral calculus currently projects Labour would win Chelsea and Fulham with 40% of the vote, the Tories on 30% and the LDs on just 17%
"New Seat Details - Chelsea and Fulham" https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Chelsea and Fulham

Average house price in Chelsea and Fulham is 1.4 million pounds so a Tory manifesto commitment to scrap IHT or raise the threshold to 1 million pounds would help Hands in this marginal seat

A

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

A

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx 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

I get very twitchy about the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport, but at least I have one to prove my identity.

There's a related issue - access to Government services online. It has proved difficult to get through the Government Gateway and then the HMRC process in my experience esp if one doesn't have a photographic drivers' licence - demands to send mobile phone photos of passports (insane security wise), questions about one's credit record (not easy if one last took out a loan in 1992), and so on. And on top of that there seems to be a random element (as well as the sort of recursive loop in the website which drives one potty). @DavidL was unsurprisingly complainiong about it a few weeks back.

(And even when one does get to the HMRC site the tax information seems pretty pathetic. No clear statements of tax charged and why - just that "tax is sorted for year Y". If HMRC have done it for you it seems to be impossible to correct it once that has happened. But that is another matter.)

Another issue with "the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport" is the number of banks and lawyers you hope have got their IT security ducks in a row so your passport is not for sale on the dark web.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Anyway. I have a long, complicated surname. Cossacks stole all the vowels when we lived in the shtetl…

So I have my surname as an internet domain.

So my email is firstname@surname.com

Because I run it, anything before the @ that isn’t a proper, setup email address goes to me.

So i often give out, online, an email address specific to a purpose.

Say I fill in a form with - isuspectthisbsnkissellingdata@surname.com

Then find that email address on the web in hours…

Genius.

When I finally sort out the business email system, I'm doing that.

On company claimed that they weren’t selling data.

So I set up a second account. So when the nice lady on the complaints hotline asked about the email address that had appeared in spam, I replied -

“WeLieAboutSellingData@surname.com”

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Now, listen...!'

'No, you listen. That is the sound of your country Senator, telling you it deserves better.'

The truth is sadder. The expectations are lower.

During lockdown one leading pol, who didn’t come from money, did a tour of her house (everyone masked up) on how she was coping.

In her vast mansion, in the main kitchen (there were others, including one for the servants), she had an ice cream freezer. A Fisher freezer (or similar) just for ice cream. Which was full of tubs of from an artisan outfit - $50 a tub or something.

I mentioned this to one of my US relatives (hard core Democrats) - who couldn’t understand why I thought it noticeable. They expect that being a leading politician gets you to $10-100 million dollars.

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

I suspect Greg Hands will be delighted with that new LD barchart.

In 2019 he won with 49% of the vote ie less than half the votes but there was only 2% between the LDs and Labour for second. On current polls Starmer Labour would be a clear second so anything which helps divide his opposition also helps him cling on and keeps Chelsea and Fulham Tory blue

I agree, Labour is the main threat to the Tories in Chelsea and Fulham. The LDs only came second because of Corbyn.

It's more subtle and intangible than that. The seats the LDs can actually win have particular qualities. One of them is being a certain sort of educated posh. Another is being south west - an area especially ripe for recovery.

C and F is complex. In 2017 Labour did well and LDs collapsed. In 2019 Labour did much less well and the LDs more than doubled their vote. Corbyn of course Lab leader both times.

The question is whether demographically the 'knitted muesli but never Labour' set prevail over the 'we are urban so it's Tory or Labour' set. This could give betting opportunities.

"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ

"Something strange has happened over the past few years in [UK] boardrooms up and down the country. Chairmen and chief executives have surrendered their common sense and succumbed to a form of corporate capture, otherwise known as the woke agenda"
-The Times

9:27 AM · Jul 27, 2023"

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1684480620557115393

HYUFD said:

Electoral calculus currently projects Labour would win Chelsea and Fulham with 40% of the vote, the Tories on 30% and the LDs on just 17%
"New Seat Details - Chelsea and Fulham" https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Chelsea and Fulham

Average house price in Chelsea and Fulham is 1.4 million pounds so a Tory manifesto commitment to scrap IHT or raise the threshold to 1 million pounds would help Hands in this marginal seat

... which is why the LibDems are producing that graph on their literature.
Greg Hands is vulnerable if the anti-Tory vote can coalesce around a challenger.
The LibDems came second at the last GE, but Labour were only 2 or 3% behind, so I can see why they're doing it.

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Now, listen...!'

'No, you listen. That is the sound of your country Senator, telling you it deserves better.'

Today.

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Fake news.'

HYUFD said:

Electoral calculus currently projects Labour would win Chelsea and Fulham with 40% of the vote, the Tories on 30% and the LDs on just 17%
"New Seat Details - Chelsea and Fulham" https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Chelsea and Fulham

Average house price in Chelsea and Fulham is 1.4 million pounds so a Tory manifesto commitment to scrap IHT or raise the threshold to 1 million pounds would help Hands in this marginal seat

Yes we don't want the LDs getting busy in Chelsea & Fulham. That's a central London seat. It's Labour. What we want the LDs doing is winning seats off the Cons in the SW and blue wall towns and burbs.

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ

"Something strange has happened over the past few years in [UK] boardrooms up and down the country. Chairmen and chief executives have surrendered their common sense and succumbed to a form of corporate capture, otherwise known as the woke agenda"
-The Times

9:27 AM · Jul 27, 2023"

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1684480620557115393

We add 'the history of corporate governance' to the very long list of things Professor Goodwin has no knowledge of.

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

A

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx 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

I get very twitchy about the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport, but at least I have one to prove my identity.

There's a related issue - access to Government services online. It has proved difficult to get through the Government Gateway and then the HMRC process in my experience esp if one doesn't have a photographic drivers' licence - demands to send mobile phone photos of passports (insane security wise), questions about one's credit record (not easy if one last took out a loan in 1992), and so on. And on top of that there seems to be a random element (as well as the sort of recursive loop in the website which drives one potty). @DavidL was unsurprisingly complainiong about it a few weeks back.

(And even when one does get to the HMRC site the tax information seems pretty pathetic. No clear statements of tax charged and why - just that "tax is sorted for year Y". If HMRC have done it for you it seems to be impossible to correct it once that has happened. But that is another matter.)

Another issue with "the number of banks and lawyers with a photocopy of my passport" is the number of banks and lawyers you hope have got their IT security ducks in a row so your passport is not for sale on the dark web.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Anyway. I have a long, complicated surname. Cossacks stole all the vowels when we lived in the shtetl…

So I have my surname as an internet domain.

So my email is firstname@surname.com

Because I run it, anything before the @ that isn’t a proper, setup email address goes to me.

So i often give out, online, an email address specific to a purpose.

Say I fill in a form with - isuspectthisbsnkissellingdata@surname.com

Then find that email address on the web in hours…

I used to do a similar thing. I got all emails to @mycompanyname.co.uk. Great for spotting spams. I would also send emails with different beginnings to my email address or include them in documents to see where they subsequently appeared or were used.. Caught at least one organisation misusing data.

If you don't want to use @mydomainname you can do this with gmail (yes, I know).

myemailaddress+anythingyoulikehere@gmail.com still gets delivered to myemailaddress@gmail.com

Most forms accept addresses with a plus symbol, so each one gets a different suffix.


To be fair, most spam machines probably know this and chop it off, but not all...

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

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 from his CAB experience that just about anyone ordinary and poor could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise. The logical inference, which may be wrong, is that it is folk with substantial money that they can't explain who are having trouble, or else they are people with houses, etc., who have fallen foul of another bank. I can imagine that one bank's cloising an account could lead to 5-10 mostly unsuccessful applications in a chain reaction.

It does warrant more investigation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone survives in today's society without a bank account. People in receipt of benefits need one*. Most employees will too. Guess if you've a huge suitcase of cash under the bed you can survive for a time. Or if you are entirely living in the black economy.

I would guess most adults without bank accounts are supported by someone else.

* There is a benefit Payment Exception Service https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service but it looks like a very tedious system to use. Maybe the only route for those who can't get a bank account due to a fraud conviction?)

The banks are all supposed to offer a simple card-and-no-credit account. However, the rejection rates for these are still high. But vary from bank to bank, apparently.

I used to work for one of the alt-banks. Since they offered no credit, they offered soft entry. If someone sent you a payment via the bank specific payment system and you weren’t signed up, it created an account for you under the name you provided - just name and email. To actually transfer the money etc, you had to scan your passport or driving license etc, to upgrade your account. The only way to not get an account would be to have an actual red flag on the interbank systems.

Another interesting story - the same outfit tried setting up in the US. They got monstered by the Democrats on a Congressional committee. Accused of all kinds of stuff - despite the plan being to offer chargeless banking to poor people.

When they asked some political consultants, they explained that the Democrats in question represented the poor areas. In such areas there is a big cross over between community credit setups and activism on the left. The community credit outfits make a lot of money and donate heavily to the politicians. Cheap, available banking cuts into that nice lite circle.

Damn. I hate it when politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor.

American politics has legalised bribery.

Providing you obey a complex system of rules, you can enter politics with nothing in your pockets. And retire with a hundred million dollars. As a beacon of probity and honest dealing. If you are actually corrupt….

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Now, listen...!'

'No, you listen. That is the sound of your country Senator, telling you it deserves better.'

Today.

'I hope you were blind to what you were doing, but if you were, it was because your greed made you so.'

'Fake news.'

That TV series was only released a month ago!

Maybe, but the dialogue is straight out of Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

(A film that I dearly love, though.)

In this case, it was Jack Ryan went to Town with it.