politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Turnout’s going to be higher surely on May 7th – but how mu

antifrank said:

Off topic, where is the pb allnighter on election night going to be? It seems that I may unexpectedly have a night at liberty that night.

Oh - Hope everything is OK with your OH and his 50th !

http://www.finborougharms.co.uk/ is Stonch's pub.

Been working on the city v Barca game today and numbercrunching have come up with a bet that doesn't feel right but the system says is value

Aguero first booking 33/1 VC

If anyone can get on and can get me on small I'll have it for a score?

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

We have data on this! The pollsters ask people how likely they are to vote. They are saying they are likely to vote at c. 1997 levels.

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Turnout-1024x529.jpg

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=61

Still rather sell!

The Ipsos Mori figures are certainly not showing any increased likelihood to vote certainly not to 1997 levels .

Are you comparing like-with-like i.e. 3 months out?

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

Smarmeron said:

If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?

We haven't bailed out a stock market.

If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.

We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.

The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.

I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.

The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.

Time Value of Money - TVM.

The British government pays 1.8% for 10 year money - so I don't think that's going to affect the equation very much.

It would make breakeven about £6 though.

Tissue_Price said:

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

We have data on this! The pollsters ask people how likely they are to vote. They are saying they are likely to vote at c. 1997 levels.

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Turnout-1024x529.jpg

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=61

Still rather sell!

The Ipsos Mori figures are certainly not showing any increased likelihood to vote certainly not to 1997 levels .

Are you comparing like-with-like i.e. 3 months out?

I was and it did indicate 71 could be on, but even so Id rather be a seller at 69.7 than a buyer at 70.3 I think

Smarmeron said:

This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses)

Really? I think that those were actually involved would have a rather robust reaction to the suggestion that they were somehow protected from losing their shirts.

Try Googling 'lloyds names bankruptcy'. You might learn something.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

What else are they going to do?

Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.

I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.

Back to the old nursery rhyme: "Pop goes the weasel”!

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

What else are they going to do?

Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.

I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.

Indeed. It's often quite rational on some level.

My bank is going to charge me £25 if this direct debit bounces, but I can borrow enough to cover the DD and pay back + £5 when I get paid. I either get screwed for £25 by my bank, or £5 from wonga.

Hand-to-mouth financial logic is something I suspect most PB'ers can't relate to. Much easier to pity, shame and condemn them for their stupidity.

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

Smarmeron said:

If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?

We haven't bailed out a stock market.

If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.

We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.

The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.

I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.

The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.

Time Value of Money - TVM.

The British government pays 1.8% for 10 year money - so I don't think that's going to affect the equation very much.

It would make breakeven about £6 though.

Yes, fair point.

Smarmeron said:

@rcs1000
What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees.
This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses)
You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement.
But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.

IIRC the Lloyds Names had to cough up.

The shareholders of the failed banks lost the vast majority of their investments. Would you have preferred the depositors to have lost out as well?

rcs1000 said:

Smarmeron said:

@rcs1000
In the capatilist system you advocate ( allegedly) they would have lost money for banking with a bunch of crooks.
But you are only interested in a specialized form of capitalism where failure is not an option.
I know you are mainly into banking, but would you like to explain to the good folks on here what happened when the companies called in the liabilities of the "names"?
If you are clueless, look it up.

I presume you're talking about the Lloyds insurance market, which has historically been funded by "names".

There was no government bail out of the insurance market, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.

You keep saying banks should have been allowed to fail.

Now; imagine that John Smith Software Ltd banked with RBS. RBS has been allowed to fail. It's in adminstration. How does John Smith Software Ltd pay its staff at the end of the month?

£75,000 deposit insurance won't help it, if its monthly wage bill is £200k.

Only small firms are included in the financial compensation scheme. Bigger firms are excluded and defined as:

"a body corporate (which includes a company, industrial and provident society, Royal Charter body, and statutory corporation) which has two or more of the following

- more than £6.5 million turnover

- more than £3.26 million balance sheet total

- more than 50 employees"

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Off topic, where is the pb allnighter on election night going to be? It seems that I may unexpectedly have a night at liberty that night.

Oh - Hope everything is OK with your OH and his 50th !

http://www.finborougharms.co.uk/ is Stonch's pub.

Everything is fine - he's going to northern Ireland a couple of days earlier than me to prepare for his party. I think he has a shrewd suspicion how I want to spend the evening.

Sweating on the SNP

I'll be at the pub too btw.

Off topic, is it time to start worrying about how obsessed I am with politics when I start dreaming about elections?

Last night, I dreamt that the Lib Dems gained Watford with over 50% of the vote.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.

Pong said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

What else are they going to do?

Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.

I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.

Indeed. It's often quite rational on some level.

My bank is going to charge me £25 if this direct debit bounces, but I can borrow enough to cover the DD and pay back + £5 when I get paid. I either get screwed for £25 by my bank, or £5 from wonga.

Hand-to-mouth financial logic is something I suspect most PB'ers can't relate to. Much easier to pity, shame and condemn them for their stupidity.

How bloody brilliant would it have been if, instead of funnelling 4% loans to rich tory voters in the shires (at great cost to our unborn children) - we put that into micro-loans/savings for some of our poorest communities.

If you're able to save up a £1000 safety net, and you can see 20% interest on that, paid in weekly (with a nice reminder by text, that you've earned £2.65 interest this week) - the hand-to-mouth mindset starts to change considerably.

@Sean_F
Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that.
It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration.
Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members.
No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am.
Again!

Pong,

"4% loans to rich tory voters."

I think you mean 4% loans to rich tory voters who don't earn enough to pay income tax.

Numeracy is important.

If a lot of the cleaned up (removed) details were fraudulent then the voting percentage will drop. After all - the only reason for creating a fraudulent voter is to vote.

dr_spyn said:

Labour looking for new candidate in Truro.

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/shameless-labour-candidate-withdraws-after-benefit-overclaiming-exposed/

Money resting in the account defence.

The "Father Ted" defence, as I think it's known....

Down with This Kind of Thing!

David_Evershed said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.

My father used to loan a florin (10p) on Monday and expect a half crown (12.5p) back on the Friday. The NS guys were happy to take it.

The Guardian have an update on voter registration.

Sean_F said:

Smarmeron said:

@rcs1000
What happened was that the "names" suddenly discovered that the "free" money they got for guaranteeing the insurance market was not risk free, and that they were being asked to back up the guarantees.
This led to all those rich and privileged sods, whining to the sympathetic government, who then made "arrangements" to stop them losing their shirts (or blouses)
You lot are the real scroungers and benefit "junkies" with a sense of entitlement.
But you are all too hypocritical to ever admit it.

IIRC the Lloyds Names had to cough up.

The shareholders of the failed banks lost the vast majority of their investments. Would you have preferred the depositors to have lost out as well?

The problem with the LLoyds cases was that the Names gave instructions as to the type of syndicate that they were prepared to join e.g. a marine or commercial property or motor.

Regrettably their managers placed them on higher-risk/ higher reward syndicates specialising in public/ employers liability - and when the asbestos hit the fan their losses multiplied.

Lloyds has a reputation for paying claims - after the San Francisco earthquake a telegram was cent by CE Heath “pay all of our policyholders in full, irrespective of the terms of their policies”

This they were able to do because they charged sensible premiums for the risk. These days 'underwriters' write for market share, not profitability - with the result that claims aren't paid as quickly and cover provided is reduced substantially.

But if that is what the public want - then that is what the public get.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

Smarmeron said:

If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?

We haven't bailed out a stock market.

If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.

We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.

The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.

I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.

The tax payer paid £5/share for RBS. The current price is £4. The company makes c. 33p profit per year, so just "adding the profit" gets us to £5 in three years.

RBS doesn't pay dividends, and my personal belief is that they still have a lot of undeclared bad debt. Regardless once you add in other costs associated with purchasing the shares the break even price is probably higher, though this is not my area of expertise so I'm couldn't say how much higher.

We'll see how well the Williams and Glynn sale goes...

RBS will continue to accrue capital internally, until tier one is - say - 12%. It will then dividend out profits. (As is true of pretty much every bank in the UK, Europe and the US.)

We know what the level of non-performing loans (i.e. people not paying interest or keeping up with principal repayments) in the RBS loan book is, and it really isn't that high.

You are essentially taking the view that management is lying.

Yes.

weejonnie said:

David_Evershed said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

For once, a story about job losses that is good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152

This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.

yes agree because now all those people who needed the money will just stop needing it and not go anywhere else, say, oh I don't know, somewhere unlicensed.

Maybe they will be forced to learn better money management?

ah if only everything were that simple.

I don't think piling very high interest debt onto people with debt/credit problems is a good for those people. It just relieves short term pressure and builds up longer term issues. Look at Greece as a classic example of this.

Borrowing £20 on a Tuesday and paying back £25 on a Friday may be a penal rate of interest but it provides an often important filip for some people and shouldn't necessarily be seen in terms of APR.

The whole of the £5 charge would be absorbed by admin costs and provision for non payments. The interest charge is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately the way the Annual Percentage Rate of interest is calculated does not accept that there are any adminstration costs or bad debts on short term lending to high risk customers.

My father used to loan a florin (10p) on Monday and expect a half crown (12.5p) back on the Friday. The NS guys were happy to take it.

That's 25% over 5 days. There are 73 five-day periods in the year, so if we compound that (1.25^73-1) it gives you an APR of, erm, over a billion percent. (APR 1,186,945,868% to be exact)

That's how stupid using an APR for short-term loans is.

David_Evershed said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

Smarmeron said:

If capitalism is such a great system, why do we have to bail out the banks and stock markets?

We haven't bailed out a stock market.

If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.

We bailed out the people to whom the banks owed money, i.e. their depositors.

The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.

I struggle to see how the taxpayer will make a profit from RBS. It is still a business in turmoil.

The main support provided by the Government/Bank of England to RBS has been through loans and guarantees rather than equity investment in new RBS shares. The interest margin on the loans and the fees charged for the guarantees have earned sufficient profit to offset any future loss made on the RBS shares.

I think you make a good point when you talk about guarantees and the 'fees' paid to secure them. We have not given away free money.

@TheWatcher
We don't have a Weatherspoon's here yet.
Want to give me a run down on what I am missing, or are you one of those secret home drinkers hiding the fact from your family perhaps?

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree?
Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets?
Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment?
the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.

These are the sorts of arguments that Ron Paul would make. There is some intellectual force behind arguments that we should just let banks fail, and for their depositors to have to recover their money through the normal process of insolvency. But, I think we'd have to accept a significant reduction in economic activity if we did so.

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
Isn't loss part of the "moral hazard" of capitalism? Of course, if the average punter had taken a haircut on his bank account, they might not be so keen to give you their money to bet with again, so the system would have to restructure to become more honest and transparent, and none of you want that.
It would mean many on here would actually have to work for their vast remuneration.
Better to just carry on with the belief that money equals morality, and keep the privileged few making laws to suit their old school chums, and private club members.
No come on. tell me what a filthy socialist I am.
Again!

The history of punters "taking a haircut" on their deposits is that they don't like it and withdraw their money in advance.. See the queues at Northern Rock..The resulting run on a Bank forces it to liquidate assets .

Then as asset values fall, more banks have lower asset values and become unstable.. and so on.

It's called a "crash" See 1929.

In the US it happened a lot in 1929. The result was soup kitchens and GDP fell 30% in three years... Yes 30%...

The Greeks are close to the same situation and if their bailout does not happen the same will happen to them but worse..


If you want to "restructure" the system that way, the people who would lose out are all those reliant on jobs to feed themselves.. as there would be far fewer jobs.

I recommend a few weeks reading about the 1929 crash and its aftereffects...you might learn some basic facts about banking crises.

The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.

I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.

We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.

Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.

On topic, sell.

I did think the Indyref effect might boost turnout in North Britain but in the Scotland specific polling I've seen nothing to say turnout won't be the usual.

@madasafish
Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can?
(I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
The people funding QE are us, or did you think Ozzie was getting the cash from a magic financial money tree?
Who gets the profits, and whose jobs are ultimately at risk from over inflated assets?
Why does capitalism need subsidised workers to take the place of true investment?
the whole system is an insane shambles run for the benefit of the few who are also the ones who fund our lawmakers.

In effect the Bank of England IS getting money from a magic money tree to buy UK government bonds under its QE programme. This is because the B of E can create as much new sterling in circulation as it wishes, consistent with its duty to contain (domestic) inflation.

The people who pay the price are people who suffer from higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, caused by the increased money supply and lower interest rates of QE. Such people are presently those who rely on interest income from savings. In the past pensioners have suffered when pensions have not kept pace with high inflation.

@rural_voter
Money from nothing?
You believe in the magic money tree? I thought that was only the thick socialists?

Smarmeron said:

@rural_voter
Money from nothing?
You believe in the magic money tree? I thought that was only the thick socialists?

Believing that the magic money tree exists is one thing.

Believing that using the magic money tree at the wrong time is a good thing - is something completely different.

rcs1000 said:

Smarmeron said:

@madasafish
Why read about the great depression when we have our own special one where the better off get richer, while those at the bottom carry the can?
(I think I have a pretty good idea of what the "Great Depression " was like, and why the welfare state that many on here despise came into being)

I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of alternatives from you.

Please tell us what you think we should have let happen with RBS and the like?

The point he refuses to make is that it was not a failure of banking it was a failure of regulation (a failure born of a socialist attempt to neuter the Bank of England). Plus the source of the failure lay in the left wing (Democrat) politicisation (akin to nationalising the banks) of sub prime loans to people who were always unlikely to repay.

OblitusSumMe said:

This is interesting, and also relevant to betting on politics in terms of the emotional reaction to unwanted polling evidence. Check your biases!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/feb/24/nobody-immune-science-they-do-not-like-even-liberals

So true! Everyone's a lawyer making the case for their instinctive prejudices

Great article, although I am worried that i am only saying that because it backs up what I believe!!

Shouldn't this be 'on manoeuvres'?

Anyway have to disagree... I've met plenty of fairly prominent kippers in the last year, and none have said anything anti immigrant, they just want controlled borders. As O'Flynn said on QT 'we want to give immigration a good name again'

Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
24/02/2015 15:25
Douglas Carswell is manoeuvres. But will his pro-immigration rhetoric sink Ukip? tgr.ph/1DkcVQh

nigel4england said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.

I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.

We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.

Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.

Also things like key meters for gas and electricity are more expensive, and it is mostly the poor that have to use them.

I don't understand why that is so and why more is not made of it.

They've made progress on that. British Gas prepay customers should be on the same tariff as normal customers.

The other shameful behaviour was restricting bank accounts to the poor which again has now been fixed.

Another Dave, bankruptcy is sometimes for the best.

Plus in the UK we have laws that stop cutting off water and the other utilities that are much better than the U.S. Laws.

Smarmeron said:

@nigel4england
Because the poor are invisible and worthless, they are there to be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford shares and investments.

'twas ever thus

[I think you're overdoing the whole Dave Spart thing. Have a cup of tea.]

Shall we play 'imagine it was a kipper that said it'?

Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
24/02/2015 16:13
I know what would solve crisis in the NHS, says Tory MP: astrology tgr.ph/1Dkv9Bk

TheScreamingEagles said:

The problem with pay day loans is that with a lot of firms you can roll over the principal amount 12 times and only pay the interest due on a monthly basis.

I've seen people take out a payday loan of £150 for a month and roll it forward 11 times so they've paid back over a grand to repay it. So the APR can be useful on payday loans because it can take a year to repay it.

We've let some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society exploited because of their situation.

Usury was a crime and the coalition should be delighted they've made the life of payday lenders harder.

From 1 July 2014 payday loan lenders have not (legally) been able to “roll over” a loan more than twice.

isam said:

Shall we play 'imagine it was a kipper that said it'?

Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
24/02/2015 16:13
I know what would solve crisis in the NHS, says Tory MP: astrology tgr.ph/1Dkv9Bk

What a moron, hah!

I have been writing a quick program to condense posters comments to a single sentence that encapsulates their ideas, by extracting a corpus, removing noise words, synonym replacement, porter stemming, ranking keywords, and then identifying the sentence with the highest rank. But Smareron has thrown the results way off...

@MarqueeMark
Last alcohol I had was a half can of some Mexican lager one of the neighbours handed in by way of an apology, and before that it was two pints of draught with a meal just after Christmas.
How are you getting along?