politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe the LAB membership isn’t quite the force for Corbyn a
Options
Comments
-
This was rather fun as Labour turns kept praising the SNP
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/yeah-youre-making-me-a-crazy-chick0 -
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.0 -
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.0 -
Hard to believe Grayling was ex SDPCasino_Royale said:Grayling in full flow at Vote Leave on BBC News 24.
0 -
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.0 -
Well I'm a leading activist in a London CLP - our membership is now about 225% of its May 2015 figure. We've emailed, them, invited them to meetings, generally tried to involve them and to what effect?AlastairMeeks said:Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/how-rebuild-labour-political-party-from-ground-up
Our branch AGMs were much better attended - this is because everybody knew that momentum would try to remove existing officers. A task in which they failed miserably - their candidates were humiliated by 4-1 at the constituency AGM.
But otherwise the new members have done precisely nothing. They do not campaign, they are not involved, the number of activists is, if anything, lower than before.
The truth is that these people are not representative of the electorate, they have done nothing for the Party apart from foist Corbyn on us and the sooner they return whence they came the better for all of us.0 -
It was rather easier for those seeking to detail the von Trapps.Casino_Royale said:
Not if you're the family Von Trapp.rcs1000 said:
Crossing land borders in Europe - even before Schengen - has always been a pot of piss.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course it has something to do with this. Freedom of movement only applied to EU citizens not all and sundry. If you're illegally in one Schengen nation you can get into all of them from there without ever passing another border security force. This delegates every nations border to the weakest link.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not sure how many times we have to repeat this. Schengen has absolutely nothing to do with the right to move between countries. It is only about not having to stop and show your documentation to someone at a border. So long as you are not on some list of undesirables (terrorists, criminals etc) whether you are in Schengen or not has sweet FA to do with freedom of movement.John_N said:
All of them. Start by realising Schengen visas aren't given out to all comers like public relations toffees.CarlottaVance said:
Which EU countries do it?blackburn63 said:FPT
Controlling immigration is easy, you stop people entering the country.
Now you may decide that's not a good idea but its perfectly possible and not at all difficult to implement, plenty of countries do it. The EU is just a smokescreen, the govt could change policy this afternoon if it wished.0 -
Just a bit of bants....TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.0 -
Equally hard to believe he is ex-BBC....I can't imagine he expressed his right wing views on criminal justice and anti-EU sentiment very loudly when he worked there.TheScreamingEagles said:
Hard to believe Grayling was ex SDPCasino_Royale said:Grayling in full flow at Vote Leave on BBC News 24.
0 -
If Labour's branch meetings are anything like Tory ones (and from a friend who was a Labour branch committee member until Corbyn was elected when he resigned his membership in disgust, I understand that they are), I can well sympathise with members not being too enthused by the experience.flightpath01 said:
Not turning up for meetings is a different level of disinterest to not voting for a candidate. I am not sure what is new about OGH revelations.AlastairMeeks said:Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/how-rebuild-labour-political-party-from-ground-up0 -
Before Malcolm has an aneurysm, I've also dealt with a lot of lovely Edinburgh cab drivers.TOPPING said:
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
This chap was an exception to the norm0 -
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.0 -
Paedos and Perjury: We Shadowed the Man Behind the Salacious @CourtNewsUK Twitter Account
"You don't see national newspaper reporters turn up for many trials now at all. At the end of the Hatton Garden trial, for example, there wasn't one national newspaper reporter present when they were convicted."
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/court-news-uk-courtroom-reporting0 -
The irony is, I was what 33 at the time, I've been to Saudi Arabia twice in my life, and absolutely hated it each time.FrancisUrquhart said:
Just a bit of bants....TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Too bloody hot, and far too Muslims enforcing religious laws.0 -
OT.
So Momentum is grinding to shuddering halt?0 -
@roadto326: Says it all that the current leadership want to welcome in people like Gerry Downing, but trying to win back centrist Tories is heresy0
-
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
Although - of course - they have no control over that. Despite printing massive amounts of money, the Yen remains stubbornly expensive.taffys said:
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.0 -
Their influence is greatly exaggerated IMO. In my experience their organisational efforts are amatuerish in the extreme and they antagonise long standing members by adopting an air of moral superiority and entitlement. The key footsoldiers in any party are its Councillors - they effectively control branches in many cases - and most Councillors strongly oppose momentum as it threatens them with deselection.MikeK said:OT.
So Momentum is grinding to shuddering halt?0 -
That's not a pop at uber.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's flannel aimed at buttering up cabbies. Not the same at all.0 -
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.Casino_Royale said:
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?
0 -
I never knew this...what a s##t job.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/brand-accounts-are-being-run-by-aspiring-comedians0 -
0
-
Great to hear insider feedback like this, many thanks.anothernick said:
Their influence is greatly exaggerated IMO. In my experience their organisational efforts are amatuerish in the extreme and they antagonise long standing members by adopting an air of moral superiority and entitlement. The key footsoldiers in any party are its Councillors - they effectively control branches in many cases - and most Councillors strongly oppose momentum as it threatens them with deselection.MikeK said:OT.
So Momentum is grinding to shuddering halt?0 -
Wriggling furiously wasn't how I'd have described it - I thought he gave a robust defence, but we all bring our own views to the table.watford30 said:
He made a great comment about Clegg being 'up on his hind legs'.CarlottaVance said:
Exactly. The Sun Editor was wriggling furiously on R4 Today this morning refusing to answer whether the queen's comments were made after the referendum was called - describing the question as 'semantics' - so I think we know the answer to that one then.....Casino_Royale said:
FWIW I think this is a case of HM asking critical questions of her privvy council on the EU, and this was back in the depths of the eurozone crisis in 2011, rather than declaring one way or another.John_N said:"Privacy" of conversations that the monarch holds with politicians is such a load of crap.
If she's being neutral in public but backing one side in private, is it wrong in some way to reveal her dishonesty?
Has the person who reveals it been a naughty boy? Can't any public person in this country whip up the guts to criticise their beloved hereditary monarch? Anyone got a paper bag?0 -
You do know that Uber drivers are vetted to exactly the same extent as mini cab drivers, with special insurance, etc?Cyclefree said:
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.Casino_Royale said:
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?0 -
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.0 -
The Euro is now up against the dollar!0
-
Fwiw Edinburgh & Glasgow allow Uber.TOPPING said:
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.0 -
I don't get that. Is Darth Vader Britain or Iceland or ... what?MikeK said:The revenge of the Sith!
https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/7079297629001441280 -
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).Charles said:
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!0 -
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
I know that!rcs1000 said:
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
0 -
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.taffys said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?0 -
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.rcs1000 said:
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).Charles said:
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!0 -
We were very long-term shareholders, but we left the party last year. Great bank, just a little expensive.Charles said:
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.rcs1000 said:
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).Charles said:
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
Would the best bank in the world be on Fleet Street?0 -
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
0 -
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.0 -
Clearly you've never been to Sweden. Your description is entirely accurate.taffys said:
Could it possibly be that Sweden wasn;t an overregulated, sceloritic, high tax, socialist basket case with a currency way too strong for its economy?Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.0 -
I wasn't comparing them to mini cab drivers. But to cabbies. I never use minicabs. Too many poor experiences.rcs1000 said:
You do know that Uber drivers are vetted to exactly the same extent as mini cab drivers, with special insurance, etc?Cyclefree said:
My experience of black cabs has been quite the opposite, I have to say. On the whole I do feel reassured about the fact that the drivers are vetted. I would not be happy about getting into a car driven by someone who had not been vetted in some way. Nor about my daughter doing the same. One reason why I have an taxi account for late night journeys etc.Casino_Royale said:
I find cabbies rude, self-centred, self-obsessed, overpriced and inflexible.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Why on earth would I want to hire a black cab over an uber?
0 -
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."0 -
If I were choosing 3 people for Leave I'd have Dan Hannan, Kate Hoey and Priti Patel.Luckyguy1983 said:
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
0 -
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?0 -
Then they lend it on to the ECB at negative rates? Somehow doesn;t sound like a good business model....rcs1000 said:
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.taffys said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
Selling beer?rcs1000 said:
We were very long-term shareholders, but we left the party last year. Great bank, just a little expensive.Charles said:
Handelsbanken is probably the second best bank that I know of.rcs1000 said:
Of course, 15 years ago Swedish banks were the basket cases of Europe (and the world).Charles said:
Banks that do what they are supposed to do, in a sensible and effective way.Richard_Nabavi said:
What were the factors which made it work better in Sweden than elsewhere?rcs1000 said:Will negative interest rates work?
They did in Sweden, where economic growth has gone through the roof since the Riksbank started charge commercial banks to leave money with it. They have not in Japan.
Frankly, a bigger boost to Eurozone GDP - although not inflation rates - is likely to be the low price of oil.
Now they are the highest returning (and highest P/B) in the world.
EDIT: I meant 25 years ago. Doh!
Would the best bank in the world be on Fleet Street?
The old Cheshire Cheese is not bad either0 -
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/gerry-downing-gets-brillod/
What a chump agreeing to go and get Brillo'ed. 5 mins in, is when it gets good.
TBH, he sounds like just Jahadi Jez in his responses to difficult questions about terrorist sympathizing.0 -
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
0 -
you would have thought an investment like that would require a return of some kind....!!rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."0 -
Does it matter? The remark is stupid anyway.Wanderer said:
I don't get that. Is Darth Vader Britain or Iceland or ... what?MikeK said:The revenge of the Sith!
https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/7079297629001441280 -
The Swiss Central Bank, yes.taffys said:
Then they lend it on to the ECB at negative rates? Somehow doesn;t sound like a good business model....rcs1000 said:
The only banks with negative deposit rates for customers are in Switzerland. In Europe, banks would rather take your money and pay you no interest than not take it at all.taffys said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't. they always have, one way or another. I'm just trying to get used to deposit accounts that give you less money than you started with.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
Rubio could be about to go on a winning streak.RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
I can see him STORMING through the primaries in the US Virgin Islands, Guam and Washington DC. Eat your heart out, The Donald.0 -
Re banks:-
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules.
Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No.
Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City.
Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
0 -
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.Luckyguy1983 said:
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.0 -
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?Cyclefree said:
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?0 -
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...0 -
Ahh many thanks - not last time I was there but I see they launched in November last year.Theuniondivvie said:
Fwiw Edinburgh & Glasgow allow Uber.TOPPING said:
There is something deeply suspect about a city which doesn't allow Uber. Sorry Malc but there it is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Heh.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's not possible. Black people can't be racist....according to Diane Abbott.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't understand this hate for Uber, I love it, and especially when they send their Uber Exec fleet.TOPPING said:
I'm in an uber now. Excellent, fraction of the price of a black cab or minicab.TheScreamingEagles said:
Edit: of course if you are very rich you don't care about the price...
Plus, I always seem to attract the racist black cabbies
Honestly, I went to Edinburgh to a few years ago, got in a black cab, and got driven around in a black cab, with someone who was probably a member of the Scottish Defence League
This was the convo.
Cabbie: Are you from around here?
Me: Well via an accident of birth, I was born in Edinburgh, but I consider myself an Englishman, what with having grown up and lived there all my life.
Cabbie: See that's what I don't like about you Muslims, you'll have no loyalty to this country, you'll be loyal to Saudi Arabia in a few years time.
Look at the benefits of the Union!0 -
Osborne in front of an audience of 12,500. What could possibly go wrong? (Other than booing, cat calls and urine filled plastic bottles flying towards the stage).GarethoftheVale2 said:
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.Luckyguy1983 said:
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.0 -
Jeremy Hardy, a comedian who backs Jeremy Corbyn, jokes about the mental health problems of people who disagree with him. What a nice man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12189795/If-you-support-Trident-you-must-be-mentally-ill.-Ha-ha-ha.html0 -
I wouldn't be too confident about Barclays.Philip_Thompson said:
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?Cyclefree said:
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?0 -
Students have forced Cambridge University to cancel an Around The World In 80 Days-themed event over fears that people will wear racially offensive costumes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485738/Cambridge-University-cancel-World-80-Days-theme-party-case-students-dress-offensive-costumes-cultures.html
SAFE SPACE SAFEEEEEE SPACEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE0 -
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12189795/If-you-support-Trident-you-must-be-mentally-ill.-Ha-ha-ha.htmlPlato_Says said:Jeremy Hardy, a comedian who backs Jeremy Corbyn, jokes about the mental health problems of people who disagree with him. What a nice man.
Another fellow traveller of the terrorist sympathizer movement....
"Hardy supported Irish nationalist Róisín McAliskey, the then-pregnant daughter of Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, when the former was accused of involvement in an IRA mortar attack in Germany, and put up part of the bail money to free her"0 -
When I was an MP, I once persuaded my wife, who was a passive party member, to come to a General Committee meeting, and was pleased that it was unusually lively and varied. Afterwards, I eagerly asked what she thought.david_herdson said:
If Labour's branch meetings are anything like Tory ones (and from a friend who was a Labour branch committee member until Corbyn was elected when he resigned his membership in disgust, I understand that they are), I can well sympathise with members not being too enthused by the experience.flightpath01 said:
Not turning up for meetings is a different level of disinterest to not voting for a candidate. I am not sure what is new about OGH revelations.AlastairMeeks said:Local Labour parties are seriously missing a trick if they aren't doing their utmost to harness this potential new resource. In the main, most of them will not be fanged Maoists but idealists enthused by a crusading vision.
They should be reading this and using it as a case study:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/how-rebuild-labour-political-party-from-ground-up
"Are they ALWAYS as f***ing awful as that?"
She never attended another.0 -
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.Pulpstar said:
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
"See, they hate me..."0 -
Which sounds bad until you consider the alternatives and the track record of these organisations in not returning the money on demand (within the terms of the loan agreement).rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Not entirely true about being unsecured either, given the FSCS provisions.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Urquhart, Cambridge and the whiners are pathetic.
Incidentally, those who rail against that sort of thing may very well enjoy forthcoming book The Adventures of Sir Edric, by Thaddeus White (me). Hardback pre-order's up here [no e-book pre-order yet]:
http://shop.ticketyboopress.co.uk/index.php?id_product=97&controller=product0 -
You may have a point thereflightpath01 said:
Does it matter? The remark is stupid anyway.Wanderer said:
I don't get that. Is Darth Vader Britain or Iceland or ... what?MikeK said:The revenge of the Sith!
https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/7079297629001441280 -
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.rcs1000 said:The Euro is now up against the dollar!
0 -
Corbyn and Hardy?
Another fine mess.0 -
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.0 -
I see The Donald has done an interview with Anderson Cooper, where tried his best to appear moderate, to seem less aggressive, and reach out for the Muslim vote....who am I trying to kid...
Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us'
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/0 -
Banks don't have to charge - If you go overdrawn you get penalised massively. If you are in credit then the bank pays you 0.5% a year on your balance and, thanks to the wonders of fractional reserve banking, can lend money at the equivalent of 75% interest of the money you have in. It's a good margin and not well known by the general public.rcs1000 said:
They do in most countries: the UK is the exception.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:
The deposit rate being negative means that if an organisation wants to store money by sending it to the ECB then instead of the ECB paying the organisation for the ability to use that money, the ECB charges the organisation for providing a safe haven.Plato_Says said:Can someone tell me what this means?
Breaking: European Central Bank cuts deposit rate to -0.4% and main refinancing rate to 0%. Expands QE to Eu80bn a month #negativeland
Basically the ECB wants lots of money in the economy to stimulate demand as it has worked so well for the last 7 years.
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?0 -
I'm not sure who this favours, Remain or Leave?
https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/7076560489461022720 -
Well listening to the rantings of the stay and leave sides so far won't have change that.TheScreamingEagles said:I'm not sure who this favours, Remain or Leave?
https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/7076560489461022720 -
I've just backed Rubio in D.C. at 4.77 for £8.RodCrosby said:
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.Pulpstar said:
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
"See, they hate me..."
Looks enormous off the back of the Northern Virginia results.0 -
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/03/09/guam-gop-select-convention-delegates/81517066/david_herdson said:
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Just bizarre these primaries, and they get such large number of delegates.0 -
Won't make any difference, they'll 100% go for Marco.david_herdson said:
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.0 -
If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.0
-
Except Rubio has had wall-to-wall bad press since. Sure, so has Trump, but still...Pulpstar said:
I've just backed Rubio in D.C. at 4.77 for £8.RodCrosby said:
Trump is probably praying he (Trump) comes last in DC.Pulpstar said:
You might as well chalk it up as 9 Rubio delegates now.RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
"See, they hate me..."
Looks enormous off the back of the Northern Virginia results.
I think 4.77 is right - can't say I'd lay at that.0 -
NonsenseMaxPB said:
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.rcs1000 said:The Euro is now up against the dollar!
George has abolished boom and bust you know.0 -
Why?MaxPB said:If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.
0 -
GP also says:- "All 9 of Virgin Islands delegates to the National Convention delegates are elected in today's Presidential caucus."david_herdson said:
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
However, we'll have to wait wait and see. It wouldn't surprise me if it changes.
One thing I can say is that the general erasure of the SDs has benefited/will benefit Trump to the tune of about 60 delegates...0 -
You really are pathetic. And transparent in your bigotry.Alanbrooke said:
NonsenseMaxPB said:
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.rcs1000 said:The Euro is now up against the dollar!
George has abolished boom and bust you know.
Only recently Osborne warned that the UK faces a 'cocktail of threats'. One of them is you.0 -
froth froth froth0
-
It's far from impossible that these territorial delegates could make the difference between a brokered convention and an outright Trump win.LondonBob said:
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/03/09/guam-gop-select-convention-delegates/81517066/david_herdson said:
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Just bizarre these primaries, and they get such large number of delegates.0 -
The BBC is very pro-Europe - they get quite a lot of funding. Also: by the debate either Vote Leave (Johnson/ Smith) or Grassroots Out (Farage/ Galloway) will be the official leave campaign.GarethoftheVale2 said:
Surely the campaigns ought to get to decide who represents them themselves rather than have the BBC do it.Luckyguy1983 said:
They've chosen what could be a disaster panel for Leave, yes. But this could backfire and it could flip into a triumph. You could have Nigel sweating, George ranting, Boris chuntering away, in a grotesquely awkward dance of death. But if they're sensible, cool, forensic about figures, and all understand the enemy is the other side, they could chew up that opposition and spit out the bones. George Osborne strikes me as the highest quality orator on the other side, and the one most likely to be on top of his brief, and that's really not saying much for the rest.Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.0 -
It will damage the Leave campaign and his chance of becoming PM. Boris is the main talisman of the centre for the Leave campaign, putting him on stage with these two chumps would be a disaster.blackburn63 said:
Why?MaxPB said:If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.
0 -
Now, I don't want to say "Rubio victory inevitable match to 1.01 nomination guaranteed lock" but I know we are all thinking it.RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
And thinking of Cromwell0 -
REMAIN will walk this with anyone other that committed BREXITERS. That line up will get virtually every Labour, Lib Dem, Green Tory voter lined up in the REMAIN camp.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.0 -
You think they're both competent and honest???Philip_Thompson said:
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?Cyclefree said:
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:Plato_Says said:
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.
0 -
You're going to give yourself a heart attackflightpath01 said:
You really are pathetic. And transparent in your bigotry.Alanbrooke said:
NonsenseMaxPB said:
The latest Draghi rally didn't last very long. I really think that central bank power is running out. The sooner we start to raise interest rates the better, it is time to reload the gun. We are at the top of the cycle and if we don't follow the Fed we will be defending a pretty sticky wicket with just the last man standing at the next crash/downturn.rcs1000 said:The Euro is now up against the dollar!
George has abolished boom and bust you know.
Only recently Osborne warned that the UK faces a 'cocktail of threats'. One of them is you.0 -
Wow, just read that Draghi didn't rule out helicopter money. Seems absolutely insane on the face of it. Surely we'd be looking at Germxit if the ECB started printing money and giving it to people.0
-
Definitely competent. No comments about anything else.Cyclefree said:
You think they're both competent and honest???Philip_Thompson said:
Sounds like HSBC or Barclays in the UK. How do you beat their track record?Cyclefree said:
Yes I know that. Which is why I spread it around. Most of it is not in banks at all. I know far too much about them to trust them with more than a fraction of my assets.rcs1000 said:
Of course, when you say you put 'put some money', what you mean is:Cyclefree said:
Well they do. I put some money with them. I get - at the moment - very little interest. In return I get a cheque book, direct debits, online statements, etc etc. A pretty bog standard current account. The amount I am paying for this service is the difference between the interest my money would earn were it in, say, a savings account and the minimal/no amount of interest my bank pays me. In addition, if I want extra services e.g. an overdraft, payments made the same day, fx etc I get charged additional fees.Charles said:
Genuine question: really interested in the answer.taffys said:
Its a huge problem for banks because they cannot pass these rates on to customers. No idiot is going to leave his money in a bank if he ends up with less than he started with.weejonnie said:Plato_Says said:
Why shouldn't banks charge for the services that they provide?
All these fee-paying current accounts give me nothing I want or nothing I want at the price they are offering.
I feel that I am paying a perfectly fair price for the level of service and services I am being given. Being charged any more would feel like a total rip off.
Banks need to learn to do the basic stuff competently and honestly and on a consistent basis. Then and only then can they start talking about charging for additional services. Every time I hear a bank talking about charging customers it sounds as if they are trying to gouge more money out of me for a pretty indifferent offering.
"I have lent my money to a financial institution, and am now an unsecured creditor to a highly levered organisation."
Hey! Maybe I've found a gap in the market: a bank which is both competent and honest. That could be its USP. What do you think?
Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.0 -
Apart from Gove who would have a better claim to be speaking for the BREXITERS?Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
Delighted Alan Johnson is on the panel, the PB Tories will rubbish him but he has a lot of capital with centre left voters.0 -
Guam, the Virgins, the Marianas and Samoa have 27 between them or 1.5%. Puerto Rico has about another 1%.david_herdson said:
It's far from impossible that these territorial delegates could make the difference between a brokered convention and an outright Trump win.LondonBob said:
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/03/09/guam-gop-select-convention-delegates/81517066/david_herdson said:
Yes, I read that too. It's a bit contradictory. It lists '9 pledged' at the top but then says "3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position", which is presumably the '3 party' delegates in addition to the '6 base / at-large'. But if they're officials, how can they be pledged unless their election is a by-product of the convention (which is possible but would be an odd way of going about things)?RodCrosby said:
GP implies they are all to be pledged now.david_herdson said:
Is that right? I thought there were six pledged delegates up for grabs, plus three party officials (effectively superdelegates)?RodCrosby said:O/T: Just a reminder that we have our first truly winner-take-all GOP contest today.
US Virgin Islands, all of 9 delegates...
Result about midnight, UK?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
Only three places I can see remaining where the SDs may be unpledged. WY, Guam and American Samoa, although the bulk of PA's 'ordinary' delegates seem to be uncommitted/unpledged...
I don't suppose it will make any great difference.
Just bizarre these primaries, and they get such large number of delegates.
On the assumption Trump gains nothing from their inclusion, if they weren't in it he'd need 30 fewer delegates from elsewhere in order to win.
0 -
Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom, Gove and Boris would be my panel of choice.OllyT said:
Apart from Gove who would have a better claim to be speaking for the BREXITERS?Casino_Royale said:
The BBC has chosen well. The worst Leavers to choose IMHO.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see what you mean, but I think it could be electric. Boris, George, Nigel, are all great speakers on their day, but all capable of utter disaster too. Total high stakes gamble.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.
On the other hand, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas won't set the world on fire either.
Delighted Alan Johnson is on the panel, the PB Tories will rubbish him but he has a lot of capital with centre left voters.0 -
That's an interesting view.MaxPB said:
It will damage the Leave campaign and his chance of becoming PM. Boris is the main talisman of the centre for the Leave campaign, putting him on stage with these two chumps would be a disaster.blackburn63 said:
Why?MaxPB said:If I was Boris I would flat out refuse to get on any stage on the same side as Galloway and Nigel.
I like Boris, he's entertaining, I can't abide Galloway but I'd be interested in why he wants to Leave.0 -
I will always remain a leaver, but there must be someway the Galloway can be put somewhere and rot. Farage's invitation for Galloway to come to the podium ( a surprise it was called ) was stupid beyond words.OllyT said:
REMAIN will walk this with anyone other that committed BREXITERS. That line up will get virtually every Labour, Lib Dem, Green Tory voter lined up in the REMAIN camp.Casino_Royale said:
That sounds ghastly.FrancisUrquhart said:Remain: George Osborne, Alan Johnson, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas
Leave: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith, George Galloway
http://order-order.com/2016/03/10/bbcs-tv-debate-revenge-on-no-10/
Alien vs Predator...
Why are there no female proponents for Leave on that panel?
Andrea Leadsom, Priti Patel, Andrea Jenkyns, Sarah Wollaston, Kate Hooey or Gisela Stuart would be better than any of that lot.0
This discussion has been closed.