The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Are you suggesting the taxpayer should just give into the academics demands?
That would be unfair on everyone who doesn’t have as cushty a pension arrangement
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
Basically, although still short of the recent peaks in 2015 employment in financial services had been increasing for 3 consecutive quarters to the end of 2017. Given the ever more aggressive branch closure programs of the Banks that seems to me to be quite encouraging.
My memory isn't too shabby then.
Thank heavens...
My personal view is that Brexit is a drag on *adding* jobs in financial services, particularly at the higher end. Not an exodus, but we will be worser off for it.
In the short term where there is continued uncertainty that is almost inevitably true but the effects seem modest. In the medium term much will depend on the terms of the FTA with the EU, passporting and whether the ECB takes more steps to have Euro denominated transactions banked within the EZ. That seems likely but there are strong underlying trends in favour of London that should comfortably offset that.
The personal views of Frankfurt or Amsterdam from those within FS are poor. "Just about tolerable for a weekend" one person told me about Amsterdam.
As long as that remains the case, then very few people will actually move, whatever the corporate incentives.
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
That looks a lot like they are establishing a regulatory holding company in Frankfurt. Essentially people who may have to take the fall if the employees in London eff things up.
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Are you suggesting the taxpayer should just give into the academics demands?
That would be unfair on everyone who doesn’t have as cushty a pension arrangement
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
What I have found a bit frustrating is the lack of clear and reliable information. I have seen published figures of the deficit being up to £12bn to not existing at all and many around the £6bn mark. The valuation of a pension fund that is still incurring liabilities is not a straightforward matter but some reliable numbers would help.
Once you have the numbers it is surely then a case of ascertaining whether there is a viable policy to keep the fund open. If so, it is likely to involve increased employer contributions, increased employee contributions and some trimming of the benefits. I understand that an exercise like this was undertaken only 2-3 years ago so most of the numbers really should be to hand (along with some explanation as to why that attempt has apparently failed so abysmally).
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
Some do, some don't. The bigger players definitely do, so maybe that's the argument I'm seeing. I'm not sure the SVP do though as they value banking secrecy.
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Are you suggesting the taxpayer should just give into the academics demands?
That would be unfair on everyone who doesn’t have as cushty a pension arrangement
You'd have thought students would be smart enough to figure out who pays for their lecturers' pensions, but apparently not.
They are smart enough to know this. But it doesn't really help them a few weeks away from exams when they're not getting the help / teaching they need and have paid for.
That rather de haut en bas attitude is not really going to endear the government to students. And it's not as if the government has such a surfeit of votes that it can afford to disregard a constituency which will be voting for decades to come.
I think we ought to rejig 'mansplaining' to mean what it often is ... explaining something to a woman, using logic rather than the emotion that women think with.
As it happens I am getting my coat as I have an appointment in Liverpool this afternoon.
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Are you suggesting the taxpayer should just give into the academics demands?
That would be unfair on everyone who doesn’t have as cushty a pension arrangement
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
It's selfless really, the young trying to help the old and middle-aged. Alas the feeling is not reciprocal...
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Are you suggesting the taxpayer should just give into the academics demands?
That would be unfair on everyone who doesn’t have as cushty a pension arrangement
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
What I have found a bit frustrating is the lack of clear and reliable information. I have seen published figures of the deficit being up to £12bn to not existing at all and many around the £6bn mark. The valuation of a pension fund that is still incurring liabilities is not a straightforward matter but some reliable numbers would help.
Once you have the numbers it is surely then a case of ascertaining whether there is a viable policy to keep the fund open. If so, it is likely to involve increased employer contributions, increased employee contributions and some trimming of the benefits. I understand that an exercise like this was undertaken only 2-3 years ago so most of the numbers really should be to hand (along with some explanation as to why that attempt has apparently failed so abysmally).
I think it's down to new estimates of what kind of investment return is realistic, and a preference for safer returns on the behalf of universities.
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
What I have found a bit frustrating is the lack of clear and reliable information. I have seen published figures of the deficit being up to £12bn to not existing at all and many around the £6bn mark. The valuation of a pension fund that is still incurring liabilities is not a straightforward matter but some reliable numbers would help.
Once you have the numbers it is surely then a case of ascertaining whether there is a viable policy to keep the fund open. If so, it is likely to involve increased employer contributions, increased employee contributions and some trimming of the benefits. I understand that an exercise like this was undertaken only 2-3 years ago so most of the numbers really should be to hand (along with some explanation as to why that attempt has apparently failed so abysmally).
I think it's down to new estimates of what kind of investment return is realistic, and a preference for safer returns on the behalf of universities.
A deficit created by a desire on the part of the sponser for safer returns seems a very odd reason to close down a DB scheme.
Gilt rates fell off a cliff after Brown's bust but have edged up fractionally (albeit still being at historically low rates) over the last year or so. There is a challenge for trustees who have to consider whether the last 9 years are the "new normal" or not but I don't really see how this has caused a crisis so soon after the last attempted resolution.
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
Financial services tax revenue is about 10 times our net EU contribution.
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
Some do, some don't. The bigger players definitely do, so maybe that's the argument I'm seeing. I'm not sure the SVP do though as they value banking secrecy.
Would the SVP trade banking secrecy to solve their freedom of movement issues?
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
Financial services tax revenue is about 10 times our net EU contribution.
And the City of London will still be easily the biggest financial centre in Europe after this move while we will still get to end free movement which we could not do by sucking up to Goldman Sachs and staying in the single market.
The Brexit, Trump and Corbyn votes were votes for many things they were certainly not votes for more Goldman Sachs
Mr. Nabavi, humbug. The use of 'mansplaining' is a wretched thing. Making terms derogatory by adding a masculine prefix is backward.
In the right context - as here - it is a quite valid description of a particular phenomenon, Mr.D. Though I'll readily admit that like most neologisms it is wildly overused.
You do appear slightly allergic to any suggestion that some forms of masculine gendered behaviour are less than optimal...
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
I do not have access to the expensive accountants Goldman Sachs do to exploit every tax loophole going
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
I do not have access to the expensive accountants Goldman Sachs do to exploit every tax loophole going
There aren't that many, you poor little popsicle you. How is your ISA doing?
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
I do not have access to the expensive accountants Goldman Sachs do to exploit every tax loophole going
There aren't that many, you poor little popsicle you. How is your ISA doing?
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
"And, yet, despite all the well-attested problems associated with an out-of-control and, arguably, too large financial sector, there is still an inclination amongst some in the sector to think that, because they bring in the money, their interests should predominate It is an attitude not so very different to the unions of old: if you don’t do what we want, we can bring the economy to its knees (either through strikes or by upping sticks and moving elsewhere taking all our lovely money with us).
It is an attitude which shows a tin ear for how much of the public views the finance sector. Rather than feel that banks have learnt their lessons and it is time to move on, many feel that banks have not yet been taught a lesson and have not fully paid the price for, at best, negligence and incompetence and, at worst, criminality. It assumes that people are necessarily grateful for the tax revenues when they appear to come from greedy and/or disgraceful behaviour. It assumes that money speaks and should speak louder than the votes of non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
Some do, some don't. The bigger players definitely do, so maybe that's the argument I'm seeing. I'm not sure the SVP do though as they value banking secrecy.
Would the SVP trade banking secrecy to solve their freedom of movement issues?
What is remarkable about the betting odds is how little they have changed over last few months. Typically you would expect the odds to get longer slowly if nothing happens and less in jumps if progress is made. I still see an EEA solution as the only one that can be sold to 60% of the population which is what I see as being necessary to get agreement.
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
Some do, some don't. The bigger players definitely do, so maybe that's the argument I'm seeing. I'm not sure the SVP do though as they value banking secrecy.
Would the SVP trade banking secrecy to solve their freedom of movement issues?
I seriously doubt it.
Banking secrecy is dead as a model in Switzerland in reality. It's all about we can manage your money better because of our vast experience. Rather than we can hide it all from the taxman.
So what's the reaction to Tusk's speech in London? A lot of Swiss see it as a positive because he included services in a potential deal which goes further than what Switzerland has. I think a lot are hoping that Switzerland can hitch itself onto any deal that Britain does, especially if it includes financial services, which the Swiss one doesn't specifically.
Do the Swiss want a deal on FS? It would mean changes to the regulatory structures surely, plus a loss of freedom for the Cantons.
Some do, some don't. The bigger players definitely do, so maybe that's the argument I'm seeing. I'm not sure the SVP do though as they value banking secrecy.
Would the SVP trade banking secrecy to solve their freedom of movement issues?
I seriously doubt it.
Banking secrecy is dead as a model in Switzerland in reality. It's all about we can manage your money better because of our vast experience. Rather than we can hide it all from the taxman.
“No one on this NEC will work for that guy,” one NEC official said.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rrkBY21-E5kJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/28/as-paul-krugman-points-out-a-vat-is-nothing-to-do-with-trade-imports-exports-nor-subsidies/ …some of the beliefs about trade in the new administration are simply wrong. Not arguable, not simply focusing on a different aspect and not a matter of opinion. Just, you know, wrong, not in accordance with this universe we inhabit. So it is with the belief that the Value Added Tax, VAT, system acts as a subsidy to exports and a barrier, a tax, upon imports. The problem here being that people like Peter Navarro (and Wilbur Ross, who coauthored that paper before the election with him) keep insisting that the VAT does indeed affect trade. In this they are not just expressing a dissenting opinion, they are just being wrong. Which is worrying when you think that these people, these people who are being wrong, are in the process of designing the next trade regime for the American economy….
What is remarkable about the betting odds is how little they have changed over last few months. Typically you would expect the odds to get longer slowly if nothing happens and less in jumps if progress is made. I still see an EEA solution as the only one that can be sold to 60% of the population which is what I see as being necessary to get agreement.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Pretty well meaningless. Any poll which doesn't have Washington and Lincoln at the top has no sense of historical perspective. I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson as president is massively overrated. Rather like Grant, he gets a huge bonus from having done great things outside his presidency.
Louisiana purchase ?
That more or less fell into his lap. France was looking to offload the territory and offered it at a bargain price. Jefferson just happened to be the chap in the White House when Napoleon wanted shut of an indefensible territory in favour of funds he could readily spend.
A dozen here, a dozen there. Death by a thousand cuts. But, we voted to be sick man of Europe again, after all. Thatcher would be turning in her grave.
"And, yet, despite all the well-attested problems associated with an out-of-control and, arguably, too large financial sector, there is still an inclination amongst some in the sector to think that, because they bring in the money, their interests should predominate It is an attitude not so very different to the unions of old: if you don’t do what we want, we can bring the economy to its knees (either through strikes or by upping sticks and moving elsewhere taking all our lovely money with us).
It is an attitude which shows a tin ear for how much of the public views the finance sector. Rather than feel that banks have learnt their lessons and it is time to move on, many feel that banks have not yet been taught a lesson and have not fully paid y and/or disgraceful behaviour. It assumes that money speaks and should speak louder than the votes of non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
Indeed. About the only thing which unites Leave and Corbyn voters and Trump and Sanders voters is most of them hate Goldman Sachs and the big banks, bankers are running out of friends fast
I am sure most Leave voters are devastated by the move of a handful of Goldman Sachs bankers to Frankfurt because attracting Goldman Sachs bankers to London was so high on their list of reasons for voting Leave!
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Teeside and the Midlands with their glitzy skyscrapers in central London while trying to keep their tax liabilities to an absolute minimum. Well worth keeping free movement for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
I do not have access to the expensive accountants Goldman Sachs do to exploit every tax loophole going
There aren't that many, you poor little popsicle you. How is your ISA doing?
Them's the rules of the magnificent United Kingdom, sunshine; don't bleat about it. If you want to pay duty on the straw donkey you bring back from Torremolinos instead of walking through the nothing to declare channel that's up to you.
"And, yet, despite all the well-attested problems associated with an out-of-control and, arguably, too large financial sector, there is still an inclination amongst some in the sector to think that, because they bring in the money, their interests should predominate It is an attitude not so very different to the unions of old: if you don’t do what we want, we can bring the economy to its knees (either through strikes or by upping sticks and moving elsewhere taking all our lovely money with us).
It is an attitude which shows a tin ear for how much of the public views the finance sector. Rather than feel that banks have learnt their lessons and it is time to move on, many feel that banks have not yet been taught a lesson and have not fully paid the price for, at best, negligence and incompetence and, at worst, criminality. It assumes that people are necessarily grateful for the tax revenues when they appear to come from greedy and/or disgraceful behaviour. It assumes that money speaks and should speak louder than the votes of non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?
Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD).
Not watching, but sounds like Jezza has had a mare.
From the Guardian:
PMQs - Snap verdict: A patchy PMQs, with creditable performances by both Corbyn and May, but no stand-out winner.
Was Corbyn really that bad?
Very angry, repeating points, not processing TM's answers. Good letter from Barry, mind.
@david_herdson will be very disappointed. Corbyn had shown signs of promise recently and has gone back to his bad old ways.
Not seen it but you have to expect off days on both sides. It doesn't change my view that Corbyn has recently been acting with the confidence of someone who knew his position was safe.
That said, you have to wonder whether he'll be quite so confident given the way that Lansman has taken on Corbyn's favoured candidate for the General Secretaryship. If Momentum's leadership is breaking ranks there, what else will it challenge him on?
My take would be that Lansman is getting ideas above his station. Momentum remains intrinsically tied to Corbyn and while Lansman could use it to further his own career on to the NEC (as long as he's seen as Corbynite), it doesn't have the cohesion of a political movement in its own right. However, even if Lansman doesn't represent a personal threat to Corbyn, a possible falling out with Momentum's leadership would seriously weaken his own base, if only because it would weaken the ties between him and his followers.
"And, yet, despite all the well-attested problems associated with an out-of-control and, arguably, too large financial sector, there is still an inclination amongst some in the sector to think that, because they bring in the money, their interests should predominate It is an attitude not so very different to the unions of old: if you don’t do what we want, we can bring the economy to its knees (either through strikes or by upping sticks and moving elsewhere taking all our lovely money with us).
It is an attitude which shows a tin ear for how much of the public views the finance sector. Rather than feel that banks have learnt their lessons and it is time to move on, many feel that banks have not yet been taught a lesson and have not fully paid y and/or disgraceful behaviour. It assumes that money speaks and should speak louder than the votes of non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
Indeed. About the only thing which unites Leave and Corbyn voters and Trump and Sanders voters is most of them hate Goldman Sachs and the big banks, bankers are running out of friends fast
A journalist has just said the trade deal talks with Saudi are worth 100 billion. That is huge if true but I do not know much about trade with Saudi other than we have a lot of defence jobs in the UK depending on a good relationship
I am sure that Saudi is running short of British bombs to drop on the starving children of Yemen.
Some see a wsr crime, Tories see a sales opportunity.
yeah coming over here with their profits and their taxes. Fuck 'em.
Yeah such riches they bring to voters in Midlands for
They are all told to tick "For London use only" on their tax returns so you are right.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
Perhaps the financial services sector would have had more friends amongst voters if it non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
Indeed. About the only thing which unites Leave and Corbyn voters and Trump and Sanders voters is most of them hate Goldman Sachs and the big banks, bankers are running out of friends fast
Who the fuck would want a friend like you?
Well if they want to alienate 90% of the developed world's voters they will soon find out what results is not to their taste
A deficit created by a desire on the part of the sponser for safer returns seems a very odd reason to close down a DB scheme.
With an increase of contributions from 26% of salaries to 33% of salaries, and an assumption that the scheme's assets would return CPI+0.9%, there was a funding deficit of £5.1bn (92% funded). With an increase of contributions to 37% of salaries, and an assumption of a CPI+0.71%, the funding deficit would be £7.5bn (89% funded). So basically, increase funding contributions by 25%-40% and beat the market every year and the scheme still isn't practical.
No. I don't know what the answer is. But I do think something should be done to sort the strike out (ACAS maybe) and to minimise the impact on students, who are after all paying for this. Imagine if you were in your final year and you're getting no teaching or help with your final year dissertation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
What I have found a bit frustrating is the lack of clear and reliable information. I have seen published figures of the deficit being up to £12bn to not existing at all and many around the £6bn mark. The valuation of a pension fund that is still incurring liabilities is not a straightforward matter but some reliable numbers would help.
Once you have the numbers it is surely then a case of ascertaining whether there is a viable policy to keep the fund open. If so, it is likely to involve increased employer contributions, increased employee contributions and some trimming of the benefits. I understand that an exercise like this was undertaken only 2-3 years ago so most of the numbers really should be to hand (along with some explanation as to why that attempt has apparently failed so abysmally).
I think it's down to new estimates of what kind of investment return is realistic, and a preference for safer returns on the behalf of universities.
A deficit created by a desire on the part of the sponser for safer returns seems a very odd reason to close down a DB scheme.
Gilt rates fell off a cliff after Brown's bust but have edged up fractionally (albeit still being at historically low rates) over the last year or so. There is a challenge for trustees who have to consider whether the last 9 years are the "new normal" or not but I don't really see how this has caused a crisis so soon after the last attempted resolution.
This seems a key quote: "Since 2014, lower expectations for future investment returns have increased the cost of accruing future defined pension benefits by 35%""
I believe Brexiters will be in favour of any form of Brexit, regardless of details. Yes, that includes immigration.
The vote was about sticking it to the man. It’s not as if we’ve had a serious debate in the country in the 10 years preceding about the merits of *the* custom union vs *a* custom union.
For some political news not connected to Brexit, there is a new political party being formed in Wales - called Ein Gwlad (Our Country) and whose primary objective is to achieve Welsh Independence. The party is neither left wing or right wing but 'Welsh Wing' - a syncretic party that will prioritise policies that benefit Wales and moves us towards independence.
Despite the name it is not a Welsh language party and the name was deliberately chosen to be recognisable to English speakers (think National Anthem) - if someone is not happy voting for a party with a Welsh name it probably wouldnt vote for it whatever the name....
It's target audience is not just former Plaid voters or supporters of movements like Yes Cymru - but also the many people in Wales who are fed up with traditional politics and want something different.
Neither is the party a Plaid splinter group - rather we are trying to build a wider national alliance more like SNP
The party is already organising and in the process of submitting Electoral Commission registration, and expects to be officially launched in a few weeks time. Watch this space
Comments
Earlier I warned against hyperbole. Look now where it can lead, and tremble:
https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/971329248144261120
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/oct/23/european-communities-summit-conference-1
The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
It just looks as if it's another way in which the young, trying to do the right thing, are being shafted.
As long as that remains the case, then very few people will actually move, whatever the corporate incentives.
https://twitter.com/jennablan/status/971372049322184705
That's, like, 14????
Once you have the numbers it is surely then a case of ascertaining whether there is a viable policy to keep the fund open. If so, it is likely to involve increased employer contributions, increased employee contributions and some trimming of the benefits. I understand that an exercise like this was undertaken only 2-3 years ago so most of the numbers really should be to hand (along with some explanation as to why that attempt has apparently failed so abysmally).
That rather de haut en bas attitude is not really going to endear the government to students. And it's not as if the government has such a surfeit of votes that it can afford to disregard a constituency which will be voting for decades to come.
I think we ought to rejig 'mansplaining' to mean what it often is ... explaining something to a woman, using logic rather than the emotion that women think with.
As it happens I am getting my coat as I have an appointment in Liverpool this afternoon.
Alas the feeling is not reciprocal...
Gilt rates fell off a cliff after Brown's bust but have edged up fractionally (albeit still being at historically low rates) over the last year or so. There is a challenge for trustees who have to consider whether the last 9 years are the "new normal" or not but I don't really see how this has caused a crisis so soon after the last attempted resolution.
And do you keep your tax liabilities to an absolute minimum or not?
The Brexit, Trump and Corbyn votes were votes for many things they were certainly not votes for more Goldman Sachs
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/971369403848757248
I guess he doesn't quite grasp the concept of 'negotiation'.....we have something they want, they have something we want.....
You do appear slightly allergic to any suggestion that some forms of masculine gendered behaviour are less than optimal...
"And, yet, despite all the well-attested problems associated with an out-of-control and, arguably, too large financial sector, there is still an inclination amongst some in the sector to think that, because they bring in the money, their interests should predominate It is an attitude not so very different to the unions of old: if you don’t do what we want, we can bring the economy to its knees (either through strikes or by upping sticks and moving elsewhere taking all our lovely money with us).
It is an attitude which shows a tin ear for how much of the public views the finance sector. Rather than feel that banks have learnt their lessons and it is time to move on, many feel that banks have not yet been taught a lesson and have not fully paid the price for, at best, negligence and incompetence and, at worst, criminality. It assumes that people are necessarily grateful for the tax revenues when they appear to come from greedy and/or disgraceful behaviour. It assumes that money speaks and should speak louder than the votes of non-bankers.
....... The financial crisis may have only been part of the context which led to Brexit. But it – and banks’ reaction to it and their behaviour before, during and after it – is certainly one reason why this government has not made it a priority to argue the City’s case."
Banks need friends now. And they're finding that they're thin on the ground. Be nice to people when you're on the way up because you'll need them on the way down applies to them as much as it does to others.
Now the EU also needs access to London's markets so I hope a sensible deal will be done. But the financial sector really needs to learn to communicate better with its stakeholders - "we bring in all the money so do what we want" is not really the way to do it. That sounds like a threat rather than an argument to win hearts and minds.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/06/white-house-policy-chaos-gary-cohn-443858
Meanwhile, rumors were circulating on the NEC on Tuesday that Trump could be tempted to tap trade adviser and economic nationalist Peter Navarro to replace Cohn. That decision would likely be met with universal opposition from NEC staffers.
“No one on this NEC will work for that guy,” one NEC official said.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rrkBY21-E5kJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/28/as-paul-krugman-points-out-a-vat-is-nothing-to-do-with-trade-imports-exports-nor-subsidies/
…some of the beliefs about trade in the new administration are simply wrong. Not arguable, not simply focusing on a different aspect and not a matter of opinion. Just, you know, wrong, not in accordance with this universe we inhabit. So it is with the belief that the Value Added Tax, VAT, system acts as a subsidy to exports and a barrier, a tax, upon imports. The problem here being that people like Peter Navarro (and Wilbur Ross, who coauthored that paper before the election with him) keep insisting that the VAT does indeed affect trade. In this they are not just expressing a dissenting opinion, they are just being wrong. Which is worrying when you think that these people, these people who are being wrong, are in the process of designing the next trade regime for the American economy….
Death by a thousand cuts. But, we voted to be sick man of Europe again, after all. Thatcher would be turning in her grave.
Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD).
That said, you have to wonder whether he'll be quite so confident given the way that Lansman has taken on Corbyn's favoured candidate for the General Secretaryship. If Momentum's leadership is breaking ranks there, what else will it challenge him on?
My take would be that Lansman is getting ideas above his station. Momentum remains intrinsically tied to Corbyn and while Lansman could use it to further his own career on to the NEC (as long as he's seen as Corbynite), it doesn't have the cohesion of a political movement in its own right. However, even if Lansman doesn't represent a personal threat to Corbyn, a possible falling out with Momentum's leadership would seriously weaken his own base, if only because it would weaken the ties between him and his followers.
Some see a wsr crime, Tories see a sales opportunity.
"Since 2014, lower expectations for future investment returns have increased the cost of accruing future defined pension benefits by 35%""
https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/views-from-uss/investment-challenges-the-facts
The vote was about sticking it to the man.
It’s not as if we’ve had a serious debate in the country in the 10 years preceding about the merits of *the* custom union vs *a* custom union.
Plus of course we will get a Canada style FTA anyway while still ending free movement
Despite the name it is not a Welsh language party and the name was deliberately chosen to be recognisable to English speakers (think National Anthem) - if someone is not happy voting for a party with a Welsh name it probably wouldnt vote for it whatever the name....
It's target audience is not just former Plaid voters or supporters of movements like Yes Cymru - but also the many people in Wales who are fed up with traditional politics and want something different.
Neither is the party a Plaid splinter group - rather we are trying to build a wider national alliance more like SNP
The party is already organising and in the process of submitting Electoral Commission registration, and expects to be officially launched in a few weeks time. Watch this space