You do realise it's ridiculously low, right? We're paying £150 PCM less than when we took out our tracker.

That's not quite how it works. Basically 'the market' is saying "Your debt is risky as shit, there's no way we're investing unless you make it worth our while". So Italy are increasing the yield on their short term bonds to get people to actually buy any, so they have the money to pay off the people who bought their short term bonds last year. And their longer term bonds 5/10 years ago.

As a point of reference, yield on a 1-year Italian Government bond is (I think) 7%. Yield on a 1-year UK Government bond is 0.5%.

If that looks like an ever worsening circle, that's because it is. If it looks like withdrawing cash on a credit card to pay your mortgage, that's because it's exactly like that.

Well, looks like we're going to be having a general election soon.

It's all gone wrong.

And of course we absolutely need the EU to succeed, as if it doesn't we're properly, properly screwed.

Indeed, and if we stay in it now we're just going to be throwing stone, shouting 'DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING' from the sidelines, while having no say in how it's run whatsoever.

This is seriously bad.

Yeah but at least we'll be able to have bent (or is it straight?) bananas (or is it cucumbers?) and no more bloody health and safety madness and PC gone mad or human rights and stuff, yeah.

Also, what do they mean when they keep talking about taking our powers back? The only specific example they've ever given is the employment law thing I whinged about in the OP. I've begun to think they're talking about the Power of Greyskull, and that's why they wouldn't agree with Cameron.

They don't have a clue, really. The Tory backbenchers want to leave the EU, but still keep all the trade agreements. What they fail to realise is that the EU would not allow this. Why should they have all the benefits of being in the EU but not actually want to be a part of it? It's madness.

Of course, anyone can rant about the UK having built an economy based substantially upon financial services and the problems that can (and has already) precipitates.

However, when one of the key planks of policy to save the euro is a new tax that would hit to an extremely high and majority extent in the UK, isn't part of global strategy meaning that a lot of that economic output could potentially leave the EU as a result but mainly the UK as that is where the sector is base, running the risk of seriously damaging our own economy while not significantly impacting most of the EU, due to a mismanagement of an ideal that we were not part of, there is an argument as to who is being most childish in taking their ball home.

What exactly was the proposed tax, anyway? I was fairly sure it wsn't part of the discussion last night. wghat Dave was] upset about was further regulation of our FS sector by the EU powers. Of course, on the other hand, EU officials make the point that it was lack of regulation of derivatives and other financial instruments that caused such a mess in the first place, and it's therefore imperative we have some kind of uniform regulation in place.

Firstly, the tax is something like 0.1% charged on the value any big financial transaction carried out in the EU. That doesn't sound like a huge amount, but when you consider that the way the market works is by making many millions of very short term transactions and making profit on a infintesimal margin very, very frequently, you can see how it would etch away.

Secondly, I think I saw that including PAYE, Financial Services tax take is somewhere in the 30% region.

However, FS is misleading, because I thought Insurance didn't count for the transaction tax.

Thirdly, the Bankers made 'a mess', and what then happened set in chain events that precipitated 'this mess'. But I don't think that they can be blamed squarely for 'this mess'. Arguably, without the banking crash, Ireland, Greece, Italy etc would all have happened anyway, potentially on a larger scale if there had been more time to roll up even more years of mismanagement.

Not if your mortgage was with Alliance and Leicester it's not. SVR never fell below 4.99%. When Santander took them over, I was happy as they had SVR of 4.24%. However, they then said that nothing would happen until the legal merger took effect. Then it did, and they announced that the SVR differential for A&L mortgages would remain. They won't even entertain me moving within Santander due to my self employed status. Cunts.

Arguably, yes. Also, arguably not. Either way, I'm not sure that this is a good argument as to why "banking", or whatever nom de guerre the relevant bit of the world of commerce goes under, does not need more regulation.

Call Mr Scrooge Mcduck

That mainly describes he arbitrage bit, yes, but I take your point. Still, what are the profit levels at the institutions where this would apply? I'k sure they coudl stand to rdistribute some of that welath,aseeing as trickle down never happened.

Still, it is correct to argue that it wouldn't work unless it's done globally.



I'd really be interested to see what the actual positino is, becuase we variously get told that it's a lynchpin of our entire economy or that it has far more influence than its size merits.


Well, quite, that was my point.




Arguably, yes. Also, arguably not. Either way, I'm not sure that this is a good argument as to why "banking", or whatever nom de guerre the relevant bit of the world of commerce goes under, does not need more regulation.

Yes?

a negative deficit (making more than it spent).

Or a surplus, as it's more commonly known.

Firstly, the tax is something like 0.1% charged on the value any big financial transaction carried out in the EU. That doesn't sound like a huge amount, but when you consider that the way the market works is by making many millions of very short term transactions and making profit on a infintesimal margin very, very frequently, you can see how it would etch away.

Secondly, I think I saw that including PAYE, Financial Services tax take is somewhere in the 30% region. However, FS is misleading, because I thought Insurance didn't count for the transaction tax.

Thirdly, the Bankers made 'a mess', and what then happened set in chain events that precipitated 'this mess'. But I don't think that they can be blamed squarely for 'this mess'. Arguably, without the banking crash, Ireland, Greece, Italy etc would all have happened anyway, potentially on a larger scale if there had been more time to roll up even more years of mismanagement.

Interestingly I heard on News Night that Italy actually has a reasonable deficit of less than 4% (2010)which is the reasonable amount. The problem is they have so much debt they never paid from years and years ago. Until recently (2008~) it was one of the few countries that had a negative deficit (making more than it spent). Their current problem it's purely down to the repayment of the loans (and type of loans), if they go way up so does the deficit.

I think Greece, Ireland are a different kettle of fish but I don't know quite enough on these countries.

FUCK Santander. Right through the fucking face. It is totally unacceptable to her to be treated like that, and it was horrible to have to helplessly watch my fiancee be so upset and angry.

My sister had a savings account with them and went through similar amounts of being fucked around when she wanted to move her money over to NZ when she emigrated. There's a reason they're always bottom of every customer satisfaction table (that 100/200/300 quid deal came out just before the annual Which table, which planted them firmly last again). They were when they were Abbey National/Abbey as well.

And Greece was fucked over by having an economy so corrupt even Mugabe would have baulked at it. Most of the country simply didn't pay any taxes.

True but there was no managment of them or Ireland by the EU.

They were all too busy lending money hand over fist to Greece, Ireland and others, and profiting from it.

Who are the "them" and "they" you're referring to here?

The tabloids won't be able to invent stupid laws that don't exist anymore. It's political correctness gone mad!

Maybe they'll just pretend we are still in the EU? They might as well seeing as everything else is just made up. If they don't people might start forming rational opinions about Europe...

Lib Dems were goaded by some Tory backbenchers, even though the Tory whips had sent out a message to avoid triumphalism. The Conservative MP for Shipley, Philip Davies, called the Lib Dems "lickspittles" and Mid Bedfordshire's Nadine Dorries accused Clegg of being "cowardly and negative" in his attacks on the prime minister's tactics in Brussels.

I think the wolves are sensing blood now.



Election in April?

The LDs have been at pains today to stress how they're going to stay in coalition to mend fences with Europe. As if Europe would listen to them, or even know who they are. Given their current polling if they went for an election in April they'd cease to exist.

Dorries, amongst her many faults, clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "cowardly".

If there were to be an election, I suspect that you would be quite right, and the Lib Dems wouldn't get a lot at all. The Tories would win with a decent majority and stay in power for a couple of terms. I suspect we'll be seeing quite a lot of negative things direct towards the Lib Dems over the next few months or so, to wear them down and cast some seeds of doubt in the voter's minds.

I'm not convinced tht's how it would go down - I think given the disillusionment with "Tory cuts" and so on, and the fact they're singularly failing to stimulate any growth (except amongst Eursceptics getting tumescent at the thought of breaking from Europe), any losses from the Lib Dems (of which there would be a lot) would go to Labour more than the Tories, so we'd be back to a hung parliament.

Do you think Milliband has that kind of attraction, though? In my kinder moods, he's fucking terrible.

Also, Ed Balls has said that Labour would have made the cuts as well (but, it would have been done in a different manner) so I think there would be a chance to make capital on that,

given the mantra "It was Labour's reckless spending that did this, we've got to fix it".

Respectfully, I'd call a Tory majority, Lib Dem's down to about 45 seats, And Labour/Tory splitting those losses evenly. I certainly can't see the Tories returning any less than the most seats.

I still disagree – I think LDs will be down to about 15, and you’d get a roughly 60/40 split of the lib dems’ losses in Labour’s favour.