±«Óãtv

Merlin. Really looking forward to this. Acid test.

Begging the banks to lend money to business and calling it 'Project Merlin'. What spin. This is what banks are supposed to do, it shouldn't be seen as doing the country a favour. And why should we need to ask for transparency? The country gave many, many £millions to the banks; we should see whatever we want.

Osborne is either pathetic or doing his banker chums a huge favour in return for their increased donations to the Tories.

you cannot force people to lend or borrow.

I would like to borrow £300,000 but I.m not going to pay 5% over then BOE base rate thanks just to pay bankers bonuses.

Nick, speaking of transparency, no comment yet on Tory funding by the financial sector??


On a lighter note, Meryl Streep plays Thatcher!
Who will get the lead role in the next biopic of Blair... George Hamilton? They look about the same age now.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it - actions talk louder than words.

Given the revelations about tory funding we should not expect too much - the tories will not bite the hand that feeds them.

Right it's all agreed then, Bob Diamond will donate three quarters of his bonus-salary to help fund Dave's Big Society - I think not!

Nick, how about something on the tory funding revelations?

Is it correct that if a journalist has conducted an investigation in secret, shortly prior to publishing they would contact the organisation involved for comment?

Did the journalists contact the tories before publishing this? When? Was it before the tories suddenly announced the silly, unexplained tax increase on the banks yesterday?

I notice the tory response immediately raises the silly tax increase as a cover story - look we raised the tax, that proves we are not in the spivs pocket.

As you said It was difficult to understand that laughable tax change yesterday on economic grounds – do we now have the real explanation?

Project Merlin will not be magical, this using banking as a political tool, will come back to haunt both the Coalition and Labour.

I see the media is making much of how the Conservatives are funded. The City has very little option but to support the Conservatives. They will never give Labour even a look in, whilst they continue with their economic model at present. It would spell disaster for Britain.

However, it has to be said that the City do not have full confidence in this Coalition, and would switch funding immediately if a full blooded Conservative party was on offer.

Isn't part of Merlin the big society bank? Thought I heard that this was going to be funded by deposits in redundant accounts not by the banks themselves, everybody better go and check they don'y have any redundant accounts before the money is appropriated. By the way what happened to the intention to make announcements through parliament, not by whitehall leaks?

I hope the banks have agreed to start sensible lending again - given the fact that they would not be here if it were not for the bailouts they received

I won't hold my breath though - their arrogance is quite incredible

We need to financial sector to start performing again to drive growth, they seem to be only concerned with repairing balance sheets with taxpayer money, and then claiming they can't afford to lend!

We shall see...

Will this prove the doubters wrong especially with the current tory funding revelations??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In the light of the tory funding shock (not), I guess we can view "Merlin" as a pandering contest. The choice is between pandering to the public's desire to bash-a-banker (which I'm very much hoping to see) and pandering to the party's City paymasters. It is a choice since one can't pander to both at the same time. When the detail hits our screens, this will be our mission: unravel the detail and work out exactly who the Coalition have chosen to pander to. Are we up for it? Damn right we are.

mightychewster 10

As I have said on the previous blog there has not been the demand to lend to good small business. If Government then wants, as I think they do, banks to lend to poor business models and failing business, the banks are going to be taking on toxic loans again.

Banks have to repair their balance sheets otherwise they cannot lend. They also have to meet the requirements of new regulations on capital to lending. A mixed message is being operated by Government on banks, which is politically motivated and is very dangerous. Banks already carry far to much toxic debt, due to the bail out not sorting through the good and bad. If this had been done, it would have been much more painful but also much cheaper for the taxpayer. This rush just to put a sticking plaster on the problem in banks at the time by Brown, has caused more problems than it solved

Furthermore the wealth base is getting smaller as the people of investment depart Britain.

I see the work of the inept Vince Cable behind a lot of the problems.

I see that a lot of folk are surprised that the Tories get most of their funding from the City! Wow, big shock here.....Not

Just the same as I wasn't surprised to see that the Labour party is mainly funded from the Unions

So now the tribes will claim "Tories supporting Banks because of party funding" or the opposite "Labour party panders to Unions because of party funding"

Both arguments hold some water - the City funds the Tories because they have close ties, just the same as the Unions fund Labour because they also have close ties. Both parties have made policies that are slanted towards their chosen ideologies and both are lambasted for it

And i'm expected to be outraged by this??

Yawn........just get the banks lending sensibly again, all parties are guilty of some form of pandering to their donors - that's how it works

13 saga

..I guess we can view "Merlin" as a pandering contest. The choice is between pandering to the public's desire to bash-a-banker (which I'm very much hoping to see) and pandering to the party's City paymasters.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Hopefully we will see it as an example of engagement with the banks yielding better results than shouting at them.

Robin's delightful description of Balls as "bumptious" yesterday really sums up all that is wrong with Labour. For all their bluster, they never really achieved anything (with regard to the problems within banking) in their 13 years of office, other than the one-off bonus tax.

This Project Merlin business is intriguing. We are told it is a good idea to force the banks to lend. But is it? I saw it put in an intriguing way on an economics blog.
"What then do you make of this? Consider another economy which recently announced the following. It plans to try to set central targets for bank lending to the business sector called Project Merlin and has a minister trying to set targets for mortgage lending. You could call these diktats. It has in effect nationalised two of its main banks and some more minor ones..... This sounds like an attempt to impose a type of command economy and it is being operated by the UK. So who is the command economy and who is the capitalist one?"

In case you are wondering we are being compared with China and he has a point I think.

We live in strange and interesting times. We now have socialised banking, a type of communism for 'socially useless bankers, and the dregs of failed fundamental free markets for the rest of the population.The Tories, political spokesmen for the bankers, must really appreciate the source of their own funds.
They are digging their own graves.

#17 precisely my point at #3.

All that will happen is that you will get asset prioe inflation and lending to people whom cannot afford the repayments to fit into a inforced lending pattern , Ie tick in a box.

and this is where it all start to go wrong in the USA with NINJA mortgages.

why cant the BOE lend me my £300,000 at 0.5% please would just love it , just love it

#14 Susan Croft, AngelaK or RuthL in disguise, perhaps?

The banks could sort out their balance sheets quite quickly.

They just need to write-off, or write down any dubious commercial property deals on their books. These were the deals that mostly took place before the credit crunch. It is against their financial interests to do this. The reason that they do not is because this would reduce the value of their balance sheets, increase the cost of their capital and increase their capital adequacy ratio requirements. It would also reduce their profits and consequently their bonuses. The beloved bankers' buoyant bonuses boosting a bubble again that needs to be pricked. A role for the FSA perhaps?

Small and medium sized businesses would like to be able to borrow at a reasonable rate, with reasonable conditions attached, not those exaggerated ones currently being insisted on by the banks. Others would probably prefer equity participation, on reasonable terms.

We will see if George Osborne can wave a magic wand, through Merlin and solve the problems, with one swish, or will it be three - yesterday's tax announcement, today's announcement and then the budget.

Nick - your thoughts on the political implications of Tory Party funding question raised by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism today? Political Party funding reform? Hedge Funds' and property developers' roles in the 2007/8 financial collapse? Party donations for alleged influence? Over £100m in donations over five years. Must be a story in there somewhere, surely?

We shall see, eh?

17 DorsetJane

It is rarely a good idea for the state to micro-manage the economy, it wil be interesting to see what the details of the proposal are.

I saw the CEO of Next on Newsnight last night, his view was that relaxing planning regulations would have more of an impact on growth than increasing the availability of credit.

Cameron obviously a desperate man. He can't even answer any question put to him by Miliband in PMQs. Cameron has turned PMQs into rather a pointless exercise which makes the UK the laughing stock of the Democratic world. Just an opportunity for his ridiculous soundbites.

saga @ 13

I don't think they are expecting any plaudits - if they take a balanced approach they will upset both sides.

Great timing on the news about the party funding - amazing how the information is released when it can cause most mischief, not that anyone will be surprised.

#14 Susan

Susan - i'm certainly not saying that the banks should be forced to lend to bad business models, quite the opposite in fact

I was merely making the point that some of the cash they received to save them was supposed to be used to keep credit flowing. Instead it was used to prop up asset sheets - and yes they do need to do this I agree

I think the problem lies with the issue of interest rates - they have been given the money on a very low rate, yet are charging up to 8-10% for the same money (yes I know that's what they do, it's their business to do it)

Part of the problem is that the banks were never put under any ties to make sure they provided liquidity at reasonable rates - this is a problem which is now being addressed (too late if you ask me) by project 'Merlin'

I certainly don't want to see a command economy - or banks that lend to bad models. What they should be doing is providing credit at affordable levels, and this is what they aren't doing; they took taxpayer cash to repair balance sheets and then told themselves how great they were and rewarded themselves

HSBC and Barclays can do what they like for me - they didn't take the money and seem to be running OK. HBOS/RBS can and should be put under pressure to do what we want, however we seem to want a 'one size fits all' approach to financial institutions which isn't a great idea (to me anyway)

AS71

Much as it cheers me to see that my description of Ed Balls as 'bumptious' yesterday brought a smile to your face, I take issue with your view that newlabour never really achieved anything in thirteen years in office.

They brought in 'multiculturalism' - probably the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments (not just our own) since WWII. Not only that; they intended to "rub the right's noses in it". Charmed, I'm sure. Any gainsayer was branded 'racist' immmediately and I grant, as a silencing tactic, it was a devastatingly effective.

Happily, this position is no more. Stuff the bankers and stuff the merlin deal, the new tax, they are all just part of the 'long tail' of the credit crisis and newlabour's mess that is taking some time to clear up. The real issue now is the potential to take us in a new direction away from the old ideological dog whistles of multiculturalism. It's an issue the ±«Óãtv daren't even begin to discuss, having vested so much time and energy promoting the cause for newlabour.

It started a while ago; Ken Livingstone failed to make mulitculturalism work for him in London two years ago. We are now further down the road towards these dogmas being as riddled with stigma as the thing they had tried to stigmatise itself. This is the moment new governments find their voice, make their mark and make the opposition look as if it is trapped in a meaningless and damaging timewarp. That is where the labour party finds itself now.

It's grim up north London... (as well as rather multicultural)

4#

Probably not because even by his standards, he can see it is ill researched inaccurate garbage.

18#

We didnt have to socialise the losses, mate. Someone CHOSE to do it. Cant think who. :o)

Some of you are either misinformed or lying or both regarding the funding of the conservative party by the city.

Look at Guido's blog, look at the story entitled "Bureau Of Investigative Journalism".

Some of you predictably will believe anything that the Guardian writes because it plays to your prejudices.

As I said to lefty earlier on, theres an old quote. A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on.

19. At 11:57am on 09 Feb 2011, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
...why cant the BOE lend me my £300,000 at 0.5% please would just love it , just love it

Because they know that you'd just re-invest it at 0.6%, you scamp!

#26 they also achieved the destruction of the notion of Fatherhood.
but in the name of equaulity of coarse

7. At 10:04am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:
13. At 10:38am on 09 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
In the light of the tory funding shock (not),
=========================================================================
Or as Robert Preston puts it;

"Are hedge fund managers the Tories’ trade unionists?"

As has been acknowledged, the banks are where they are because of poor lending. The economy is in recession, which will worsen as public sector cuts work their way through the system - so businesses will find it difficult to generate repayment ability for borrowed monies. Virtually all bank lending (particularly to the SME sector) has traditionally been secured on property - often the homes of the business owners; the values of which are significantly lower than they were. Thus less security is accessible to the banks, and repayment ability is compromised - therefore we already see less lending by the banks. Forcing them to lend to riskier borrowers will compound the problems. Doing so with goverment support such as the (still available?) Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (if such is proposed) will increase the burden on the taxpayer still further. Not good.

# AS71

The last government undertook a relaxation of the planning regulations in 2008. What specifically does this Conservative peer, boss of Next, Wolfson have in mind now by way of further relaxation? It was stated before the election that the National Infrastructure Planning Commission would be abolished by the Conservative Party, but its place in the coalition's agreement is not known.

How many of the Conservative Party donors that were not Hedge Fund owners were property developers?

Interesting stuff this party funding question. I do wish we could get it off the news and these blog pages though.

Nick,
Is Andrew Neal the only one on ±«Óãtv brave enough to ask questions about Al Megrahi. The Daily Politics today showed Blackburn and his labour cronies up for what they are.
It's digusting of the ±«Óãtv to have no blog or "have your say" on this issue.

Robin @ 26

You’re getting hung up on a word – “multiculturalism� – when there’s no need to be. We are a multiple-cultural society, that’s not going to change. Or only measures of an unsavoury fascist nature will change it, let’s put it this way.

Re the pesky “ism�, it’s straightforward really. Just means a person has many facets to their identity (as you do, Robin, if you think about it). So one can be, for example, English and British and Muslim and Turkish; or Welsh and British and Jamaican and Buddhist (like my barber). Etc.

Furthermore we assert that ALL of these identities are valid and none of them preclude the others.

And then we assert the following (absolutely key) principle:

Equality under the law ... the law of this country.

This gives us our multicultural society. It’s the way we live today.

26 rockRobin7

I take issue with your view that newlabour never really achieved anything in thirteen years in office.

They brought in 'multiculturalism' - probably the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments (not just our own) since WWII. Not only that; they intended to "rub the right's noses in it". Charmed, I'm sure. Any gainsayer was branded 'racist' immmediately and I grant, as a silencing tactic, it was a devastatingly effective.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My point about achievement was specific to banking.

I agree with you about the thought police trying to stifle debate, this is something that I raised in an earlier blog on the Andy Gray saga.

The expression of opinions which are not aligned with currently fashionable views on the left are taken as prima facie evidence of any of the following offences:

1. Racism
2. Sexism
3. Homophobia

Thus, the recent investigation by The Times into the grooming of children by gangs from one particular immigrant group was not really covered properly by the ±«Óãtv, because the facts were in conflict with the views of the thought police. Jack Straw raised the issue but did not whilst in office, despite being told of it some years ago. The only MP who did raise it was Ann Cryer (Keighley), to silence from other politicians, who clearly decided that it is better to sweep it under the carpet than to be deemed racist.

Fubar, I don't see why you're so keen to defend the tories re City funding. Almost like you're personally affronted by it being reported.

34 ashcroftmillions2010

The last government undertook a relaxation of the planning regulations in 2008. What specifically does this Conservative peer, boss of Next, Wolfson have in mind now by way of further relaxation? It was stated before the election that the National Infrastructure Planning Commission would be abolished by the Conservative Party, but its place in the coalition's agreement is not known.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He gave an example of having to wait months to get approval to put an extra floor in a store.

"Hopefully we will see it as an example of engagement with the banks yielding better results than shouting at them." - AS71 @ 16

Possibly. But better still to have the measures AND the shouting.

coats @ 24

Looking at the politics of it, I'd be inclined - if I were the Coalition - to come down on the populist side. I see almost zero risk (either politically or, since I believe the threats to leave London to be mainly bluff, economically) in upsetting the bankers. Perhaps they'll be able to square the circle; find a way to publish something which looks tough - hence gets the public punching the air in delight - but in reality, when one looks at the fine print, is anything but.

So we now have the most penal tax regime related to banking of any major economy and, to quote Robert Peston, '... the most transparent regime for bankers' remuneration in the world".

Looks like the left are going to have to stick to their delusional fantasies. Poor wee things.

"Furthermore we assert that ALL of these identities are valid and none of them preclude the others."

But therein lies part of the problem though Saga. When you decide that particular "identities"/genders/whatever are under-represented in any particular field and you then decide on tokenism/female only shortlists (guffaw), positive discrimination (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) then you DO end up precluding certain identities.

I'm sure I dont need to remind you who the greatest exponent recently of such "positive/equality" measures was, do I? Hint: Its not the Gargoyle Of Grantham, either....

38#

Its quite simple Saga. I dont like lies masquerading as the truth. No matter who is telling them.

You on the other hand and quite a few others are quite happy to watch lies being peddled, so long as it serves your purpose. As I said to lefty earlier on, if you're happy to build your political faith and ethos on a lie, then fine, on you go. But I dont see why I should ever believe a word you say, consequently.

Unless you dont give a flying fig for what I think of your politics anyway and you would rather preach to the converted, or prefer the sound of your own voice... in which case, you might just be in the wrong game old chum.

Honesty. Thats all its about.

26. rockRobin7

'It's grim up north London... (as well as rather multicultural)'

rR, do you have a problem with multiculturalism as a concept or just the way you see it being practiced in the UK?

AS71 16

'Hopefully we will see it as an example of engagement with the banks yielding better results than shouting at them'

It appears at first sight that the coaliton have managed to achieve all their main aims.

1. Increased lending to businesses
2. Reduced levels of bonuses
3. More transparency of bankers pay (the most transparent in the world according to Robert Peston)

add in the banking levy and they've managed to achieve more in a few months than New Labour achieved in 13 years.

sagamix..

Typical newlabour - put a new name on and preternd it is no longer pernicious and divisive.

It was, is and will always be until the left shuts up about it. you continue to use by whatever name as a dogwhistle to the masses.

It is not remotely progressive to have promoted this for thirteen years yet the lieks of Livingstone made a career out of championing minority causes while the rest of the population paid his taxes and received nothing in return. This was pernicious and divisive.

You can't escape by rebranding it; your labour party promoted this division under its umbrella of so called 'progressive' policies.

You will be written up in the history books as having deliberately promoted a catastrophically divisive agenda. It's already happening.

it's grim up north London...

#37 AS71

The ±«Óãtv's "More or Less" programme undertook and extensive investigation of the substance of those claims. It concluded that it was not possible to reach a definitive conclusion: either substantiate, or refute them. With information publicly available, it did show that the journalist's research leading to the claims was selective. There was publicly available information that could allow the completely opposite conclusion to Jack Straw's to be drawn. In order to do so it would be necessary to gain access to confidential information only available to the Police Forces around the country. Mr Straw may have had access to such information, or analysis thereof, as ±«Óãtv Secretary, or he may not.

The topic was almost certainly also debated on "Question Time" and "Any Questions". In view of the More or Less conclusions, Nick was probably quite wise to leave this subject well alone until the evidence is more substantive and verifiable.

At 12:25pm on 09 Feb 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Some of you are either misinformed or lying or both regarding the funding of the conservative party by the city.

Look at Guido's blog, look at the story entitled "Bureau Of Investigative Journalism".

Some of you predictably will believe anything that the Guardian writes because it plays to your prejudices.

As I said to lefty earlier on, theres an old quote. A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be that you've been led astray by Guido. Seems he only supports organisations until they have the temerity to publish information he'd rather they hadn't.
Guido's article does manage to establish a few possible errors but is a long way from a systematic demolition of much of what the BIJ revealed. Its pretty obvious that if Guido had such information he would have delighted in making it known.
It's a bit like saying because we can establish that the previous government made some mistakes then everything that they did must have been a mistake. Doesn't follow. Sure you're not being a little gullible?

#39 AS71

Surely, that is down to the efficiency of the local planning authority?

Of course the efficiency of the local planning authority is likely to be increased by the funding cuts and redundancies being made across the board to local authorities, as we write. Our ability to monitor the performance of local authorities against comparable measures to test such efficiency will also be made much more transparent by the abolition of the Audit Commission.

It sounds like Lord Wolfson wants to have his cake and eat it, or is it just a case of the little boy Crying Wolf?

Ashcroftmillions2010

At #4 over on Blether With Brian, EH raises the question of where the "extra cash" is coming from for the Scottish Budget for the "negotiations" currently going on.

Genuine Question - Does anybody know whether or not there will be a Barnett Consequential (around GBP80 million by my reckoning) from the extra GBP800 Million that the UK Chancellor is screwed from the banks yesterday ?

It would be a nice little Union Dividend from all those failed Scottish banks that Paw Broon bailed out, you know.

Did i blink, and miss the question over UK Lab "facilitating the release of al-megrahi on a cooked up 3 month compassionate lie".
Why the tory silence?

Could be that you've been led astray by Guido. Seems he only supports organisations until they have the temerity to publish information he'd rather they hadn't.
Guido's article does manage to establish a few possible errors but is a long way from a systematic demolition of much of what the BIJ revealed. Its pretty obvious that if Guido had such information he would have delighted in making it known.
It's a bit like saying because we can establish that the previous government made some mistakes then everything that they did must have been a mistake. Doesn't follow. Sure you're not being a little gullible?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Touche, IDBI. You could argue that.

Swap "Guido" for "Guardian" and it could be equally true.

Swap "Previous" for "Thatcher" and the same would also apply.

In both cases there would be proponents on both sides arguing that black is white, so long as it suited their agenda. I would prefer to take a mixture of sources of information and make my own mind up.

The only way the murky issue of political funding is ever going to be resolved is if they are publicly funded. And that particular turkey is never going to take flight.

Personally, I think all three main parties have got not just skeletons, but whole graveyards rattling in their closets when it comes to funding. They're all as bad as each other. Ultimately, its all about perspective.

Ashcroftmillions2010 20

Sorry I am trying to get used to a new computer and made a mistake at 51. Then I had a job to do so was delayed.

You are far too emotional to discuss a problem rashionally, there seems to be a lot of that going around at the moment. Your dislike of the banks colours your views, there is also a lot of that going around at the moment. I do not accept that Brown did bail the banks out correctly in the first place, so I start from that point of view. The normal rule of banking is that bad debt is separated and allowed to fail whilst you recoup whatever you can. Your run an agressive programme to rid the bank of toxic debt, much as NR was run in the end. The only reason this did not happen is that all that bad debt would fall. Meaning bad mortgages and business would fail. Which in time when interest rates go up substantially, as they will have to, because of inflation, eventually, will happen anyway. Brown did not want to be made unpopular by these measures and thus the taxpayers is left holding the bill. HBOS a largely toxic bank should have been allowed to fail.

A bank is not a charity, if you want them to build up their capital quickly they must make money. Offering low interest rates when expecting them to lend would not meet this need. There is a problem with Government expecting them to build up their capital, lend, pay the Government, meet the needs of regulation and keep up with competing for staff by bonus payments in the Global Market. There is also less investment value coming their way

If they are then forced by Government to offer loans for bad business models and failing business, and quite frankly these are the only ones wanting money, loans for good business are not in demand. The whole sorry mess begins again.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

But it's not "lies", Fubar (44), is it? Take a look at the Peston blog. These are the times when you really do come over - incorrectly I'm sure - as a tory e-activist. Then your 43 - well quotas can work in certain (limited) situations but that's a different topic.

And Robin (47), you sound very angry about something to do with the "left" and minorities but you need to be clearer about exactly what it is. "Equality under the law of the land", for example, is what I'm saying is the key principle - you agree? If you do (and I'm sure you do do), are you complaining here that certain minority groups are more than equal in some way? If so, can you (?) give an example or two, then we'll know what you're talking about. Or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth (a habit I'm trying to break ... getting involved with people's mouths), in which case forget all this and just tell me straight out what's on your mind. Tell me what's bugging you.

48 ashcroftmillions2010

The ±«Óãtv's "More or Less" programme undertook and extensive investigation of the substance of those claims. It concluded that it was not possible to reach a definitive conclusion: either substantiate, or refute them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you could post the evidence that allows a different conclusion to be reached.

The evidence presented by The Times below looks pretty damning:

17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them during the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men. The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community.

#55 Susan_Croft

Thinking rationally is part of my make up; my inner essence. As for emotion, I don't do it. Sorry. I prefer the version with the spelling of "tion" its in keeping with the rational logic of spelling in the English language.

I love the banks. I think the banks and the City are vitally important to the UK economy. They need to invest in those companies likely to grow and create jobs, though, not pay themselves bonuses for the market liquidity and share price increases caused by the bank bail outs, credit guarantees and Quantitative Easing from the state. Just earn their money like everyone else.

Further evidence of my rationality is shown my my suggestion of the need to "rationalise" balance sheets. The logical conclusion that we are both advocating the same view point is not lost on me, either. It can be done now, rationally, with the stability in the financial system, without complete collapse.

Who is the one tied up in all the irrational, emotional, political argument about the last government and Vince Cable, then? We have a different government led by somebody other than GB now. At the HM Treasury we have GO, announcing the Merlin package. RIP GB, Viva GO!

Nobody, not even the International Bank of Settlements, responsible for setting the Basel II capital adequacy requirements is calling for a quick implementation of their new ratios. The banks have several years to meet the new standard, many already do and those that do not are rushing to do so for their credit ratings.

57. sagamix

'And Robin (47), you sound very angry about something to do with the "left" and minorities but you need to be clearer about exactly what it is.'


Yes, I'd be interested to hear his views on this (Q@45), hope he finds time to reply.

Merlin???

Osborne is gonna need far more magical power than Merlin if he hopes to control multinational banks.

I've always considered him and Cameron kids playing with matches. This could backfire fitfully on us all. The banks' easy compliance makes me suspicious. The pollyticians don't comprehend that they're dealing with extremely shrewd and powerful businesspeople.

Whatever the banks lose from this and other deals, they'll recoup with higher fees, interest rates, etc.

Targeted lending is crazy. How come politicians are unable to see this? Are they really so naive? I doubt it and reckon it's just political waffle to appease an angry public. Sounds good but that's all.

Targeted lending is what started this whole crisis in the first place: the sub-prime market in America. As soon as mortgagors were unable to repay and lenders tried to get their money back through their insurers they found the security had been lost in the CDO debacle. The bubble burst.

No doubt the banks will pass on losses in higher fees and interest.

ashcroftmillions 59

Well no valid points made by you except my error, which I accept with good grace and apologise for all my shortcomings. So I can safely say then, that you accept the points made by me on the banks. I can also expect that you will be much more rational in the future.

The last thing that UK plc/ British taxpayer/jobseeker/worker needed was another back room deal. The figure of £190 bn by itself, is meaningless.

What we need to see is the govt's plan for UK plc and UK full employment going forward and its explanation to the banks of why £190 bn is the right amount and where it it needs to be spent and why?

Deafening silence ....

Can someone help with a little clarification?

As you know, I've asked previously about the failure of politicians from England ever to mention the dastardly place by name.

Today I see from the revered Beeb



(or at least some person called Stamp - presumably in their employ)

that at "1305 Mr Osborne is now on to the meat of his statement. He says the agreement with banks will see them lend more, pay less in bonus, be more transparent over pay and make greater contribution to economic development in the English regions."

Did Osborne actually say that? - or is this Stamp person for real? Perhaps he is some agent provocateur lying about our esteemed Chancellor? or are these Scots actually right when they describe the Tories in Engerland as ***?

We should be told.

#58 AS71

You have clearly made up your mind on this matter already. For whatever reason there will be no persuading you of a different point of view; maybe its prejudice, maybe its utter confidence in the complete truth of everything published in the media, or The Times; maybe its because its true, or you have seen further confidential information, not shared with the public yet?

When you have an open mind about a matter, then you are willing to find our contradictory evidence, or question the veracity of what you have been told, or read especially in one newspaper.

Listen to the article on ±«Óãtv iplayer. Beware that "More or Less" has been to statistical and arithmetical claims in the media, especially by politicians, or special interest groups what the Institute of Fiscal Studies has to politicians, especially at election time on proposed government budgetary, spending and expenditure plans or proposals.

I am sure that your already formed opinion will see past that, though.

65. reincarnation

Just heard GO on the ±«Óãtv News. He referred to "our regions and society". So is Gavin Stamp correct to assume that English politicians mean England when they say "our"?

Alas the ±«Óãtv liveth not by the mantra "Nation shall speak peace unto nation", but instead by its current motto of

"Any nation that shall [or shall not] speak peace [or war or confusion or anything else] unto any other nation [that shall or shall not be or contain geographical areas with strange names, customs or laws not understood in Shepherd's Bush, or in wilder areas {sometimes described, for no discernible reason, as north London} shall be deemed to be acting wholly in the interests of the nation that the ±«Óãtv shall [or shall not] claim to represent."

Thank you all for your help in clarifying this issue.

So this is what we've been waiting for!!!

an increase in lending from 179bn to to 190bn when RPI inflation is at 5% is infact no increase whatsoever!!

result George, a real coup, boy you showed those bankers.

And bonusses stay at 6bn wile Cameron's big society bank gets £200m, thats 3.3% of the bonus pot!!!!!!!!!

How can anyone, even the Robin/Fubar/Andys of this world do anything other than cringe at the ineptitude of this bunch of zeros.

Thanks again Clegg..

You put them in power!

reincarnationb 67

The quick answer is no he is not right, for as long as we remain a Union, your rights are our rights.

I would have helped earlier if I could, as you seemed a wee bit lonely there, but unfortunately I did not see the Osborne speech.

66 ashcroftmillions2010

When you have an open mind about a matter, then you are willing to find our contradictory evidence, or question the veracity of what you have been told, or read especially in one newspaper.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My thoughts are informed partly by The Times evidence, which is in accordance with experience of living in West Yorkshire for a large part of my life, where it was a well known phenomenon.

I asked you to submit contradictory evidence - it would seem that you don't have any. I will listen to "More or Less" if I get chance.

66 ashcroftmillions2010

Beware that "More or Less" has been to statistical and arithmetical claims in the media, especially by politicians, or special interest groups what the Institute of Fiscal Studies has to politicians, especially at election time on proposed government budgetary, spending and expenditure plans or proposals.

I am sure that your already formed opinion will see past that, though.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Think my degree in mathematics might see me through.

69. Susan-Croft
"your rights are our rights."

Sounds wonderfully threatening! :-)

I'm sure you are delivering that line in a really deep growelly voice with an imaginary gun in your hand.

FS 48

"Honesty. Thats all its about."

"The louder he spoke of his honor,the fastest we counted the spoons" Various attributions

reincarnation 72

Hey, sir, I was being very sincere, you really are a cynic. Being in a Union isn't all that bad, even with the English. There are much worst things in life, I have seen some of them.

and

I hate this new computer, now there you are, you have made me moan.

I think the banks are magical.They make money disappear from your savings by offering very low rates of interest. They make money disappear from your current account by having extortionately high bank charges particularly on loans, overdrafts and mortgages.Whether saving or borrowing the consumer and business entrepreneur always lose and the banks always win.

What we need is for the Bank of England to stop giving money to the banks and set up its own High Street operation where it can deal directly with the public. Or perhaps to organise a national system of credit unions.In that way they can be sure money is going where it is needed and is not bolstering up the bank bonuses.

As long as the commercial banks are running the show they will always run it for personal and corporate profit.It's time we had a bank with a massive social conscience.

68#

Bunch of zero's they may be, Eaton. It still be the day Satan takes delivery of his first pair of ice skates before I even contemplate trusting anyone from the left with my vote.

"But it's not "lies", Fubar (44), is it? Take a look at the Peston blog."

It is not completely factually accurate Saga. To me, thats a lie. To you, bending the truth to the physical limits of its elasticity and beyond is no big deal. I already know that.

"These are the times when you really do come over - incorrectly I'm sure - as a tory e-activist."

...well you would say that, wouldnt you. The same way all socialists denounce everyone who opposes them as counter revolutionaries and a danger to the wider proletariat. Its been said so often it now rings completely hollow and meaningless to everyone except the fellow pavlovian mutts who salivate on command every time they hear the word "tory".

"Then your 43 - well quotas can work in certain (limited) situations but that's a different topic."

Yeah, ok mate. So, when your party do it, its quotas, its correcting under-representation. When anyone else does it, its acting in a prejudicial manner, its racism, its sexism, its inequality in action. For a supposedly intelligent man, such self delusion is dangerously bordering on the certifiable. To propagate it to other weaker minds as a truth is reprehensible.

#70, 71 AS71

There is an official report being compiled on the subject, but this will not be finished for about six months.

Do listen to the "More or Less" report it was orginally broadcast on 14th January edition. As a mathematician, you might even enjoy it.