More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Damo]

I prefer this one, it's a shame LBC didn't clip this one, i wonder why ? maybe it's because a remainer gives him an absolute pasting, listen until the end when O'Brien realizes he's taking a beating he does his usual talking over and then cut off job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq8ylri ... e=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's like a really good episode of I'm Alan partridge.
Some of the posters on here remind me of coogans character too.

[Damo]

A racist and a liar then

(this is a joke)

Is it a joke? It came across as being an angry outburst to be honest. Much like the initial outburst by cry sis

[claretandy]

It's like a really good episode of I'm Alan partridge.
Some of the posters on here remind me of coogans character too.

You know, i actually used to enjoy listening to him, i might not of agreed with him on much but since the referendum he has turned into a parody of himself, he is completely unhinged similarly to bad Al Campbell, no wonder OBrien lost the Newsnight gig, he has no resemblance of balance or objectivity.

[Greenmile]

Is it a joke? It came across as being an angry outburst to be honest. Much like the initial outburst by cry sis

Which part of my ten-word post came across as an angry outburst? The bit where I specifically pointed out it was a joke, for the hard of thinking?

[If it be your will]

Hi Sidney, there were other UK banks that failed:

HBOS - but bought by Lloyds (encouraged by gov't) and Lloyds then had to be rescued. Lloyds shareholders lost out. And, by and large, the UK government managed to sell their (taxpayers') Lloyds shares around breakeven.

Bradford and Bingley - think was "rescued" by another building society, but happy if someone corrects my memory.

RBS failed, massively bailed out by government. The UK gov't will sell their shares in the next year or so, and no chance of getting back the money that was put in. RBS is a much, much smaller bank than it was when it failed - regulations are much tougher (but not necessarily the right regulations, but that's another debate).

Barclays - nearly failed - but bailed out by new funds (Qatar, I think) - thought related actions may still be subject to courts...

There could have been another approach - but it would have meant that the people with their savings in the banks losing all above the then quite modest protection levels - and, as most of this was only 90% g'teed, everyone would have lost a bit.

And, a lot of the problem was the massive mortgage and credit card debt - so, low interest rates "bailed out" a lot of these debts - at the expense of the people with savings income. Though, maybe low interest rates has also stopped house prices collapsing (post-2008) - and, of course, rising to levels where for many houses are unaffordable.

It's complicated....

QE was the major bailout of the whole financial sector, alongside the low interest rates, by the purchasing (and therefore artificially increasing the price of) government bonds, which they held. Though I'm not necessarily saying this was a mistake.

Truth is, the global trend of 'light touch regulation' of the financial sector both here and elsewhere, was disastrous.

[RingoMcCartney]

You know, i actually used to enjoy listening to him, i might not of agreed with him on much but since the referendum he has turned into a parody of himself, he is completely unhinged similarly to bad Al Campbell, no wonder OBrien lost the Newsnight gig, he has no resemblance of balance or objectivity.

Try TalkRadio Andy. 10 till 1, same time as privileged bubble dweller, no brain Obrian.

Julia Hartley Brewer. 4 or 5 topics each hour and guests invited on with the polar opposite opinion to Julia.

After the pompous, daily droneathon, from the far left Posh Boy, "socialist" with staff. It's truelly liberating!!!

[Paul Waine]

The banks didn't learn though, they never do.

Look at Noel Edmonds and the scandal involving the Reading branch of one of the big banks.

Staff their taking control of people's livelihoods and fleecing them for their own gains.
Now they're in court or prison but people have lost everything as a result.

Agree, totally wrong what happened at with that team at HBOS, Reading. There can be bad apples in any organisation - and the crooks in Reading don't represent what HBOS were trying to do - and are totally separate from the mistakes by HBOS board that led to the failure of HBOS.

The question is have the bank boards learnt now? Maybe they have - though we should also ask the same question of our politicians - I'm less hopeful that the politicians now understand what they did wrong and won't, therefore, repeat their mistakes, than I am that the bankers' boards understand what they did wrong.

[Paul Waine]

QE was the major bailout of the whole financial sector, alongside the low interest rates, by the purchasing (and therefore artificially increasing the price of) government bonds, which they held. Though I'm not necessarily saying this was a mistake.

Truth is, the global trend of 'light touch regulation' of the financial sector both here and elsewhere, was disastrous.

Hi iibyw, my understanding is that QE was aimed at "kick starting" the economies by providing funds that the banks could then lend out - and low interest rates were also aimed at encouraging firms to borrow because the rates were so low and the investment opportunities they had would be profitable. It turned out that many economies needed a lot of kick-starting, hence QE repeated and repeated. QE was not aimed at "Bailing out the banks" - that had already been done by gov't buying shares etc.

The wfc was so bad, so deep, so big a shock to the system that it was natural that firms would be more cautious and so, more reluctant to invest - whatever the interest rates to borrow funds.

Government bonds are generally fixed income, so, if market interest rates are low bond prices will always rise - nothing "artificial" about this.

We can discuss financial sector regulation another time. A lot of mistakes are being made with the new banking regulations.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Not sure that is fully correct Paul. First, QE had to recapitalise the banks, then the banks would lend with the next batch. That is why it didnt initially prove inflationary. I agree with a lot of what IIBYW is saying even though I generally believe in free markets and centrist politics.

The guy who invented QE (for Japan) said that what we are doing now is far from what he intended, and he thinks it will be a disaster. I fully agree......

[claretandy]

Try TalkRadio Andy. 10 till 1, same time as privileged bubble dweller, no brain Obrian.

Julia Hartley Brewer. 4 or 5 topics each hour and guests invited on with the polar opposite opinion to Julia.

After the pompous, daily droneathon, from the far left Posh Boy, "socialist" with staff. It's truelly liberating!!!

I do switch between the 2 especially when O'Brien is on one.

[If it be your will]

Hi iibyw, my understanding is that QE was aimed at "kick starting" the economies by providing funds that the banks could then lend out - and low interest rates were also aimed at encouraging firms to borrow because the rates were so low and the investment opportunities they had would be profitable. It turned out that many economies needed a lot of kick-starting, hence QE repeated and repeated. QE was not aimed at "Bailing out the banks" - that had already been done by gov't buying shares etc.

The wfc was so bad, so deep, so big a shock to the system that it was natural that firms would be more cautious and so, more reluctant to invest - whatever the interest rates to borrow funds.

Government bonds are generally fixed income, so, if market interest rates are low bond prices will always rise - nothing "artificial" about this.

We can discuss financial sector regulation another time. A lot of mistakes are being made with the new banking regulations.

The primary bond market is (largely) fixed income, but the secondary market certainly isn't. In the secondary market bond prices and yield have an inverse correlation - if the bond price goes up, the effective yield declines. The coupon rate is irrelevant in the secondary market. (In the primary market auctions determine the yield, which is itself determined by what yield is available on the secondary market.) With QE the BoE created new money to purchase bonds in the secondary market, thus pushing up prices and reducing the effective yield. Yes, by reducing the effective yield in the secondary market it was supposed to encourage lending by reducing the appetite for 'risk-free' gilts, but there's no doubt whatsoever it artificially increased bond prices in the secondary market - that was the whole point! So investors were less keen to buy/hold them and put their money elsewhere! (This was for all gilt holders, including the banks.) The 'interest rate' that's announced every month is merely the overnight rate the BoE pay on deposits held with them, it has no direct influence on the secondary market.

By increasing the price of an asset the banks held, QE most certainly was part of 'bailing out the banks'. How can it not be?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... _faqs.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1407 ... ment-debt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

I do switch between the 2 especially when O'Brien is on one.

You'll be switched most of the time then!

[Bertiebeehead]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ab-a-goner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The last straw.

[RingoMcCartney]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ab-a-goner

The last straw.

Right! That's it!

Where's me pitchfork!?

[If it be your will]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... k-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think today might be the day we all began to realise we are probably going for a WTO 'hard Brexit'. For those with assets, it would be wise to position themselves accordingly, as I'm sure Duncan Smith already has.

This will put Labour in a real bind if there's an election next year and they win it. It will be too late to alter the trajectory of talks and will therefore be faced with the choice of abandoning Brexit altogether or being custodians of a hard Brexit. Either will result in electoral wipeout at the election after.

[Spijed]

Either will result in electoral wipeout at the election after.

Unlikely as long as members of 'Momentum' vote in similar numbers as they did at the last election.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Saw a graph today in The Sunday Times Rich List which shows that wealth of the top 1000 has gone up 400% since around 2010. That is a direct consequence of QE and 0.25% interest rates. That while average wealth and income flatline.

It’s a graph that will ensure Corbyn gets in, it’s only when or if it turns out that his policies don’t help the bottom 75% of people either, that people will vote against him. I think many now are willing to find out. Milburn and his social mobility crew resigning today is a death knell to May. The Tories really don’t help themselves.

Brexit is a total sideshow to that. The cost or benefit to the average family of Remain vs Brexit is a fraction of that from Tory vs Corbyn governments. I feel we will have a soft Brexit, too soft, but it’s not the be all and end all.

[RingoMcCartney]

Alan Milburn - it's just like 13 years of Labour, never actually happened!

[Paul Waine]

The primary bond market is (largely) fixed income, but the secondary market certainly isn't. In the secondary market bond prices and yield have an inverse correlation - if the bond price goes up, the effective yield declines. The coupon rate is irrelevant in the secondary market. (In the primary market auctions determine the yield, which is itself determined by what yield is available on the secondary market.) With QE the BoE created new money to purchase bonds in the secondary market, thus pushing up prices and reducing the effective yield. Yes, by reducing the effective yield in the secondary market it was supposed to encourage lending by reducing the appetite for 'risk-free' gilts, but there's no doubt whatsoever it artificially increased bond prices in the secondary market - that was the whole point! So investors were less keen to buy/hold them and put their money elsewhere! (This was for all gilt holders, including the banks.) The 'interest rate' that's announced every month is merely the overnight rate the BoE pay on deposits held with them, it has no direct influence on the secondary market.

By increasing the price of an asset the banks held, QE most certainly was part of 'bailing out the banks'. How can it not be?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... _faqs.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1407 ... ment-debt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi iibyw, yes, I was speaking of the "secondary" market - interest rates are fixed on the bonds - thus the value of the bonds rises (or falls) as market interest rates fall (or rise), and the bond effective yield matches the market interest rate.

Yes, the BoE announces an overnight (spot) rate - and the market sets the forward rates.

There was nothing "artificial" about the increase in bond prices in the secondary market: that is exactly what has always happened when interest rates fall.

Banks make their money on the interest rate spread: what they charge for lending v what they pay on money deposited with them. QE (= lower interest rates) were about corporations being encouraged to invest, as the cost of investing would be lower; and the banks would have the funds to lend. I doubt there are any banks that would hold large amounts of gov't bonds without hedging their market risk (= risk of change in price of the bonds). More so after there's been a financial crash and the gov't has bought (most of) their equity.

[Paul Waine]

This will put Labour in a real bind if there's an election next year and they win it. It will be too late to alter the trajectory of talks and will therefore be faced with the choice of abandoning Brexit altogether or being custodians of a hard Brexit. Either will result in electoral wipeout at the election after.

Will JC put that in his manifesto: "I might abandon brexit or I might just go along with a hard brexit..... but it will all be alright, John McD will issue some bonds - so that government debt doesn't increase."

"Hang on, who do I know who can assist in the issue of bonds? Some guy called Morgan and another called Stanley....?"

Maybe best to return the M&S jacket (ref GQ) and make sure there is no election in 2018....

[If it be your will]

There was nothing "artificial" about the increase in bond prices in the secondary market: that is exactly what has always happened when interest rates fall.

That's the wrong way round, as bond prices rise, market interest rates fall. Bond prices didn't go up because interest rates fell, interest rates fell because bond prices went up.

When the government bought over a quarter of all outstanding bonds with QE, the price of bonds rose, and so the effective interest rate in the secondary market fell. That what QE was - increase the price of bonds by buying them in order to push down market interest rates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ugh-bonds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As an aside, banks traditionally made profits from exploiting the yield curve, that long dated bonds had a higher yield than shorter dated bonds. Banks 'borrowed short and lent long'. The 'liquidity risk' involved in doing this is precisely what sent Northern Rock (and others) bust. They suddenly couldn't borrow short anymore. Unfortunately for banks the yield curve is now so flat that lending at long dated rates and borrowing short dated rates doesn't make nearly as much profit as once did, hence languishing bank profits and share prices.
http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/ba ... -long.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I can assure you John McDonnell has a far superior understanding of the bond market than I could ever hope to. I only know the basics.)

[If it be your will]

Saw a graph today in The Sunday Times Rich List which shows that wealth of the top 1000 has gone up 400% since around 2010. That is a direct consequence of QE and 0.25% interest rates. That while average wealth and income flatline.

It’s a graph that will ensure Corbyn gets in, it’s only when or if it turns out that his policies don’t help the bottom 75% of people either, that people will vote against him. I think many now are willing to find out. Milburn and his social mobility crew resigning today is a death knell to May. The Tories really don’t help themselves.

Brexit is a total sideshow to that. The cost or benefit to the average family of Remain vs Brexit is a fraction of that from Tory vs Corbyn governments. I feel we will have a soft Brexit, too soft, but it’s not the be all and end all.

They will, they will... (and I don't even think the top 5% will be materially impacted either). Did the Sunday times express that 400% in absolute terms? About £450 billion increase in wealth in 7 years, perhaps, by the top 0.0015% of the population? Makes Labour's £48 billion spending plans look cheap.

Anyway, I think you're right, I think he'll get the chance to prove it. I just hope Brexit doesn't overwhelm his government, like it clearly has the Tories.

[Paul Waine]

That's the wrong way round, as bond prices rise, market interest rates fall. Bond prices didn't go up because interest rates fell, interest rates fell because bond prices went up.

When the government bought over a quarter of all outstanding bonds with QE, the price of bonds rose, and so the effective interest rate in the secondary market fell. That what QE was - increase the price of bonds by buying them in order to push down market interest rates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ugh-bonds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As an aside, banks traditionally made profits from exploiting the yield curve, that long dated bonds had a higher yield than shorter dated bonds. Banks 'borrowed short and lent long'. The 'liquidity risk' involved in doing this is precisely what sent Northern Rock (and others) bust. They suddenly couldn't borrow short anymore. Unfortunately for banks the yield curve is now so flat that lending at long dated rates and borrowing short dated rates doesn't make nearly as much profit as once did, hence languishing bank profits and share prices.
http://www.bondeconomics.com/2015/09/ba ... -long.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I can assure you John McDonnell has a far superior understanding of the bond market than I could ever hope to. I only know the basics.)

Hi iibyw, we will make an Assets and Liabilities Manager (ALM) out of you, yet.

Agree, borrowing short and lending long has been standard banking practice. As consumers and other savers we tend to want quick access to our money. On the other hand if we take out a mortgage to buy a house, or we are a corporate borrowing to acquire assets, we tend to need to hold onto the money longer. So, there is a structure to interest rates, they aren't just short-term/overnight and rates exist for all tenors of the forward curve.

As for John McD, so long as he understands that the government issuing bonds is adding to government debt we are making progress. Then the next challenge is working out how the return on any assets the government buys will exceed the interest to be paid on the bonds used to buy those assets. If we can do that we will all be happy. Of course, there may still be the question of who will buy JC/JMcD bonds - and the interest rate that they will require to do so. I don't see QE helping there, do you?

[RingoMcCartney]

Great news!!

Facebook to create 800 brand new jobs, as it sets up it's biggest office outside the USA, right here in the, post referendum, UK!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42213942" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the lying Remoaners told us this would never happen if we even just voted to leave. What was it? That's right- "confidence would evaporate over night if we vote to leave"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uk-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any way, enough of the lies.

BRING OUT YER JOB APPLICATIONS.....BRING OUT YER JOB APPLICATIONS.....

[If it be your will]

BRING OUT YER JOB APPLICATIONS.....BRING OUT YER JOB APPLICATIONS.....

Not sure I like that, it sort of has a servile ring to it.

[UpTheBeehole]

Unlikely as long as members of 'Momentum' vote in similar numbers as they did at the last election.

There must be 12,874,985 members of Momentum then.

The fact is that Corbyn appealed to every single one of those voters, and with the mess the Tories are making of themselves and the country, that figure is growing.

The latest Survation voting intention survey shows an 8 point lead for Corbyn.

[Sidney1st]

Rock and a hard place it would appear.

Carry on watching the Tories muck about or let Labour in to do pretty much the same mucking about...

Is the monster raving loony party still an option?

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting news breaking on the Irish border question.

[Darthlaw]

There must be 12,874,985 members of Momentum then.

The fact is that Corbyn appealed to every single one of those voters, and with the mess the Tories are making of themselves and the country, that figure is growing.

The latest Survation voting intention survey shows an 8 point lead for Corbyn.

[ClaretMoffitt]

There's actually quite a good bit of truth in this.

[Sidney1st]

There isn't if you're a Labour supporter

[Lancasterclaret]

Under control?

This country is under control?

Aye, right, bang on we are.

How far off do you think we are from a tax bill like that has just been passed in the US? Asking for a concerned friend

[UpTheBeehole]

[UpTheBeehole]

[UpTheBeehole]

[Sidney1st]

That's set him off

[Darthlaw]

Here we go again. Borrowing vs Deficit argument. UTB, did you expect that the Tories would not borrow any more money given the budget deficit they inherited from Labour?

Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left

[UpTheBeehole]

Here we go again. Borrowing vs Deficit argument. UTB, did you expect that the Tories would not borrow any more money given the budget deficit they inherited from Labour?

That note was so very clearly a joke, which was used by the toerag Tories as a stick to beat Labour with.

When the next handover note comes I'll be surprised if the government could afford desks and notepads, such is the Tories' spectacular failure on the economy.

[Paul Waine]

Under control?

This country is under control?

Aye, right, bang on we are.

How far off do you think we are from a tax bill like that has just been passed in the US? Asking for a concerned friend

Hi Lancs, isn't it JC's intention to give us all a big tax bill? It was all costed in his/momentum's manifesto.

Did you see Roy Hatersley's comments that Labour needs to fight back against the takeover by Momentum?

[Sidney1st]

That note was so very clearly a joke, which was used by the toerag Tories as a stick to beat Labour with.

When the next handover note comes I'll be surprised if the government could afford desks and notepads, such is the Tories' spectacular failure on the economy.

Don't worry, Corbyn has it all worked out and the amount he needs to borrow to get his plans going.

[Paul Waine]

That note was so very clearly a joke, which was used by the toerag Tories as a stick to beat Labour with.

When the next handover note comes I'll be surprised if the government could afford desks and notepads, such is the Tories' spectacular failure on the economy.

And the "joke" is on all of us, TBH. Thing is, I don't think the guy who wrote the note has ever claimed he was joking.

So long as there are no laptops handed over everything will be fine!

[Lancasterclaret]

Then the tories need to get their act together Paul.

But they can't because May is too weak to tell the likes of Cash and Redwood to FO and free her up to aim for a Brexit that most of us can live with.

[RingoMcCartney]

Not sure I like that, it sort of has a servile ring to it.

I saw Servile Ring supporting System of a Down a few years ago.

[UpTheBeehole]

Don't worry, Corbyn has it all worked out and the amount he needs to borrow to get his plans going.

That's right!




And no borrowing involved!

[Sidney1st]

That's right!




And no borrowing involved!

This was explained to you the other day on here.

He needs closer to £500 billion, not £50 billion.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -manifesto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep trying though, one day you'll get there.

[JohnMcGreal]

So if reports are to be believed, the UK government has conceded that Northern Ireland will effectively have to stay in the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border.

The DUP aren't likely to take that well.

Also, If Northern Ireland get an exemption from a hard Brexit, then Scotland, the City of London, Lincolnshire, Cornwall and anyone else who doesn't want a hard Brexit will be demanding the same.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Darthlaw]

This was explained to you the other day on here.

He needs closer to £500 billion, not £50 billion.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -manifesto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep trying though, one day you'll get there.

Instantly quiet on the 'vanishing' deficit and now this. Labour at it's finest financial management.

[Bacchus]

Interesting news breaking on the Irish border question.

Indeed. I'd be interested to see the detail on this one. Seems like NI will effectively remain part of the single market and currency union in order to avoid having a hard border with Republic of Ireland. One can only assume this will mean a hard border between GB and NI though. I've no idea how that will all work, but I'm pretty sure the DUP are delighted by it and it will be interesting to see how that plays out re: their support for the government.

edit - looks like McGreal beat me to it.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm guessing that even the most devout Unionist can see the economic benefits from that, and its not like they are not skilled at asking the govt for even more money to sweeten the deal.

Scotland is going to be going "Hang on a sec, what about us?"

[UpTheBeehole]

So if reports are to be believed, the UK government has conceded that Northern Ireland will effectively have to stay in the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border.

The DUP aren't likely to take that well.

Also, If Northern Ireland get an exemption from a hard Brexit, then Scotland, the City of London, Lincolnshire, Cornwall and anyone else who doesn't want a hard Brexit will be demanding the same.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Don't forget all the other cities in the UK who overwhelmingly voted to remain too, such as Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff etc.

All that leaves is the sh*thole backwaters, and I'd like to see them try and make a success out of it without the cities, where all the proper work takes place.