No, not at all. Far from it. But I didnt say it was, did I? I was just correcting your assertion that unemployment is spiralling. It was, disasterously, last year. This year, it isnt. Simple really - no need to add any other interpretation
A little bit rich (no pun intended) though Floyd, when Cameron & Osborne were amongst those in the Conservative Party who, whilst in opposition wanted less regulation for their friends in the City.
Oh yes, I agree, but the fact is it was the Labour party who actually got us into this mess, and its the same individuals in opposition who have the staggering hypocrisy to criticise the methods of getting us out of it. It reflects badly on both main parties, but Oggy's question was 'what will Cameron and Osbourne say', and I was suggesting their possible obvious answer.
Ffs stop blaming the Labour Party for all the ills currently affecting the WHOLE WORLD.
Wasting your breath their mate, its like the poor chap has an immediate need to defend the honour of Cameron, Osbourne and, best of all, Johnson if anyone dares to besmirch their name.
Labour have been out of office now for well over two years, at what point do you reckon Floyd and his Tory mates will start to take responsibility?
The Labour Govt must take their full share of blame for no end of errors regarding the financial institutions but this world economic crisis goes much much further and deeper than the Blair / Brown years and to suggest that all the problems that this current govt inherited could have been avoided is a ridiculous view. It's not governments that have caused this royal mess its blame lays firmly and squarely on the world wide banking system and the politicians from every flavour and country have stood by and fiddled because without exception none of them could understand finance enough to see what was going down or have had their noses so deeply in the trough that they didn't care.
Wow - totally agree with every word, SHG! It is however, governments - all around the world - lets move away from the vexatious issue of the UK - who should regulate the banking systems. Something they have largely and disasterously failed to do.
I read yesterday that 83% of RBS is owned by the British taxpayer yet their call centres are outsourced to India even though our unemployment figures are spiiralling. Why isn't the government leaning on RBS (and others) to rectify that situation?
Oh wait. This is a government that persists in giving foreign aid to a nation that can afford it's own nuclear and space programmes.
Are they? I thought big part of their advertising campaign was that they had UK call centres.
With 5 billion euros of bad loans, Santander played a major part in the property-fuelled crisis in Spain. Antonio Osario was executive vice president from 2000 to 2011. He has moved on to a £2 million a year job as chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, 41% owned by us British taxpayers.
I read yesterday that 83% of RBS is owned by the British taxpayer yet their call centres are outsourced to India even though our unemployment figures are spiiralling. Why isn't the government leaning on RBS (and others) to rectify that situation?
Oh wait. This is a government that persists in giving foreign aid to a nation that can afford it's own nuclear and space programmes.
Are they? I thought big part of their advertising campaign was that they had UK call centres.
With 5 billion euros of bad loans, Santander played a major part in the property-fuelled crisis in Spain. Antonio Osario was executive vice president from 2000 to 2011. He has moved on to a £2 million a year job as chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, 41% owned by us British taxpayers.
Does it matter if the call centres are here or in India, call centres aren't really personal are they. The same info regarding your account comes up on a screen and is dealt with by someone at the end of a phone.
Does it matter if the call centres are here or in India, call centres aren't really personal are they. The same info regarding your account comes up on a screen and is dealt with by someone at the end of a phone.
You a probably right but it just grates on me that the person can't pronounce my name properly.
A little bit rich (no pun intended) though Floyd, when Cameron & Osborne were amongst those in the Conservative Party who, whilst in opposition wanted less regulation for their friends in the City.
Oh yes, I agree, but the fact is it was the Labour party who actually got us into this mess, and its the same individuals in opposition who have the staggering hypocrisy to criticise the methods of getting us out of it. It reflects badly on both main parties, but Oggy's question was 'what will Cameron and Osbourne say', and I was suggesting their possible obvious answer.
Ffs stop blaming the Labour Party for all the ills currently affecting the WHOLE WORLD.
Wasting your breath their mate, its like the poor chap has an immediate need to defend the honour of Cameron, Osbourne and, best of all, Johnson if anyone dares to besmirch their name.
Labour have been out of office now for well over two years, at what point do you reckon Floyd and his Tory mates will start to take responsibility?
The Labour Govt must take their full share of blame for no end of errors regarding the financial institutions but this world economic crisis goes much much further and deeper than the Blair / Brown years and to suggest that all the problems that this current govt inherited could have been avoided is a ridiculous view. It's not governments that have caused this royal mess its blame lays firmly and squarely on the world wide banking system and the politicians from every flavour and country have stood by and fiddled because without exception none of them could understand finance enough to see what was going down or have had their noses so deeply in the trough that they didn't care.
I think it was a combination of both factors that you mention in the final paragraph.
In the UK Blair/Brown were happy to leave the banking industry well alone as long as they carried on bringing home the bacon which paid for a bloated welfare state.
The problem was that once the crash came there was no plan B.
Does it matter if the call centres are here or in India, call centres aren't really personal are they. The same info regarding your account comes up on a screen and is dealt with by someone at the end of a phone.
It's not a problem, if you can understand them & they you. Typically this is not the case. Also, I used to be in charge of a call centre & I know they give a much poorer service, than we used to get, due to a lack of accountability.
In my job I constantly have to deal with call centres where english is not the first spoken language, this makes things often a lot harder than they need be particularly if its a technical problem which it often is, the lines are often poor quality too and sometimes a bit of a delay. Profit for them often does not equal quality and good service. Often due to the huge monopolies that exist on our 'free market' global economy there is little option to choose another provider.
It is not only banks where the executives are taking their fill out of the trough. I have savings with Nationwide Building Society and a couple of weeks ago got the annual report. On going through the details of the directors renumeration, it appears they awarded themselves average increases of almost 14% last year. It was not clearly obvious because the total went down on account of there being one director less than the previous year. They are asking us members to vote and approve this! I wonder if the staff in the head office and behind the counters in the high street got any sort of pay increase at all. At the end of the day this is a mutual society owned by the members - savers and mortgage holders - and this is being paid for through poor returns for savers and high mortgage rates. Needless to say I have used my vote and so have my family members. If any Lifers are members check it out for yourself and make sure you use your vote. After all, maybe you think these poor, hard pressed directors are worth every penny!
And its not just financial rewards. Try this two-faced banker...
A knighthood for Charles Dunstone, a director of one of Britain’s failed, bailed-out banks – HBOS – where, until 2007, he earned more than £400,000 as it built up a raft of unsustainable risky loans. Dunstone quit before the bank failed, was taken over by Lloyds and needed a multi-billion pound public bailout. A member of the Chipping Norton Set and founder of Carphone Warehouse, Dunstone pleased the present government by switching his allegiance from Blair to Osborne. He used to write Labour-supporting letters to the Financial Times, but in 2010 he put his name to the businessmen’s letter to the Telegraph backing George Osborne’s cuts
Floyd - there's been a number of posts since my last one, so didn't seem fitting to go back and quote from that. I wouldn't fully agree that Labour got us into this mess, but that's just my opinion and I respect yours and others on that as well.
As a nation, the UK is too reliant on the Financial Services sector. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Like many disparate businesses, poor bosses often tend to ignore what is seen as a "cash cow" when times are relatively good and that part of the business is bringing in money. As a nation, that happened here when we allowed various sectors of the economy to be reduced to bit part players or destroyed completely. Note that I say we allowed, because we are the electorate...at the end of the day, our collective choices led us down this path and affected us all whether we wanted them or not.
A well run business will manage those areas of the company that don't always perform as well in a good economic environment. They are often the parts which pick up in a downturn, but if they are neglected through the good times then they lose the ability to react to change and take advantage to step up for the rest of the business. Germany remain strong because they are not as reliant on one sector and made sure they still had an economy that included the ability to make things that others would want/need.
Until we find a way of re-balancing the economy, we will struggle. If we are strong enough to do it, it will mean reducing the profitability of banks and the implications that will have on the tax collected from them and switching our focus to rebuilding industries/sectors etc.
Sadly, I have no confidence in any short-termist politician/party having the strength or ability to do that.
A little bit rich (no pun intended) though Floyd, when Cameron & Osborne were amongst those in the Conservative Party who, whilst in opposition wanted less regulation for their friends in the City.
Oh yes, I agree, but the fact is it was the Labour party who actually got us into this mess, and its the same individuals in opposition who have the staggering hypocrisy to criticise the methods of getting us out of it. It reflects badly on both main parties, but Oggy's question was 'what will Cameron and Osbourne say', and I was suggesting their possible obvious answer.
Ffs stop blaming the Labour Party for all the ills currently affecting the WHOLE WORLD.
Wasting your breath their mate, its like the poor chap has an immediate need to defend the honour of Cameron, Osbourne and, best of all, Johnson if anyone dares to besmirch their name.
Labour have been out of office now for well over two years, at what point do you reckon Floyd and his Tory mates will start to take responsibility?
The Labour Govt must take their full share of blame for no end of errors regarding the financial institutions but this world economic crisis goes much much further and deeper than the Blair / Brown years and to suggest that all the problems that this current govt inherited could have been avoided is a ridiculous view. It's not governments that have caused this royal mess its blame lays firmly and squarely on the world wide banking system and the politicians from every flavour and country have stood by and fiddled because without exception none of them could understand finance enough to see what was going down or have had their noses so deeply in the trough that they didn't care.
I think it was a combination of both factors that you mention in the final paragraph.
In the UK Blair/Brown were happy to leave the banking industry well alone as long as they carried on bringing home the bacon which paid for a bloated welfare state.
The problem was that once the crash came there was no plan B.
Surely you cant ignore Gordon's own admission about his own failings as shown in the BBC article I posted?
As a former banker of some 30 yrs experience having worked across personal lending corporate lending, treasury (dealing directly with bank liquidity) and business development I can assure you the most compelling act of folly was without doubt (as Brown has now finally admitted) the REMOVAL of the Bank of England control over the UK banking industry.
Banks around the world have risen and fallen on a regular basis, notably in the US, but under the Bank of England control UK bank liquidity was strictly managed. I do not care whether Brown & Blair were labour, conservative, communist or from the Monster Raving Loony party their exposure of our economy to such vagaries was utter folly.
Forget the politics (although there was a political angle to this abdication of responsibility) - Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
We used in this country to turn our noses up at "johnnie foreigner" and his corrupt politicians and business methods. Our banks, politicians and institutions were beyond reproach. We had bank managers like Captain Manwaring and politicians who even though you might disagree with their policies at least you felt they were trustworthy like perhaps John Major. Where the hell has that gone ? Our banks are run by Del Boy and our politicians couldn't act honourably if their life depended on it.
Floyd - there's been a number of posts since my last one, so didn't seem fitting to go back and quote from that. I wouldn't fully agree that Labour got us into this mess, but that's just my opinion and I respect yours and others on that as well. Until we find a way of re-balancing the economy, we will struggle. If we are strong enough to do it, it will mean reducing the profitability of banks and the implications that will have on the tax collected from them and switching our focus to rebuilding industries/sectors etc.
Sadly, I have no confidence in any short-termist politician/party having the strength or ability to do that.
Whole-heartedly agree with all of this Tel. A problem of relatively short political terms of office preventing long term financial planning. Meanwhile everyone bickers endlessly about why things arent right, with the current holders of power of any political persuasion always getting it in the neck more than those who have gone before.
A genuine question for you Tel (and I realise any mis-interpretation of my question will bring down the wrath or Orms!) - did Thatcher think she was re-balancing the economy and is that why she is so reviled decades on by so many?
We used in this country to turn our noses up at "johnnie foreigner" and his corrupt politicians and business methods. Our banks, politicians and institutions were beyond reproach. We had bank managers like Captain Manwaring and politicians who even though you might disagree with their policies at least you felt they were trustworthy like perhaps John Major. Where the hell has that gone ? Our banks are run by Del Boy and our politicians couldn't act honourably if their life depended on it.
I doubt poor old Norma thought Major was that trustworthy when she found our he had been sneaking round to Edwina Currie's house to play trains and tunnels!
That remains the single biggest shock I have ever had whilst reading the paper, it still seems unreal.
As a former banker of some 30 yrs experience having worked across personal lending corporate lending, treasury (dealing directly with bank liquidity) and business development I can assure you the most compelling act of folly was without doubt (as Brown has now finally admitted) the REMOVAL of the Bank of England control over the UK banking industry.
Banks around the world have risen and fallen on a regular basis, notably in the US, but under the Bank of England control UK bank liquidity was strictly managed. I do not care whether Brown & Blair were labour, conservative, communist or from the Monster Raving Loony party their exposure of our economy to such vagaries was utter folly.
Forget the politics (although there was a political angle to this abdication of responsibility) - Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Grapevine49
I'm not sure I understand this Grapevine. Is there not a dichotomy between your first paragraph and your final sentence?
Although there is a global problem, the specific issue with UK banks was created by UK politicians who decided to de-regulate the banking system to encourage global banking organisations to do their business in the UK as opposed to elsewhere in the world. This was done under a Labour administration, but in the circumstances would the Tories have done anything different?
Someone mentioned Thatcher - she made the decision that this country should move away from heavy industry and into the service sector. Part of the motivation for that is the unions aren't so strong in that sector... But that's a debate for another time!
Edit: from Floyd...A genuine question for you Tel (and I realise any mis-interpretation of my question will bring down the wrath or Orms!) - did Thatcher think she was re-balancing the economy and is that why she is so reviled decades on by so many?
Floyd - I'll start by saying again that I respect other's opinions and their right to state them. At the time that Thatcher was in power I was coming through sixth form and into work for the first time. My best friend at work was a true blue, young conservative with a genuine belief that the woman could do no wrong.
I had and still have no such belief. I think that Saga touches on it above about the strength of the unions in the big industries and there was an absolute desire to destroy them either completely or to the stage where they were effectively impotent.
There was no re-balancing done there. It was a complete shift from one extreme to the other and it doesn't matter where the extreme is...neither will work in the long term, changing economies that we will all have to live through.
My own thoughts are that we went through a period then where people were led to believe that it was ok to look after number one and very little else or anyone else mattered. I didn't get that, still don't, and i am thankful that I wasn't brought up that way. I am also very heartened that a large number of people here are the same. I really do feel though that Thatcher embodied that "I'm alright Jack" mentality and it's not something I believe is right.
In case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I am not a believer in state handouts either for those unwilling to help themselves. That's really not what the above is about.
No there is no dichotomy. The politics I refer to in the last sentence is the politics with a small "p" that sadly is all too evident today in most aspects of life (certainly working life) - the politics of "plauseable deniability".
Cast your mind back over the decades. How many Chancellors of the Exchequer can you recall having to explain exchange rate devaluations, International Monetary Funds Loans, high interest rates all involving a very high profile public condemnation from one quarter or another. Put someone else in between you and the decision making process and you have "plausible deniability" - the "teflon" mainstay of most career paths to the top.
Although there is a global problem, the specific issue with UK banks was created by UK politicians who decided to de-regulate the banking system to encourage global banking organisations to do their business in the UK as opposed to elsewhere in the world. This was done under a Labour administration, but in the circumstances would the Tories have done anything different?
Someone mentioned Thatcher - she made the decision that this country should move away from heavy industry and into the service sector. Part of the motivation for that is the unions aren't so strong in that sector... But that's a debate for another time!
I'd argue that the issue goes back to the mid 80's when Thatcher facilitated wholesale demutualisation of the building societies. Overnight she created a completely different banking culture based on short term profits and corporate and individual greed. Successive governments of all colours have allowed this to continue by failing to properly regulate them.
Whether this is because they enjoyed the fruits of the money made too much to bite the hand that fed them, because there was nothing else we could produce any more, becuase the banks all threatened to up sticks and leave, because that were terrified of being seen as anti-business or because they were worried about their future directorships after their life as an MP finished I dunno. Probably a bit of each.
The reason for all of this is the culture of bonus and greed. When everyone in corporate or financial markets banking believes their salary is loose change and their bonus is what they work for the driving forces will always lead to the blind eye turning to enhance remuneration. Whether you agree with it or not this is the culture we all live in now. This is rife from top to bottom in banking and I know from personal experience that those who question it and try to do the righty thing no longer work there. The whole situation is apolitical as they are either all as guilty as each other or not at all. The real poeple to blame for not calling a halt earlier are the shareholders but perhaps they turned the same blind eye?
Comments
Far from it.
But I didnt say it was, did I?
I was just correcting your assertion that unemployment is spiralling.
It was, disasterously, last year.
This year, it isnt.
Simple really - no need to add any other interpretation
It is however, governments - all around the world - lets move away from the vexatious issue of the UK - who should regulate the banking systems. Something they have largely and disasterously failed to do.
Are they? I thought big part of their advertising campaign was that they had UK call centres.
http://www.rbs.co.uk/private/current-accounts/g2/switching.ashx
In the UK Blair/Brown were happy to leave the banking industry well alone as long as they carried on bringing home the bacon which paid for a bloated welfare state.
The problem was that once the crash came there was no plan B.
At the end of the day this is a mutual society owned by the members - savers and mortgage holders - and this is being paid for through poor returns for savers and high mortgage rates. Needless to say I have used my vote and so have my family members. If any Lifers are members check it out for yourself and make sure you use your vote. After all, maybe you think these poor, hard pressed directors are worth every penny!
A knighthood for Charles Dunstone, a director of one of Britain’s failed, bailed-out banks – HBOS – where, until 2007, he earned more than £400,000 as it built up a raft of unsustainable risky loans. Dunstone quit before the bank failed, was taken over by Lloyds and needed a multi-billion pound public bailout. A member of the Chipping Norton Set and founder of Carphone Warehouse, Dunstone pleased the present government by switching his allegiance from Blair to Osborne. He used to write Labour-supporting letters to the Financial Times, but in 2010 he put his name to the businessmen’s letter to the Telegraph backing George Osborne’s cuts
As a nation, the UK is too reliant on the Financial Services sector. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Like many disparate businesses, poor bosses often tend to ignore what is seen as a "cash cow" when times are relatively good and that part of the business is bringing in money. As a nation, that happened here when we allowed various sectors of the economy to be reduced to bit part players or destroyed completely. Note that I say we allowed, because we are the electorate...at the end of the day, our collective choices led us down this path and affected us all whether we wanted them or not.
A well run business will manage those areas of the company that don't always perform as well in a good economic environment. They are often the parts which pick up in a downturn, but if they are neglected through the good times then they lose the ability to react to change and take advantage to step up for the rest of the business. Germany remain strong because they are not as reliant on one sector and made sure they still had an economy that included the ability to make things that others would want/need.
Until we find a way of re-balancing the economy, we will struggle. If we are strong enough to do it, it will mean reducing the profitability of banks and the implications that will have on the tax collected from them and switching our focus to rebuilding industries/sectors etc.
Sadly, I have no confidence in any short-termist politician/party having the strength or ability to do that.
Banks around the world have risen and fallen on a regular basis, notably in the US, but under the Bank of England control UK bank liquidity was strictly managed. I do not care whether Brown & Blair were labour, conservative, communist or from the Monster Raving Loony party their exposure of our economy to such vagaries was utter folly.
Forget the politics (although there was a political angle to this abdication of responsibility) - Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Grapevine49
A problem of relatively short political terms of office preventing long term financial planning.
Meanwhile everyone bickers endlessly about why things arent right, with the current holders of power of any political persuasion always getting it in the neck more than those who have gone before.
A genuine question for you Tel (and I realise any mis-interpretation of my question will bring down the wrath or Orms!) - did Thatcher think she was re-balancing the economy and is that why she is so reviled decades on by so many?
That remains the single biggest shock I have ever had whilst reading the paper, it still seems unreal.
Is there not a dichotomy between your first paragraph and your final sentence?
Someone mentioned Thatcher - she made the decision that this country should move away from heavy industry and into the service sector. Part of the motivation for that is the unions aren't so strong in that sector... But that's a debate for another time!
Floyd - I'll start by saying again that I respect other's opinions and their right to state them. At the time that Thatcher was in power I was coming through sixth form and into work for the first time. My best friend at work was a true blue, young conservative with a genuine belief that the woman could do no wrong.
I had and still have no such belief. I think that Saga touches on it above about the strength of the unions in the big industries and there was an absolute desire to destroy them either completely or to the stage where they were effectively impotent.
There was no re-balancing done there. It was a complete shift from one extreme to the other and it doesn't matter where the extreme is...neither will work in the long term, changing economies that we will all have to live through.
My own thoughts are that we went through a period then where people were led to believe that it was ok to look after number one and very little else or anyone else mattered. I didn't get that, still don't, and i am thankful that I wasn't brought up that way. I am also very heartened that a large number of people here are the same. I really do feel though that Thatcher embodied that "I'm alright Jack" mentality and it's not something I believe is right.
In case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I am not a believer in state handouts either for those unwilling to help themselves. That's really not what the above is about.
Cast your mind back over the decades. How many Chancellors of the Exchequer can you recall having to explain exchange rate devaluations, International Monetary Funds Loans, high interest rates all involving a very high profile public condemnation from one quarter or another. Put someone else in between you and the decision making process and you have "plausible deniability" - the "teflon" mainstay of most career paths to the top.
Grapevine49
Whether this is because they enjoyed the fruits of the money made too much to bite the hand that fed them, because there was nothing else we could produce any more, becuase the banks all threatened to up sticks and leave, because that were terrified of being seen as anti-business or because they were worried about their future directorships after their life as an MP finished I dunno. Probably a bit of each.