Month ends in business banking are often fraught with difficulties.
This month is no exception....
A couple of clients have got to month end without enough cash for payroll. We've been telling them this is coming up for months - but as ever, heads get buried in sand. Somehow it's all our fault.
Another client who uses a payroll company to make payments has received a communication from the payroll company changing their bank account details. Payroll company has called them to say their payment hasn't been received and of course the initial communication was a scam. £300k sent to the fraudsters! Luckily - and rarely, the receiving bank froze the account and the money has been recovered. I made a free of charge fast payment to the payroll company using the returned funds.
A rough calculation shows that about 5% of our clients will now be loss making due to the new interest rate hike and those that are already loss making will see the losses grow.
And, I have mentioned before, how our new managing director is an a***. I got in to a candid one to one conversation with one of his direct report executives after popping in to their office for a chat about a client and noticed they were browsing situations vacant. It seems the MD loves to create conflict - he seems to enjoy getting his staff to fight each other - he sets them off and sits back and enjoys the fight. The exec has had enough of it. I've heard the same from another senior bod so it does seem to be his way. Luckily I'm too dense for office politics.
|
Could be worse, you could be Farage………
Apparently his bank (apparently Coutts) have told him he can no longer bank there.
Wonder what the real story is….
|
If it's anti money laundering / suspicion of financial crime then they can't tell him.
All that alleged money from Russia is going to need some explaining.
He wouldn't qualify for an account with my employer and I guess other high street banks have similar rules re ex-senior politicians (EU and party leader in his instance), without a lot of extra due diligence and they may consider it's not worth the risk to reputation.
|
|
But if he already had an account in existence?
|
>> But if he already had an account in existence?
If the bank think there's something off beam with money coming in or just don't want the reputational damage then they can tell him they no longer want his business.
I'm pretty sure any bank's T&C's allow them to close an account at their absolute discretion.
|
>> I'm pretty sure any bank's T&C's allow them to close an account at their absolute
>> discretion.
>>
Every bank that I have worked in has that in their contracts / T&Cs.
There was a time I recall when companies involved with vivisection were refused or had facilities withdrawn by every bank in the UK for reputation risk issues.
In the end the Bank of England provided clearing for them under the then Govts. direction.
|
>> But if he already had an account in existence?
If any bank suspects money laundering or fraudulent activity they will freeze your account dead, and you will need to go through a long drawn out process to get your cash. And they will tell any other bank why they did it, so your chances of opening an account quickly elsewhere is difficult.
|
|
I used to have an account with Coutts. I still have the rather nice cheque book cover. They were the bankers to my first employers, Royal Exchange Assurance. When I left them I moved to the Reserve Bank of Australia. the Australian equivalent of the Bank of England. Very exclusive as the only had a few hundreds current accounts in the UK. When I moved on I moved to Barclays and then eventually changed to the Co-Op because they were cheaper. My banking history has been one of decline.
|
>> My banking history has been one of decline.
And mine, my first branch was St Johns Wood. Now its some provincial commuter town from hell.
|
|
Dare I mention my first bank (1968, IIRC) was in Bootle and I'm still with the current owners. They gave me forty-odd quid last month for keeping a healthy credit. I know I can get a better rate elsewhere, but I need to keep a tidy sum for bills in this place I've bought.
|
Ahh Bootle - Midland Bank's primary mainframe site until they had the underground facility built at Tankersley.
My main bank account is still with the first branch I opened a current account with although the bricks and mortar have moved about three times. Their postal address is now in the rather impressively sounding Barnsley.
|
|
My first branch sounded rather swish - Belgravia. It was there for a number of years then moved to somewhere on Victoria St and now, probably like Z's, it's in some banking centre in suburb somewhere.
|
Started with NatWest in Scunthorpe, moved to Law Courts/Chancery Lane when work transferred me to London .
Joint account with Mrs B, after we agreed fannying about with two personal accounts plus one for the flat/house was way too much, was with Abbey National in Chancery Lane.
Their address moved to Prescot St London and various other places as stuff got centralised.
Currently Bradford I think.
Oddly though, if I'm selected to be questioned about a transaction, the correct answer to "where was your account opened" is Chancery Lane....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 1 Jul 23 at 00:48
|
1964 I opened a current account at my local RBS. No forms to fill in, just a letter from my parents. I had been with the same branch for almost 59 years - the physical branch closed a few years back but my sort code/bank acct number remains the same.
Same sort codes/account numbers to avoid wholesale new account numbers. My "new nearest Branch" has 5/6 sort codes - at least one of the other sort codes has the same bank account number which caused confusion last August when I went to the branch with a query.
A couple of years ago I had to phone them re a transaction and for security they said I would need to answer an odd question or two. He got as far as the question/answer page to find nothing.
On-line "How did you open an account without filling in these forms"
My reply was "55+ years ago things were different"
No questions asked and query solved.
|
>>On-line "How did you open an account without filling in these forms"
Banks have been known to sack customers where they have insufficient KYC due to different, or no rules when the account was opened and reluctance by the customer to provide updated info.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
Seems he was too poor to hold the account!
|
I have a friend who has a Coutts account as he worked for them as a security guard. He is retired and still holds the account but certainly does not reach the normal threshold for such an account which is £ 3 million.
I do have another friend who has an account with Hoares private bank which is older than the Bank of England. They only need £1 million according to their website.
|
We may never know the real reason. It may be that he has upset someone senior at Coutts, they don't want top be associated with his political views, there is a scandal waiting to emerge, or the report of inadequate funds accurate.
That he has been refused by a number of other banks is no surprise - he is very much a "marmite" character - certainly egotistical, either politically spot-on or politically loathsome.
|
|
We don't know what facilities he has asked for from the banks that have turned him down.
|
>> We don't know what facilities he has asked for from the banks that have turned
>> him down.
>>
In the Mail he claims it's for political reasons.
One of our KYC requirements is identification of Politically Exposed Persons because they are considered more likely to exposed to / involved in financial crimes.
There's a scale with head of state and holder of office of state at the top.
All banks have the same rules forced on them and because Farage was an MEP and leader of a party he will be quite high on the list.
Being a PEP doesn't mean we won't do the business, it means that we do extra vetting, though we may decide the cost of extra vetting isn't worth it and refuse the custom.
|
|
Wide Mouth Frog himself suggested it was because of his PEP status.
|
'Wide Mouth Frog'
John Denver?
|
news.sky.com/story/natwest-boss-steps-down-with-immediate-effect-over-nigel-farage-bank-account-leak-12927506
I can't say i followed this too closely at the beginning, appears to have more blown up until something much bigger.
|
|
Brilliant to hear Farage call Nick Robinson condescending on R4 Today this morning. I'd love to hear him deal with Amol Rajan.
|
>> Brilliant to hear Farage call Nick Robinson condescending on R4 Today this morning. I'd love
>> to hear him deal with Amol Rajan.
POt kettle at best.
Nigel can condescend for England...
|
There is no doubt the CEO clocked up. Just so annoying it was regarding that idiot Farage.
The fact that the Govt were so quick to react reminds you of just how much power Farage still holds over the Tories. And also provides them with perfect deflection stories to soak up the media time.
|
>> The fact that the Govt were so quick to react reminds you of just how
>> much power Farage still holds over the Tories. And also provides them with perfect deflection
>> stories to soak up the media time.
It's an absolute gift to HMG. Not only in filling up the media but also providing a hook for their aim to get the checks on Politically Exposed People significantly eased.
|
I'm quite surprised that the boss of a bank was naïve enough to discuss personal stuff with the press, especially when they are so hot on GDPR and security etc at the moment.
Surely she has flunkeys to deal with the press anyway?
What was she thinking?
(Not that I like NF!!)
|
>> Surely she has flunkeys to deal with the press anyway?
>>
>> What was she thinking?
>>
>> (Not that I like NF!!)
I think the backstory is that she was chatting to the BBC man at a dinner....
|
|
The whole thing is odd, she can't have been that naive to not mention she was off the record talking to a jounro. Perhaps she is.
|
>> The whole thing is odd, she can't have been that naive to not mention she
>> was off the record talking to a jounro. Perhaps she is.
AIUI Farage's threat to flounce out of the UK hit the airwaves around the same time as the dinner.
BBC journo ensures the subject comes up and she tells him, if not off the record then certainly unattributively, that it was about meeting Coutts' conditions rather than Farage being a s*** they'd not touch with long pole.
At some point 2 was added to 2 and her cover blown.
|
BBC journo ensures the subject comes up and she tells him, if not off the
>> record then certainly unattributively, that it was about meeting Coutts' conditions rather than Farage being
>> a s*** they'd not touch with long pole.
>>
>> At some point 2 was added to 2 and her cover blown.
>>
No doubt she was naive and a more than a bit daft. Going on record with only half a story/ got the wrong end of the stick.
I'm not surprised within an hour of Hunt suggesting he didn't have confidence she was gone. I wonder if the industry will be queueing up to give her a job.
The PEP is a difficult one, where do you draw the line? I wonder who else has been kicked into touch by various banks.
I believe vince cable championed this legislation during the coalition.
|
>>The PEP is a difficult one, where do you draw the line?
There is a ranked table, starting with head of state (on the list for life), head of department of state etc. going down to a particular level and includes family members and partners.
We have software that lists the connections.
|
|
...and the banks, in my limited experience, were pretty thorough in making sure all employees were aware of the code, also money laundering. Even I, as an IT contractor with no customer involvement, had to complete the training courses on PEPs, laundering and sanctions IIRC and pass the tests at the end.
|
There is a ranked table, starting with head of state (on the list for life),
>> head of department of state etc. going down to a particular level and includes family
>> members and partners.
>>
>> We have software that lists the connections.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Not so much that more, should we leave the exclusion entirely subjective or be perscriptive?
I'm not sure I buy the reputational grounds that coutts put out, he'd been there for years as far as I understand it, why now?
|
>> I'm not sure I buy the reputational grounds that coutts put out, he'd been there
>> for years as far as I understand it, why now?
I suspect that, at least on a be prepared basis, political thinking is that Farage could return to the front line for the upcoming General Election. On that basis the Tories are running scared - as they were in 2019 - of his putting people up against at least some of theirs.
|
I suspect that, at least on a be prepared basis, political thinking is that Farage
>> could return to the front line for the upcoming General Election. On that basis the
>> Tories are running scared - as they were in 2019 - of his putting people
>> up against at least some of theirs.
>>
I think there's a lot of wishful thinking there.
|
>> I think there's a lot of wishful thinking there.
I hope you're right but I'd be more fearful than wishful....
|
His 'reach' spans both Labour and Con traditional seats so I don't think anyone party will be exercised nor relaxed about him.
He's tried loads of times to become an MP and failed all of them. His strength isn't being an MP, I would guess he knows that by now. His strength* is outside pssing in. He's had one main viewpoint over about 30 years, which he's seen happen, thanks to his efforts*
I can't see him in any way messing about trying to become an MP now.
* Regardless of viewpoint he's pushed for a particular course of action and seen that happen. He's been at the centre of that.
|
>> why now?
>>
The bank provided the data that they are legally obliged to under GDPR and that they are legally allowed to.
I wonder if there is suspicion of financial crime, or dealing with sanctioned countries that the bank is unable to disclose.
|
The bank provided the data that they are legally obliged to under GDPR and that
>> they are legally allowed to.
>>
>> I wonder if there is suspicion of financial crime, or dealing with sanctioned countries that
>> the bank is unable to disclose.
>>
>>
Is it common to dress this up as an individual's political position because it's easier to explain?
|
>> Is it common to dress this up as an individual's political position because it's easier
>> to explain?
>>
The data held must be accurate and I suspect that the bank does have that opinion on NF.
I do wonder if there are other more serious reasons though. Releasing a faultless GDPR copy could be telling - e.g. there is no listed reason as to why the customer was sacked - so it's effectively tipping off through the back door.
I can say banks will tend to report even the slightest of concerns re financial crime as to report it, the banks obligations are fulfilled.
|
>..their aim to get the checks on Politically Exposed People significantly eased.
Where'd you get that from Bromp?
|
>> Where'd you get that from Bromp?
It was reported at time Farage first publicised his 'predicament'. A number of Conservative MPs were said to be particularly exercised over how PEP flags affected them. Rees Mogg's name was one I think.
Chris Philp, doing the media round this morning spoke of the banks being over zealous.
Grant Shapps was all over it too either today or yesterday.
It may well be that it's a PITA for them but it's a tad convenient that Farage's wagon rolled by so they could use it to nail their own colours.
|
Tough.
The checks are there for a good reason, although they're not difficult to evade if you're reasonably savvy (which kinda discounts Shapps).
|
>> Tough.
>>
>> The checks are there for a good reason, although they're not difficult to evade if
>> you're reasonably savvy (which kinda discounts Shapps).
Tough ti**y was pretty much my thinking too.
Quite a bit of this PEP type stuff, as I understand it, is retained EU law. That alone will be a red flag to Rees Mogg and his pals.
Good reason to reatin it.
|
Were I running a bank I would want to ensure that my customers were unlikely to cause me reputational damage by association. I would not want to service a client who I strongly suspected or had evidence of illegal activities. Mainstream political views should not be grounds.
Whilst I would be less than concerned with Fred, Joe or Steve who exhibited minor inappropriate behaviours, those in the public spotlight would be a concern. PEP is understandable.
Having access to banking facilities is critical to normal existence. All individuals deserve to sufficient notice, a full explanation of the rationale for their exclusion, and some right of appeal.
A default basic bank facility should be made available. Other banks may be less concerned about reputational damage than the major UK banks and may be happy to have a new, wealthy client.
|
What worries me is that the Bank created a 40 page report on Farage and in their opinion he did not fit their definition of a Coutt's customer as he had expressed views on politics, LGBT, etc that were not aligned to their view of the UK, politics, etc etc.
Everybody in the UK is entitled to free speech and to air their opinions.
IMHO everybody in the UK is entitled to a Bank Account assuming they are not criminals into fraud, money laundering etc etc
|
"IMHO everybody in the UK is entitled to a Bank Account assuming they are not criminals into fraud, money laundering etc etc"
But are they entitled to a bank account in a specific bank? Did not National Westminster not offer another with their high street bank?. They just didn't want him sullying the reputation of Coutts. Knowing now what Coutts really think of him surprised he still wants an account with them. I suppose snobbery is a powerful incentive.
"Everybody in the UK is entitled to free speech and to air their opinions."
Except the CEOs of banks?
|
>> IMHO everybody in the UK is entitled to a Bank Account assuming they are not
>> criminals into fraud, money laundering etc etc
AIUI that's exactly the position now - like the PIP thing it's retained EU law. Even my clients with NFA can have a simple account for their Universal Credit etc.
However there's a helluva gap between a Basic Bank Account to receive your income/pay your bills and the kind of facilities offered by Coutts. Never mind the hinterland between those extremes.
Whether a loudmouthed failed politician with some pretty odd views on society in general should be allowed to fill their boots or told to f. off as their association does reputational damage is another ball game...
|
|
Any bank can have who they like, and get rid for any reason that they don't have to explain, he was offered a bank account with Nat West. It's a real pity a t*** like Farage has managed to garner publicity, worse that he got leverage and influence
|
Out of curiosity, how many bank CEOs resigned as a result of the numerous banking crisises?
Or the PPI Mis selling scandals?
|
>>he was offered a bank account with Nat West.
Agreed but not initially - he was persona non-grata and when there was evidence of "leaks" at Coutts suddenly NatWest said he could move to them and was offered a NatWest Account.
This emphasised to Farage that there was a lot more to discover!!
Farage has said he has tried 10 other banks but none are willing to take his business account / personal account.
|
>> Everybody in the UK is entitled to free speech and to air their opinions.
>>
That's not the case. You can be prosecuted for certain speech and for airing certain opinions.
|
>> Were I running a bank I would want to ensure that my customers were unlikely
>> to cause me reputational damage by association.
>>I would not want to service a client who I strongly suspected or had evidence of illegal >>activities.
You'd be legally obliged to report suspicions to your financial crime team who may instruct you to close the account. The financial crime team will report to the authorities who may order the account to be closed. There are flaws in the system. One bank was ordered by the authorities to leave a criminal's account open. The bank was then prosecuted for leaving the account open and got a huge fine.
>>Mainstream political views should not be grounds.
Reputational risk should be grounds. Why should a bank risks it's shareholder value to service repugnant customers. News articles on new customers ARE checked.
Should a vegan restaurant owner be forced to provide food to a fox hunter?
>> Having access to banking facilities is critical to normal existence. All individuals deserve to >>sufficient notice, a full explanation of the rationale for their exclusion, and some right of
>>appeal.
>>
You'd be breaking the law and facing 10 years inside and an unlimited fine if you told many excluded customers why they were excluded.
>> A default basic bank facility should be made available.
No. There are people that go around defrauding banks They do not deserve accounts. We try not to provide them and share the info. GDPR is a nightmare in this respect as sometimes the records are very "grey". The major banks employ people who are very good at remembering names, addresses and faces (photo ID is required*) and this information is shared and it certainly isn't written down (CIFAS certainly isn't used in all instances). Also there are those that defraud other businesses and the public. There are habitual money launderers and other crooks that don't deserve accounts.
|
>>(photo ID is required*)
Missed this in the previous post...
We do open accounts with less then the standard requirements, partly as instructed to by the authorities but also because there is an acknowledged social element to banking.
Examples of people with limited ID include battered people in shelters, having fled home, asylum seekers, etc.
|
>> Tough.
>>
>> The checks are there for a good reason,
>>
So true!
|
>> It's an absolute gift to HMG. Not only in filling up the media but also
>> providing a hook for their aim to get the checks on Politically Exposed People significantly
>> eased.
>>
The PEP stuff is there because there is a higher likelihood that PEPs are corrupt.
From my limited (30+ years), I would agree.
MPs have also suggested we tell people why their accounts have been closed. That could be breaking the law (tipping off). Perhaps they want their mates to be warned that they’re about to be arrested!?
|
I see reports that NatWest have lost £750m share value overnight.
I also see reports that the Hedge Fund who owns GB News and employ Farage, have made substantial profits on “shorting” NatWest values.
Not linked of course.
|
>> I see reports that NatWest have lost £750m share value overnight.
Somebody will have made a bit loads short term on that but I doubt it'll be more than a day or two's blip seen long term.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 26 Jul 23 at 22:50
|
>> I see reports that NatWest have lost £750m share value overnight.
>>
>> I also see reports that the Hedge Fund who owns GB News and employ Farage,
>> have made substantial profits on “shorting” NatWest values.
>>
>> Not linked of course.
>>
And exactly why PEPs are a problem.
|
It's completely insane that the Conservatives from Sunak down have adopted without qualification the position taken by the awful Farage and effectively deposed the Nat West CEO.
Any 'enemy' will do, especially if they can be labelled 'woke', and anything to deflect from their own depravity I suppose.
Farage didn't meet Coutts' criteria (I'm quite sure they won't let me have an account with them either), and he was offered ordinary banking facilities by Nat West. But that didn't suit his story that he had been "debanked".
My wife can't get a credit card, despite our joint finances. She wants have her own card for holiday use when I have snuffed it - but she can't have one, presumably because her own secure income for now is about £10,000 a year. Never mind that she has significant investments of her own and half a house to her name. Should I complain to Sunak?
|
|
...it would be rather ironic if this fallout made all banks more wary of taking onboard PEPs and equivalent.....
|
Several issues seem to get generally confused. Although less likely to happen to most on this forum as individuals (I know I am not important enough!) the principles seem clear.
1. Discussing the affairs of any customer is a clear breach of confidentiality. That the CE was asked to step down is no surprise - she should know better.
2. If a customer fails to meet the criteria set by a bank for an account there should be a clear process by which they are informed of the decision, reasonable notice periods and alternative facilities. It is not clear that this happened with Coutts.
3. Refusal or de-banking should not generally be based on political (extreme cults excepted?). Personally I have a very low opinion of Farage, but clearly many support his view.
Coutts screwed up. To assert that putting in place processes to stop the abuse of banking confidentiality and recognise the importance in a digital world of banking facilities is a Tory conspiracy is unworthy.
It could easily be a Labour donor, a controversial MP, a Trade Union which had been de-banked for similar inappropriate reasons
|
farage hasn't been debanked. Nat West, owner of Coutts offered him facilities of the ordinary kind such as most of us here presumably have.
Coutts won't open an ordinary account for you unless you have proof of liquid assets of £3m. or more, or keep >£1m. in the account. He paid off his mortgage, didn't meet the criteria, so they told him he could no longer have the account.
Farage is a manipulator and he has an agenda. I thought he would sink without trace when UKIP became irrelevant but enough people seem to have a fascination with him to make him newsworthy, and able to frighten the Conservatives who have now adopted an extreme version of UKIPpery themselves.
Sunak simply looks ridiculous for getting involved at all. Being Farage's puppet is about as low as he could get.
Starmer has also, shamefully to my mind, made anti-Alison-Rose comments. He is so afraid to upset the ertswhile Conservative voters in the red wall that he won't even defend Labour properly against Conservative lies, such as its use of ULEZ in the Uxbridge election. I understand why he's doing it but I'd rather see him stand up and make his case occasionally.
|
>> 1. Discussing the affairs of any customer is a clear breach of confidentiality. That the
>> CE was asked to step down is no surprise - she should know better.
Absolutely! It's just not allowed. I wonder if she said they sacked a notorious customer without naming them and then the customer said they'd been sacked and the journalist put two and two together?
>> 2. If a customer fails to meet the criteria set by a bank for an
>> account there should be a clear process by which they are informed of the decision,
>> reasonable notice periods and alternative facilities. It is not clear that this happened with Coutts.
Depends on what they failed. There should be no absolute obligation to offer alternative facilities, especially if a relationship has deteriorated beyond the point of recovery or in the case of suspected criminal activity - for which the bar is very low.
>> 3. Refusal or de-banking should not generally be based on political (extreme cults excepted?). Personally
>> I have a very low opinion of Farage, but clearly many support his view.
>>
Many supported Adolf Hitlers view. Does that make him bankable? Political views should certainly be a reason but protected characteristics should not.
|
Political views should certainly be
>> a reason
For or against HS2? Or environmental views?
Difficult to know where to draw the line.
In terms of reputational risk, they seem to have created it by getting rid of him rather than keeping on.
|
Coutts boss has now resigned.
|
>> In terms of reputational risk, they seem to have created it by getting rid of
>> him rather than keeping on.
That's certainly true. Whether Farage played them like a master or bumbled to success in the manner of Inspector Clouseau is another matter.
|
Sunak is weak, weak, weak. When is he going to dump his ghastly Home Secretary?
Farage is a vainglorious demagogue. He wants the entire NatWest board to go. Let's see how far he can push Sunak.
The incredible thing is that none of the bank people has shown they are anywhere near as brazen or dishonest as the crooks in parliament.
|
Oh FFS Manatee.
Not only did the bank's CEO leak a story about one of their high profile client's financial affairs to a media hack, she gave them false information. Instead of firing her, the £$%^ing idiots on the board backed her up.
That is not the way to run a business, especially a bank for Glub's sake. If they are too damn stupid to realise that then they deserve to get the boot.
|
I don't really care about them, but I care a lot less about Farage who conjured his own problem for who knows what reason. All he had to do was move his account to NatWest.
But there's something wrong when Sunak and various ministers immediately start dancing to Farage's tune without apparently very much thought at all. If a member of the cabinet blatantly misleads parliament or breaks the COVID rules, there's a 12 month enquiry and another 6 months obfuscation before there's a hint of anything happening.
I suppose they saw this as a chance to wage war on woke. Easier than tackling the NHS waiting list and if they can tie Starmer to it some of them might hope to survive an election. Hence Starmer suddenly can't find his backbone either, as with ULEZ.
None of them gave a fig about all the poor folk who can't open a bank account because they lack utility bills, passports and driving licences. Perhaps the thought of Farage standing some candidates and splitting their vote had them rushing to keep him happy.
|
According to Sky News he wasn't offered an alternative NatWest account until after he went public. The offer was also for a personal account and not a replacement business account. In other words a non-offer.
>But there's something wrong when Sunak and various ministers immediately start dancing to Farage's tune..
Did you keep the receipt for that hat?
|
|
I don't see the gov racing to do anything, a yes thanks we'll look into it, is a pretty much non response. Sometimes govs have to comment on the latest news story. As did the Labour top two.
|
>> I don't see the gov racing to do anything, a yes thanks we'll look into
>> it, is a pretty much non response. Sometimes govs have to comment on the latest
>> news story. As did the Labour top two.
As the government is the largest shareholder, I imagine they have already done something. Otherwise the CEO and the chairman wouldn't have gone.
,
|
>> That's certainly true. Whether Farage played them like a master or bumbled to success in
>> the manner of Inspector Clouseau is another matter.
>>
Neither, the two banks opened the door NF simply walked through.
|
Farage has got what he wants - column inches. Like him or not (I don't) he is a hugely effective communicator.
Starmer is in "I want to be PM mode" and sitting on the fence - like his predecessor Corbyn over Brexit. He is a "non-policy zone" - backing off from a range of earlier policy intentions.
It is unclear what a Labour govt. would do differently to the Tories - for the first few years they will be subject to precisely the same economic and financial realities. Thereafter - who knows?
Leaving aside the politics - the bank processes and regulation need substantial overhaul.
|
The only answer is a big hike in government income, if we want all the broken things to work again. Either plug some leaks or increase tax rates.
That tax/GDP is at an all time high may or may not be true, but what is true is that UK taxes are materially lower than most of the other OECD countries I'd be interested in living in.
In 2021, %:
UK - 33.5
Spain 38.4
Germany 39.5
Netherlands 39.7
Belgium 42
Norway 42.2
Sweden 42.6
Finland 43
Italy 43.3
Austria 43.5
France 45.1
Denmark 46.9
The answer to "where did the money go, and why are our public services collapsing" is staring us in the face.
If we want European standards of public services, and roads without potholes, we need something nearer to European levels of tax.
At some point Starmer has to make the case for this, or borrow, or accept that working people have to be poor and have poor healthcare. I'm pretty sure the last one is Conservative policy, based on what we see.
Ireland is an interesting case at 21%. Presumably because as a tax have it gathers tax on a level of economic activity far greater than what happens in Ireland.
That I can be mocked as a rabid socialist only shows how far UK politics has swerved to the right.
|
|
There's the carry on as we are option as well. Both parties seem broadly agree on the limits of taxation. The LD are probably similar in thoughts to the main two parties on taxation.
|
Oh come off it Manatee.
Sunak is Farage's puppet? It's Farage pulling the Govt's strings? The Govt have done something to prompt the resignations?
And anyone (presumably me) who 'mocks' you for that has swerved to the right?
Nothing to do with a monumental, self-inflicted £$%^up that's wiped £1B off the banks share value, and more importantly, trashed any trust that clients may have had in them.
As for the 'woke' argument, doesn't their claim to be inclusive raise even the slightest titter?
|
You really think the government, with a 39% shareholding in NatWest, hasn't stuck its neb in?
>> As for the 'woke' argument, doesn't their claim to be inclusive raise even the slightest
>> titter?
The Tories are absolutely desperate to make 'woke' a battle ground. Vide the Mail on Sunday.
It's woke, you see, that causes all the problems. Nothing the Conservatives have done. Honest.
|
>You really think the government, with a 39% shareholding in NatWest, hasn't stuck its neb in?
Enlighten me. What did they have to gain by sticking their 'neb in' when the bank's top brass were begging for their P45s every time they opened their mouths?
>The Tories are absolutely desperate to make 'woke' a battle ground. Vide the Mail on Sunday.
>It's woke, you see, that causes all the problems. Nothing the Conservatives have done. Honest.
Why not take advantage of the situation when they've recognised that some voters are getting P'd off with being preached to by people in elevated positions? They're no different to the other parties grubbing for votes with their own dividing lines.
|
We're already at 40% of GDP for the 2022/23 tax year.
HoC Library
tinyurl.com/4naaxfhw
|
Deleted as all **** out.
Will re-edit and post at another time
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 30 Jul 23 at 12:41
|
I hate the end of the month in this job and the end of quarters are worse because for some reason money seems to run out for firms quicker and insolvencies rise. (Quarter ends for rent, agreements , VAT etc.)
Yesterday three clients lost their biggest (different) customers due to insolvencies, where that customer represented over 50% of their business (something I always counsel against - but what do I know - my employer is 100% my income).
Two had credit insurance which will give them some time, but they've lost a good chunk of their turnover and will have to re-size the businesses, which may mean redundancies.
The third business did not have credit insurance and their net worth, built up over 20 years has been wiped out. This means that they are outside of covenants with the bank and my directors are calling for the loans to be repaid, which of course they can't do. It's beyond crap.
What I don't understand is that one of the failed customers had a turnover of £750 million and it's failure isn't mentioned in any press that I've seen.
The other two were about £200m and £75m and more regional so I wouldn't expect it.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 30 Sep 23 at 22:32
|
Should you be discussing your customer’s affairs on line?
|
|
He's no more telling us his customer's affairs than I would be breaching confidentiality by giving examples of stuff I see when giving benefits advice.
|
>> Should you be discussing your customer’s affairs on line?
>>
>>
There's nothing here that would identify any particular business amongst the tens of thousand we deal with in this division and is more of a commentary about the economy then anything else.
No different from a worker at a supermarket saying a customer dropped a bottle of wine accidently.
You wouldn't be able to identify the supermarket or the customer.
|
|
Perhaps but would you be happy to show your employer or their customers that post?
|
>> Perhaps but would you be happy to show your employer or their customers that post?
>>
The post contains nothing to identify which bank I work for. Which customer it relates to or which failed business is impacting each customer.
Furthermore, I changed the values and details enough so that they are still meaningful but in no way match a particular business.
So yes.
|
Banking At The End of the Month - Bobby
