The Politics Thread 2020

[Gritstone Ram]

3 hours ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Maybe so but the reality is Vietnam, Australia & NZ all closed their borders very quickly and have now largely eliminated the virus in their countries

Whilst the WHO are entitled to an opinion, Governments are elected to manage risk which will be particular to their individual countries & culture(s) - ergo I don't believe a sweeping global recommendation to not restrict travel should be followed blindly.

My reference to Scotland was more based on the transparent nature of the SNP-led press briefings, not so much the total number of deaths per se. That said, as per previous posts the UK Government had plenty of notice from China & Northern Italy to realise the potential severity of an outbreak.

When did they close their boarders? 

[Stive Pesley]

Digressing slightly - just looking at an old newspaper clipping and saw a Russian political joke

 

What is the difference between your capitalism and our socialism?

In your capitalism, man is exploited by man, whereas in our socialism it is the other way around

[Guest]

I see the Government have backed down and gone from backing 80% of the small business support loans to 100%.

It's sad to see that the banks that were saved by the taxpayer following the financial crash are not so keen to reciprocate the help now the boot is in the other foot.

[Tamworthram]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I see the Government have backed down and gone from backing 80% of the small business support loans to 100%.

It's sad to see that the banks that were saved by the taxpayer following the financial crash are not so keen to reciprocate the help now the boot is in the other foot.

I'm sure the banks would say they are supporting and could no doubt role out details of the loans and overdrafts they have provided.

Unfortunately, stories like "my bank have helped me through with the loan I desperately needed" don't make quite the same headlines as "my business will go under because the bank wouldn't support me". I'm sure there are plenty of examples of both. I'd like to think the banks are being reasonably flexible and considerate of the difficulties being faced by businesses but there still does need to be an element of commercial viability assessment. 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I see the Government have backed down and gone from backing 80% of the small business support loans to 100%.

It's sad to see that the banks that were saved by the taxpayer following the financial crash are not so keen to reciprocate the help now the boot is in the other foot.

Been almost wholly re-privatised since tho.

Can't have the private sector taking any risks of losses. Think of our pension funds.

So let's see now, how much interest will be charged on these "state guaranteed" loans, that the banks are taking, er, 0 risk on. The government presumably hope they will be offered at close to risk free rates. Yeah, right........

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No not really.

Silencing them would be closing them down or banning them from printing articles.

I'm not aware of them trying that?

By not allowing them to pose questions, they are suppress any semblance of accountability.

[Tamworthram]

17 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Been almost wholly re-privatised since tho.

Can't have the private sector taking any risks of losses. Think of our pension funds.

So let's see now, how much interest will be charged on these "state guaranteed" loans, that the banks are taking, er, 0 risk on. The government presumably hope they will be offered at close to risk free rates. Yeah, right........

Interesting development. As you'll know I've tries to defend the banks a little but now that they are 100% guaranteed, as you say, the banks have no excuse not to lend and at very low rates. Again, as you say, let's see how things progress.

The only other thing I'd say is, don't forget, the banks are no doubt suffering from reduced staff, staff working from home (processing does take longer. My daughter is working from home for a bank but nothing to do with lending as she says the systems are a lot slower) as well as probably unprecedented demand. So, processing all the applications will no doubt take longer than we'd all hope. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

11 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Interesting development. As you'll know I've tries to defend the banks a little but now that they are 100% guaranteed, as you say, the banks have no excuse not to lend and at very low rates. Again, as you say, let's see how things progress.

The only other thing I'd say is, don't forget, the banks are no doubt suffering from reduced staff, staff working from home (processing does take longer. My daughter is working from home for a bank but nothing to do with lending as she says the systems are a lot slower) as well as probably unprecedented demand. So, processing all the applications will no doubt take longer than we'd all hope. 

Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that the complaint was that banks were still asking for personal guarantees for loans under this scheme? Again, in the name of risk management.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Eddie said:

By not allowing them to pose questions, they are suppress any semblance of accountability.

Of course but then said publication are free to publish the fact that the Government are refusing to answer questions and the electorate can make their own mind up and why this is and can take the action they feel appropriate. 

Not answering someone's questions and silencing them are two completely different things.

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that the complaint was that banks were still asking for personal guarantees for loans under this scheme? Again, in the name of risk management.

Probably but, that's common practice when lending to a limited company (you don't need a guarantee when lending to a sole trader or partnership) which, of course, is a separate legal entity and often doesn't have a lot of assets. For example, I recently closed my company down now that I've retired. The only assets the company had was debtors. So, essentially, asking for a guarantee when lending to a limited company just makes it pretty much the same as lending to a sole trader or partnership. Broadly speaking, it doesn't expose the directors to any greater risk than that faced by other business entities. 

Hope that makes sense.

[Guest]

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Probably but, that's common practice when lending to a limited company (you don't need a guarantee when lending to a sole trader or partnership) which, of course, is a separate legal entity and often doesn't have a lot of assets. For example, I recently closed my company down now that I've retired. The only assets the company had was debtors. So, essentially, asking for a guarantee when lending to a limited company just makes it pretty much the same as lending to a sole trader or partnership. Broadly speaking, it doesn't expose the directors to any greater risk than that faced by other business entities. 

Hope that makes sense.

The Government had guaranteed to back 80% of the loan, think the limit was up to £350,000. Basically banks were taking risk of £70k and asking directors to put their personal properties up as collateral.

I bet bankers were asked to put their own properties up when my money was used to bail them out.

[Tamworthram]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The Government had guaranteed to back 80% of the loan, think the limit was up to £350,000. Basically banks were taking risk of £70k and asking directors to put their personal properties up as collateral.

I bet bankers were asked to put their own properties up when my money was used to bail them out.

Well we don't know details for every loan application made to the banks. 

Generally speaking, the level of personal collateral requested is dependent on what assets the company has compared to the loan requested. So, under normal circumstances, if a company wants to borrow say £100k for example but only has company assets of something like £20k then a guarantee might well be requested. I don't have a lot of respect for the senior bankers at the time of the financial crisis - thanks to the likes of Fred Goodwin my shares in RBS dropped by about 90% but, asking them to put their own houses up was never going to happen and would have been a drop in the ocean compared to how much was required. Also, the tax payers (through the government) effectively bought a stake in the banks by buying shares. The banks won't be taking shares in any of the businesses they are lending to. 

Can you imagine the outcry if the banks said yes, we'll lend you the money but we want 50% of your business. This isn't dragon's den

 

[1of4]

48 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I see the Government have backed down and gone from backing 80% of the small business support loans to 100%.

It's sad to see that the banks that were saved by the taxpayer following the financial crash are not so keen to reciprocate the help now the boot is in the other foot.

All mortgage, bank loans, and credit card repayments should be suspended along with no interest being accrued during this period, until the government declare this crisis over. 

[Rev]

8 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

All mortgage, bank loans, and credit card repayments should be suspended along with no interest being accrued during this period, until the government declare this crisis over. 

Do you also think all financial services companies should stop lending for the same period?

[cstand]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

Digressing slightly - just looking at an old newspaper clipping and saw a Russian political joke

 

What is the difference between your capitalism and our socialism?

In your capitalism, man is exploited by man, whereas in our socialism it is the other way around

You should be Bobby Chariots warm up man.

[Tamworthram]

26 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

All mortgage, bank loans, and credit card repayments should be suspended along with no interest being accrued during this period, until the government declare this crisis over. 

Even for the millions that are not actually suffering financially? There are no doubt many that are finding it tough, and they have my greatest sympathy but, there also many that are not. 

 

 

[1of4]

26 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Even for the millions that are not actually suffering financially? There are no doubt many that are finding it tough, and they have my greatest sympathy but, there also many that are not. 

 

 

Those that are still able to carry on with their repayments as normal, great. But those that can't due to the crisis, should be allowed to put any payments they have missed on to the end of the original repayment schedule, without incurring any extra interest or late payment penalties.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Those that are still able to carry on with their repayments as normal, great. But those that can't due to the crisis, should be allowed to put any payments they have missed on to the end of the original repayment schedule, without incurring any extra interest or late payment penalties.

I know on business loans 6 month capital repayment holidays are allowed but with interest still being charged. That is with Natwest anyway

 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Of course but then said publication are free to publish the fact that the Government are refusing to answer questions and the electorate can make their own mind up and why this is and can take the action they feel appropriate. 

Not answering someone's questions and silencing them are two completely different things.

They are but is it the thin edge or leverage being used , seems a bit Harry and Megan where you only engage with media that gives you good press and doesn’t pick you up on negative ?

[GB SPORTS]

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I think you might well be in a minority of one. 
 

If he really was being so subtly sarcastic (I’m not sure he does subtle) then that may be even worse. For such an influential and powerful man (sadly) to make such a sick joke at such an important time as this would outrageous.

I’ll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he wasn’t being sarcastic but later tried to wriggle out of the situation that made him look stupid and dangerous.

Definitely not in a minority of one a discussion at work on Friday most thought it was some sort of attempt at wry humour. But i agree that was probably worse than him just believing it. I only think the man is dangerous because he isn't competent but then that goes for a lot of politicians. Although sometimes this threads' discussions makes me it may be just the motley interaction of the populus. Not a -ve by the way in my eyes. Also you just have to listen what the media have come out with in the last few weeks to see the results and reactions of this.