Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Horrible little shithouse makes yet another unprovoked attack. Truly vile and despicable.

 

Maybe try advocating an actual point instead of mindlessly insulting people because you are a fascist. Just a thought.

Did you write this with the crayons from my picture book?

 

Hypocrite.

[Stickman]

Negged for being Hermes. I'd neg you again if I could after reading your post.

 

Any fangs? Do they do dentristry now as well do they?

Maybe he was thinking they're blood banks.....

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I love the idea of a cunt field.

There's a pick your own place just off the East Lancs.

[Strontium]

Did you write this with the crayons from my picture book?

 

Hypocrite.

 

You started it, and any time you want to quit with the snide, sly little digs that'll be up to you too. I never started anything with anyone in my life.

[Jairzinho]

Hooray for the banking industry. They do such wonderful things for the country and there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the country would be immeasurably better if they all cunted off to Mars.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28528349

 

 

Lloyds Banking Group has been fined £218m for "serious misconduct" over some key interest rates set in London.

 

The fines were issued by the UK-based Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and a US-based trading commission.

 

Lloyds manipulated the London interbank offered rate (Libor) for yen and sterling and attempted to manipulate the rate for yen, sterling and the US dollar, said the US legal order.

 

Lloyds said it "condemns the actions of the individuals responsible".

 

The FCA fined Lloyds £105m. It said the fine was the "joint third-highest ever imposed" by the organisation or its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority.

 

In the US, the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission fined the group, which is responsible for Lloyds Bank and the Bank of Scotland, $105m (£61.7m).

 

The agreement is the seventh joint penalty handed out by US and UK regulators in connection with Libor and other benchmarks, used to price around $450trn of financial products around the world.

 

Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland have previously paid $453m and $612m in fines related to the scandal.

 

Part of the FCA's fine for Lloyds, was for serious misconduct over a programme introduced during the financial crisis known as the special liquidity scheme (SLS).

 

The SLS was set up in 2008 by the Bank of England to let banks temporarily swap assets that were difficult to trade.

 

Lloyds also manipulated the Repo rate benchmark, which is the interest rate that the Bank of England uses to buy back government securities from commercial banks, said the FCA.

 

In a statement, the watchdog said the "manipulation of the repo rate benchmark in order to reduce the firms' SLS fees" was misconduct of a type "not seen in previous Libor cases".

 

Tracey McDermott, the FCA's director of enforcement and financial crime, said that Lloyds and Bank of Scotland were a "significant beneficiary" of financial assistance from the Bank of England through the SLS.

 

"Colluding to benefit the firms at the expense, ultimately, of the UK taxpayer was unacceptable.

 

"This falls well short of the standards the FCA and the market is entitled to expect from regulated firms," she said.

 

She said other banks needed to learn lessons from and avoid the mistakes of their peers for trust to be restored in financial services.

[Strontium]

Good to see the more rigorous financial regulation implemented by this government is paying dividends for the taxpayer.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Good to see the more rigorous financial regulation implemented by this government is paying dividends for the taxpayer.

Yes, it might go some way to cancelling out the huge losses made to the public purse by the devalued sale of Royal Mail.

 

Or the unchecked handing out of public money to failed schemes under the disastrous "Big Society" scheme.

 

Or the public money which Iain Duncan Smith has pissed up the wall for the failed computer systems and other unmitigated disasters linked to his universal credit scheme.

[stringvest]

Good to see the more rigorous financial regulation implemented by this government is paying dividends for the taxpayer.

 

Do you not really give a fuck about the worst off in this society?  Those people who can't get a job, or have taken a zero hours contract?  Do you not give a fuck about desperate people getting into further financial trouble via payday loan sharks?

 

Do you really think this country provides the necessary support to ensure that these people can live with dignity and security?  

 

Do you think those essential services - health, education, utilities and housing provision - are in the hands of those with the best interests of the user of those services in mind?

[Jairzinho]

Or just the money they've allowed bankers to make. This fine will be a tiny drop in the ocean of shit which is the banking industry.

 

Financial terrorists.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I'm not quite getting the notion the Tories are the great with the economy. Its been a slow robbery in one respect. The debt is bigger than ever the deficit is roughly the same, they have privatized a load of public services making a selection of people a killing, in real terms average income is down 8 percent apparently. The NHS is getting a hammering, disabled, old people and the unemployed are getting the shit kicked out of them, students are fucked, the housing market is fucked. So many services are striking be it the nurses the fire brigade, railways, the passport office. More and more people have insecure work with little job security and guaranteed hours meaning you can't plan week to week. Legal aid has pretty much been anally raped and if your unfairly sacked you better have a nest egg of money because you are going to have to pay a fair wedge to even knock at the door of a tribunal. People who rent are punished for having a spare room, meaning grandmas house is no longer the family hub, where parents can leave the kids and family's can all gather round because she's been shifted to a one bed flat in a crack den. you need a second job just for childcare. GDP is up though.

 

We pander to the filthy rich. The repeated joke that bill gates walks into a bar and everybody cheers because the average wage in the room just rose seems apt. George osbourne walks round so fucking smug like he's saved the planet, I think his makeup artist was the fucker who worked on white chicks. Its constantly reported labour ruined the economy which to be fair they had a bloody big hand in doing and they are equally as shite but when they deregulated the banks the Tories said they weren't deregulated enough. The Tories sowed the seed of a lot of this shit under thatcher, the housing market was fucked in the arse and mouth by her, North Sea oil money wasted so she could put a tonne of people on the dole for her ideology whilst she read ayan rand and rubbed her bean. David cameron is a thick twat who looks in a mirror and because his face is so shiny the mirror reflects his face and his face reflects the mirror so all he sees is his face within his face in an infinite queue, smaller with every image but every reflected face is a bigger twat than the one its contained within. I hate that lipless fuck. Death, suffering isn't a morale outrage to these fuckers, not squeezing the shit out of something for every last bit of profit is though.

 

And that House of Lords Jesus fucking Christ.

[Strontium]

Do you not really give a fuck about the worst off in this society?  Those people who can't get a job, or have taken a zero hours contract?  Do you not give a fuck about desperate people getting into further financial trouble via payday loan sharks?

 

Do you really think this country provides the necessary support to ensure that these people can live with dignity and security?  

 

Do you think those essential services - health, education, utilities and housing provision - are in the hands of those with the best interests of the user of those services in mind?

 

 

How does any of this follow from my comment about Lloyds Bank being fined?

[stringvest]

 

 

How does any of this follow from my comment about Lloyds Bank being fined?

 

only to distract you off the self-congratulatory bilge so that there's a chance you may choose to provide your view on the state of the nation in terms of the fundamentals.  

[Stu Monty]

Hooray for the banking industry. They do such wonderful things for the country and there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the country would be immeasurably better if they all cunted off to Mars.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28528349

 

 

Lloyds Banking Group has been fined £218m for "serious misconduct" over some key interest rates set in London.

 

The fines were issued by the UK-based Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and a US-based trading commission.

 

Lloyds manipulated the London interbank offered rate (Libor) for yen and sterling and attempted to manipulate the rate for yen, sterling and the US dollar, said the US legal order.

 

Lloyds said it "condemns the actions of the individuals responsible".

 

The FCA fined Lloyds £105m. It said the fine was the "joint third-highest ever imposed" by the organisation or its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority.

 

In the US, the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission fined the group, which is responsible for Lloyds Bank and the Bank of Scotland, $105m (£61.7m).

 

The agreement is the seventh joint penalty handed out by US and UK regulators in connection with Libor and other benchmarks, used to price around $450trn of financial products around the world.

 

Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland have previously paid $453m and $612m in fines related to the scandal.

 

Part of the FCA's fine for Lloyds, was for serious misconduct over a programme introduced during the financial crisis known as the special liquidity scheme (SLS).

 

The SLS was set up in 2008 by the Bank of England to let banks temporarily swap assets that were difficult to trade.

 

Lloyds also manipulated the Repo rate benchmark, which is the interest rate that the Bank of England uses to buy back government securities from commercial banks, said the FCA.

 

In a statement, the watchdog said the "manipulation of the repo rate benchmark in order to reduce the firms' SLS fees" was misconduct of a type "not seen in previous Libor cases".

 

Tracey McDermott, the FCA's director of enforcement and financial crime, said that Lloyds and Bank of Scotland were a "significant beneficiary" of financial assistance from the Bank of England through the SLS.

 

"Colluding to benefit the firms at the expense, ultimately, of the UK taxpayer was unacceptable.

 

"This falls well short of the standards the FCA and the market is entitled to expect from regulated firms," she said.

 

She said other banks needed to learn lessons from and avoid the mistakes of their peers for trust to be restored in financial services.

 

Don't hold your breath for people going to jail. 

 

You want to commit crime and stay out of jail, start a corporation.

 

Not even bothering with The Dog on this one.  If he genuinely thinks the taxpayer will get a better regulated financial services from a Tory party massively funded by the same industry then he's got rocks for brains.

[Strontium]

 

only to distract you off the self-congratulatory bilge so that there's a chance you may choose to provide your view on the state of the nation in terms of the fundamentals.

 

 

I had nothing to do with the establishment of the FCA, so praising it for clamping down on industry malpractice in a manner that its FSA predecessor rarely did can hardly be said to be self-congratulatory.

 

I thought we all wanted tougher regulation of the industry? Yet when I praise the tougher regulation, I appear to be castigated for not making reference to the plight of the poor and needy, or the future of health and education. It's a bit of a non sequitur.

[Rushies tash]

Yes, it might go some way to cancelling out the huge losses made to the public purse by the devalued sale of Royal Mail.

Or the unchecked handing out of public money to failed schemes under the disastrous "Big Society" scheme.

Or the public money which Iain Duncan Smith has pissed up the wall for the failed computer systems and other unmitigated disasters linked to his universal credit scheme.

Not forgetting the financial black hole of academies and free schools...

[Jairzinho]

Don't hold your breath for people going to jail. 

 

You want to commit crime and stay out of jail, start a corporation.

 

Not even bothering with The Dog on this one.  If he genuinely thinks the taxpayer will get a better regulated financial services from a Tory party massively funded by the same industry then he's got rocks for brains.

 

He doesn't, clearly.

[xerxes]

 If he genuinely thinks the taxpayer will get a better regulated financial services from a Tory party massively funded by the same industry then he's got rocks for brains.

It was Labour whose deregulation sowed the seeds for much of the banking excesses.

 

It is difficult to see how Cooper/Balls, hewn from the same stone as Osborne, will change things much.

[Jairzinho]

It was Labour whose deregulation sowed the seeds for much of the banking excesses.

 

It is difficult to see how Cooper/Balls, hewn from the same stone as Osborne, will change things much.

 

Yes, but they were, and are, a Tory party.

[Stu Monty]

It was Labour whose deregulation sowed the seeds for much of the banking excesses.

 

It is difficult to see how Cooper/Balls, hewn from the same stone as Osborne, will change things much.

 

Indeed it was. Are you suggesting that the Tory party would have offered up more regulation? Right, so as I say, it's nonsense to think they would regulate more than the Labour party or to pretend otherwise. 

 

The donors pay for a reason, and there's a reason they donate to the Conservative party, not the Labour party. It isn't for more regulation.

 

As Osborne's best man knows well, it's to be looked after, whether it be with less regulation or with millions of pounds from cheap Royal Mail shares you can sell on later for a massive profit.

[xerxes]

Indeed it was. Are you suggesting that the Tory party would have offered up more regulation? Right, so as I say, it's nonsense to think they would regulate more than the Labour party or to pretend otherwise. 

 

The donors pay for a reason, and there's a reason they donate to the Conservative party, not the Labour party. It isn't for more regulation.

 

As Osborne's best man knows well, it's to be looked after, whether it be with less regulation or with millions of pounds from cheap Royal Mail shares you can sell on later for a massive profit.

I think that the problem for any UK government is that the City transcends local control, it is a global institution.

 

When, and if, a EU referendum comes around the City will be full behind membership which will be interesting for the Tories. France and Germany would love to isolate London in favour of Paris or Frankfurt

[Pureblood]

Good to see the more rigorous financial regulation implemented by this government is paying dividends for the taxpayer.

 

I don't see how this benefits the tax payer? 

[Jairzinho]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28528824

 

 

Ministers and officials have been working on a policy that could bring major changes to England's student loan system, BBC Newsnight has learned.

 

The plan could lead to higher tuition fee charges, and changes in loan terms and the way higher education works.

 

At its core, the big idea is that universities should take on some of the risk that their own students repay less of their student debt than expected.

 

Officials said they had the support of about "half a dozen" top universities.

 

There is also one "vast" institutional investor which is interested.

 

The officials said the idea was championed by David Willetts, the former universities minister.

 

At the moment, students are loaned money by the Treasury for their fees and living costs.

 

Once they have graduated - but only when their salary is more than £21,000 per year - they pay back a share of their income in repayments.

 

After 30 years, outstanding debt is written off, so students who take lower-paid jobs repay less of their loan.

 

The costs of the debt - currently assumed by officials to be between 30p and 40p in every £1 that it lends - are paid by the Treasury.

Under the new plan, higher education institutions would, in future, buy that debt as students graduated.

 

Officials said the price could vary from institution to institution - but the big idea is that institutions would profit if their students repaid more of their debt.

 

Mr Willetts presented this plan to leading universities but, officials said, he later became more interested in getting newer and less-renowned institutions involved.

 

These institutions tend to be more job-focused and their students tend to have weaker employment outcomes.

 

Cambridge graduates have a 4.3% unemployment rate in the first year out of study; for Staffordshire leavers, it runs at 13.9%.

 

Two supportive vice-chancellors from top-end institutions also pointed out that the plan could lead the way to higher fees.

 

One reason why the government has capped fees at £9,000 a year in England is to protect the Treasury; higher fees mean bigger loans and so more losses.

 

But if universities were to share some risk, the Treasury might allow them to charge more.

 

They might also seek to vary the terms of the loan scheme.

 

The plan is still tentative and would also require careful design.

 

The easiest way to cut loan defaults would be to admit fewer women and students from poorer families, since both groups tend to have lower lifetime earnings.

 

Care would need to be taken to protect academic integrity; the process could spur grade inflation.

 

Unemployment among people with first-class degrees just out of universities was 5% in 2012/13, as opposed to 7.2% for people with upper-seconds.

 

If implemented crudely, the process could lead to a rush to provide lucrative subjects; more lawyers and scientists, fewer historians.

 

Officials said these issues could be dealt with by regulation and pricing of the loan book.

 

Furthermore, few universities would be able to finance the stream of loans for long.

 

Even a strong university like Leeds would go from having debt equivalent to about 38% of its current annual income to well over 100% within three years.

 

One supportive vice-chancellor suggested a partnership with pension funds might be the answer: they tend to lend to universities very cheaply.

 

For many institutions, other forms of risk-sharing seem more plausible.

 

Universities could buy a share of the loan book, not all of it. They could also be paid for their services in part in debt.

 

Or they could agree to pay the government the difference if loans cost more than a set amount - and receive a dividend if they came in under that cost.

 

This policy is still emerging and unlikely to be in any manifesto. There is also one big question: would the government really land the universities with big losses?

 

University reform is kicked into the long grass at elections and the Student Loans Company machinery is not yet good enough to allow us to know how much student debt goes unpaid on an institution-by-institution basis.

 

But watch this space: the next major round of reform could be all about how we move some of the risk of student loan debt from government to universities.

 

 

*Shakes head*

[Strontium]

I don't see how this benefits the tax payer? 

 

The coalition changed the rules on what happens to fines.

 

Prior to 2012, fines went on reducing membership fees to the FSA - so, perversely, financial services firms were the beneficiaries of FSA fines.

 

Since 2012, fines go straight to the Treasury. Some of it is donated to charity.

[Pureblood]

The coalition changed the rules on what happens to fines.

 

Prior to 2012, fines went on reducing membership fees to the FSA - so, perversely, financial services firms were the beneficiaries of FSA fines.

 

Since 2012, fines go straight to the Treasury. Some of it is donated to charity.

 

But it is a flimsy amount, disproportionate to the offence and does not deter future conduct of this type.  Only criminal prosecutions would do that.  

£100m is no use to the tax payer after multi-billion pound bail outs.  

[Skidfingers McGonical]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28528824

 

 

Ministers and officials have been working on a policy that could bring major changes to England's student loan system, BBC Newsnight has learned.

 

The plan could lead to higher tuition fee charges, and changes in loan terms and the way higher education works.

 

At its core, the big idea is that universities should take on some of the risk that their own students repay less of their student debt than expected.

 

Officials said they had the support of about "half a dozen" top universities.

 

There is also one "vast" institutional investor which is interested.

 

The officials said the idea was championed by David Willetts, the former universities minister.

 

At the moment, students are loaned money by the Treasury for their fees and living costs.

 

Once they have graduated - but only when their salary is more than £21,000 per year - they pay back a share of their income in repayments.

 

After 30 years, outstanding debt is written off, so students who take lower-paid jobs repay less of their loan.

 

The costs of the debt - currently assumed by officials to be between 30p and 40p in every £1 that it lends - are paid by the Treasury.

Under the new plan, higher education institutions would, in future, buy that debt as students graduated.

 

Officials said the price could vary from institution to institution - but the big idea is that institutions would profit if their students repaid more of their debt.

 

Mr Willetts presented this plan to leading universities but, officials said, he later became more interested in getting newer and less-renowned institutions involved.

 

These institutions tend to be more job-focused and their students tend to have weaker employment outcomes.

 

Cambridge graduates have a 4.3% unemployment rate in the first year out of study; for Staffordshire leavers, it runs at 13.9%.

 

Two supportive vice-chancellors from top-end institutions also pointed out that the plan could lead the way to higher fees.

 

One reason why the government has capped fees at £9,000 a year in England is to protect the Treasury; higher fees mean bigger loans and so more losses.

 

But if universities were to share some risk, the Treasury might allow them to charge more.

 

They might also seek to vary the terms of the loan scheme.

 

The plan is still tentative and would also require careful design.

 

The easiest way to cut loan defaults would be to admit fewer women and students from poorer families, since both groups tend to have lower lifetime earnings.

 

Care would need to be taken to protect academic integrity; the process could spur grade inflation.

 

Unemployment among people with first-class degrees just out of universities was 5% in 2012/13, as opposed to 7.2% for people with upper-seconds.

 

If implemented crudely, the process could lead to a rush to provide lucrative subjects; more lawyers and scientists, fewer historians.

 

Officials said these issues could be dealt with by regulation and pricing of the loan book.

 

Furthermore, few universities would be able to finance the stream of loans for long.

 

Even a strong university like Leeds would go from having debt equivalent to about 38% of its current annual income to well over 100% within three years.

 

One supportive vice-chancellor suggested a partnership with pension funds might be the answer: they tend to lend to universities very cheaply.

 

For many institutions, other forms of risk-sharing seem more plausible.

 

Universities could buy a share of the loan book, not all of it. They could also be paid for their services in part in debt.

 

Or they could agree to pay the government the difference if loans cost more than a set amount - and receive a dividend if they came in under that cost.

 

This policy is still emerging and unlikely to be in any manifesto. There is also one big question: would the government really land the universities with big losses?

 

University reform is kicked into the long grass at elections and the Student Loans Company machinery is not yet good enough to allow us to know how much student debt goes unpaid on an institution-by-institution basis.

 

But watch this space: the next major round of reform could be all about how we move some of the risk of student loan debt from government to universities.

 

 

*Shakes head*

It's not a debt though is it?