economic situation is dire

[snowychap]

I don;t think anyone involved with city has any right to say they are right or worng, all were a part of it there may have been a few siren voices in the past but the number was limited.

That is just being daft, Ian. It doesn't matter how limited the number was.

It is very much worth getting the opinion of those people with the undoubted experience in that industry sector and who were a bit (or maybe hugely) more prescient than those carried along with the tide.

Take for example this bod from HBOS about whom they were talking in the Treasury committee today - why is he not being asked for his opinion by MPs?

Of course there is no guarantee that he will come forth with better ideas on the future than those already being asked but if it were up to me then I'd want to ask those people who jumped ship (or were pushed overboard) before the iceberg was hit rather than those at the tillers who kept on claiming there was no iceberg.

[drat01]

Osborne talked about the UK economy and was talking it down

Balls was talking about the World economic situation

These are not the same unless you still maintain this is a UK only thing - which clearly people do despite their arguments against such a claim

[Gringo]

These are not the same unless you still maintain this is a UK only thing - which clearly people do despite their arguments against such a claim

Always a one way road.

When the global boom was going on one party claimed that it was responsilbe for the growth of the economy, whilst the other claimed it was their assured management.

Now the boom has bust one party is claiming it is the failure of the global economy whilst the other claims it was the result of their opponents mismanagement.

I can't see how you can look at the three statements of osbourne being correct in saying that sterling was igoing to tank, balls saying the world economy is in big trouble and darling saying that it was a mild cold - and come up attacking osbourne when the only one who apparently got it wrong was darling.

[leviramsey]

Why pay big cash for the 'cream' who continued to make dodgy calls even when on the downward slope?

Because in finance, the old dictum that 20% of the staff produce 80% of the profit is very true.

The problem is that that 20% changes very quickly from year to year.

Very often the worst traders/fund managers one year are the best the next year.

[snowychap]

Because in finance, the old dictum that 20% of the staff produce 80% of the profit is very true.

I don't think Pareto is exclusive to profits. :winkold:

Could equally be applied to losses, dodgy calls, etc.

[tonyh29]

the Tory ideal is bollox to the man in the street

seen any polls lately ... Oh that's right more people trust Cameron & Osborne on the economy that Brown and Darling

next flawed argument ??

Tony, Richard and the the Tory party dare not say

we can't speak for the Tory party but I've answered it many a time , just you never bother reading , too busy typing away to actually read anything

Thing I love about you ..and your fellow supporter is that the onus is always on us to say what we would have done .. never about what your party DID do ... their solutions have all failed .. the Tory solutions you've just talked down and yet you have absolutely no idea if they would have succeeded or not

and the past record is there, right wing free market policy dictates the weak should fall and blow the consequences

we've had 12 years of this Government , remind me what they changed or are you freely admitting that the labour party is now a right wing party as well

[ianrobo1]

Should the government have intervened to save HBOS, RBS, Bradford, NR etc ?

YES or NO

given no soverign funds wanted them

the vast majority of the borrowings is the saving of these

[snowychap]

Blimey

Lloyds, one of the banks bailed out by the government, has been accused in court by the Treasury this week of using a subsidiary to pour hundreds of millions into transatlantic tax avoidance schemes.

Huge loans to American financial institutions were disguised as commercial investments for tax purposes, it is alleged in a case against the bank being brought by HM Revenue & Customs, a department of the Treasury. As a result, the money from the deals was treated differently for tax purposes on each side of the Atlantic.

The revelation of the court action comes on the day that Lloyds TSB executives appear before the Treasury select committee to explain their role in the current banking crisis. Lloyds Banking Group is 43% owned by the government.

The sting of the HMRC case is that millions of pounds of income, received in the UK as distributions from US investments, was granted tax relief on the basis that US tax had already been paid.

But in the US, where the cash was treated as interest payments on a debt, it was also granted tax relief. This type of practice is known to tax experts as "double dipping".

Some of the details of the Lloyds schemes were disclosed at a tax tribunal hearing in London this week when David Ewart, QC for HMRC said: "In substance, this is a loan subsidised by the UK exchequer ... the whole point is to share the benefit of an artificially contrived tax credit." Ewart was representing HMRC in a challenge they are mounting against the efficacy of two Lloyds schemes run by a subsidiary, Hill Samuel Investments Ltd. In each case, Ewart said, £350m was handed over as "a loan from Lloyds TSB, disguised as an investment".

He said these were "two instances of the use of a tax avoidance scheme which was used by several UK banks".

On Monday, lawyers for Lloyds told the tribunal, which has reserved judgment, that the company believed that it was entitled to all the tax reliefs claimed and had interpreted the rules as intended by parliament. The QC for Lloyds, David Milne, described the transactions as "a commercial investment with the tax consequences in mind".

Lloyds - known as Lloyds Banking Group after its takeover of HBOS - refused last night to say whether it had stopped tax avoidance schemes since being bailed out by the taxpayer.

The Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said last night: "What is seriously shocking about these latest revelations is the way they demonstrate how a bank in which the government is the largest shareholder has been systematically avoiding paying taxes to the British government. It is amazing that the regulator doesn't seem to have spotted that there was a problem with large amounts of money going round in a circle with no other purpose than avoiding taxation. Now that the government is the dominant shareholder, it must stop these tax avoidance activities forthwith."

Lloyds banking chiefs may be asked by MPs at the committee hearing today whether involvement in tax avoidance has been disclosed to the government, and if the Treasury required the bank to end tax avoidance as part of the deal to get state support.

The OECD published a report last year, largely drafted by experts from the UK, which revealed that British banks were generating "very large profits" from such stratagems. It said: "A significant amount of their involvement in aggressive tax planning relates to the interbank finance market and trading by banks on their own account ... The amounts involved can be very large, with single deals involving funding of billions and tax advantages of hundreds of millions."

Lloyds made large loans to AIG, the subsequently collapsed US insurance group, and Bank of America. The identities of the US partners in the schemes emerged in Lloyds' subsidiaries filings at Companies House.

When the Guardian asked Lloyds about its alleged tax avoidance schemes, the bank said: "We would never discuss publicly details of our private relationship with HM Treasury and HMRC."

A spokesman added: "We treat very seriously our obligations to comply with all tax legislation. In 2008, HMRC acknowledged the high quality of our tax submissions and our levels of disclosure. In addition, our tax compliance team was rated by HMRC 'gold standard' in respect of its general approach to disclosure and compliance with tax law."

Lloyds was one of the largest corporate taxpayers in the UK, the spokesman said. The bank "always sought to have good relationships with the UK tax authorities and the board of Lloyds Banking Group intends to maintain this".

An AIG spokeswoman in New York said: "We are winding our financial products business down, because that was the business decision made when AIG received government support. My understanding is that we have no structured loans of this type outstanding with Lloyds." She added that the activities of AIG's financial products division were the "major cause of AIG needing the government bail-out". Bank of America declined to comment.

had interpreted the rules as intended by parliament...

sound familiar?

[kidlewis]

The problem I see with the banks is that they are completely above the law.

Doesn't matter what the government do, the economy is ruined if any of the major banks go under. Therefore they have to be bailed out.

What angers me even more is they haven't declared exactly where this money is going and how much of these so called "toxic debts" are going to cost the taxpayer.

Futher more, banks are still so reluctant to lend, you cannot buy a house unless you have a 25% deposit or higher.

The banks could take all of the bail out money and do what they want with it and we as the public can do well.....**** all about it.

regulation is pointless because it's already meant to be in place and it failed to pick up on this for ages. They might as well save the taxpayer a few hundred million and remove regulation altogether.

really pisses me off because they were still trying to deny mortgage payers the reduction in interest rates until it became so low, they felt they couldn't hold the cut back any longer.

I just hope some hitman has his house re-posessed and goes on a massive rampage seeking revenge on behalf of the public.

[Gringo]

had interpreted the rules as intended by parliament...

sound familiar?

Is this something to do with really badly drafted law that can mean anything to anyone.

How could that possibly happen?

The problem I see with the banks is that they are completely above the law.

When the law is a cheese grater full of holes they don't have to try so hard.

[snowychap]

had interpreted the rules as intended by parliament...

sound familiar?

Is this something to do with really badly drafted law that can mean anything to anyone.

How could that possibly happen?

The parallel I was drawing was with the comments from MPs about their expenses (all within the rules, &c.).

But I do understand where you are coming from, I think. Are you venturing that parliament intended to leave enough holes for companies to carry their swag through?

[mykeyb]

You know this thread sums exactly why this country is in the shit.

Those on the left defend their party no matter what - they simply cannot be in anyway responsible for our current situation - "its a global recession"

Those on the right try and make political gain out of it.

And those on the middle ground who make sensible reasoned comment get attacked at by both sides.

Since exactly the same thing is happening at the highest levels in this country instead of working together to get the economy back on its feet again.

Its pathetic

[tonyh29]

And those on the middle ground who make sensible reasoned comment get attacked at by both sides

seeing as you've ruled yourself out the middle ground , which side are you on :winkold:

[Gringo]

Are you venturing that parliament intended to leave enough holes for companies to carry their swag through?

What? Honourable lords being paid consultancy fees to tweak laws? Unthinkable.

I was actually pointing more towards incompetence than corrupt on this case. When the volume of laws passed increases so drastically and the review time is reduced to zilch in many cases, more tripe slides through.

[snowychap]

Sir James Crosby resigns as deputy chairman of FSA.

[Gringo]

Sir James Crosby resigns as deputy chairman of FSA.

Following the thread of inept appointments - from PMQs

Angela Bufton-Tufton, MP (Con, Lymeswold) : Why has the govt appointed someone as chairman to UK Financial Investments in order to protect taxpayers interest whose previous role was helping run tax evasion schemes.

SuperGordo, PM (nuLab, Scotland) : We haven't - he's acting chairman.

A straight answer to a straight question?

[snowychap]

Glen Moreno?

He sounds like a country and western singer to me.

He probably shouldn't order any personalised stationery/business cards going on Gordo's remarks.

[tonyh29]

Angela Bufton-Tufton, MP (Con, Lymeswold) : Why has the govt appointed someone as chairman to UK Financial Investments in order to protect taxpayers interest whose previous role was helping run tax evasion schemes.

SuperGordo, PM (nuLab, Scotland) : We haven't - he's acting chairman.

that's quality ..... I bet inside his brain a little voice went D'oh as he said it

[Awol]

Angela Bufton-Tufton, MP (Con, Lymeswold) : Why has the govt appointed someone as chairman to UK Financial Investments in order to protect taxpayers interest whose previous role was helping run tax evasion schemes.

SuperGordo, PM (nuLab, Scotland) : We haven't - he's acting chairman.

that's quality ..... I bet inside his brain a little voice went D'oh as he said it

I think people accept that the Government cannot (nor should they) protect every individual from every conceivable circumstance, economic or otherwise. What really grips me is the PM's complete inability to accept responsibility for anything, ever. Blair was a weasel, but at least he was a decisive weasel. Brown is vaciliating, weak and slimy and as the polls are again reflecting, many many others agree.

[Gringo]

Get those printing presses going

Bank set to deploy quantitative easing

Mervyn King on Wednesday said the Bank of England could begin so-called “quantitative easing” as soon as next month, as he warned that the UK economy was in deep recession.

He was speaking as the Bank unveiled its latest inflation report that suggested inflation will fall to 0.5 per cent and may remain well below the Bank’s 2 per cent target for much of 2010 and 2011.

In order to get more money flowing in the economy as interest rates approach zero, Mr King said he was preparing to deploy quantitative easing – creating money to buy assets.

He said that interest rates would not have to fall to zero before starting quantitative easing, signalling that the Bank’s monetary policy committee could vote for such a move at its next monthly meeting. It also suggests that such unconventional measures could begin with gilt purchases.

Quantitative easing is aimed at increasing the money supply, getting banks to lend more, lowering interest rates and raising the level of inflation.