Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
Mrr T said:
isaldiri said:
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
I had tried to keep it simple by ignoring the APF. However, if you want to include the ADF.What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
CB borrows from CBR (made up money) which it lends to ADF. ADF buys assets. If the ADF sells assets for cash. It has cash in its CB account. To reverse QE the balances in CB and ADF will all be netted. I understand at the moment while th government is required to cover ADF losses. It does not do so in cash which would be negative QE, not just reversal, it's just an assets on ADF BS which will rewritten off latter against the ADF, CB liability.
Correct me if I am wrong.
sparkythecat said:
Mrr T said:
isaldiri said:
The government is obliged to refund any losses that the APF racks up - as such the BoE isn't able to simply ignore or disappear any losses from the asset purchase facility unlike the Federal Reserve or the ECB.
What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
I had tried to keep it simple by ignoring the APF. However, if you want to include the ADF.What is stupid about this banging on about losses from the BoE proceeding with quantitative tightening is that the losses are basically either taken upfront when realised (ie selling) or it'll simply accrue as the differential between bond coupon and bank rate until maturity anyway.
CB borrows from CBR (made up money) which it lends to ADF. ADF buys assets. If the ADF sells assets for cash. It has cash in its CB account. To reverse QE the balances in CB and ADF will all be netted. I understand at the moment while th government is required to cover ADF losses. It does not do so in cash which would be negative QE, not just reversal, it's just an assets on ADF BS which will rewritten off latter against the ADF, CB liability.
Correct me if I am wrong.
robemcdonald said:
Unreal said:
Not many people banging pots and pans now.
Eat out to help out isn’t running anymore either.Neither is furlough.
He is meaning its losing its following and stuff like that
thats wot i fink but im a ficko so mite be wrong
sparkythecat said:
I appreciate that you guys are trying to be helpful by attempting to explain this for the benefit of the layman, but until my book arrives and I learn some basic stuff, I’m just seeing alphabet soup.
Apologies - it's a common finance sector thing that people (stupidly) assume that everyone else is as sad an individual and knows what is being talked about when rattling off all manner of silly acronyms. There probably are much better explained articles that get across to most people better than me but the short version of the above is basically that - The Bank of England had set up a facility to make all those quantitative easing purchases mainly of UK gilts which essentially is funded at the existing bank of england base rate (exactly how it funds it is a bit of central bank gobbly-gook and not really consequential or important).
This was all and good while the yields of said gilts were higher than the base rate (ie from 2008 all through to 2021/2) and the government was happy to take that interest differential (which was profit being made by the facility) each year previously as part of a budget 'bonus' for the treasury. However, now that that rate differential has switched the other way, the government is obliged (by law) to be refunding any losses racked up by the purchasing facility and therefore is having to include that cost into any budget/debt requirements.
With the bank of england is also trying to sell down it's existing holding of gilts, those losses are being realised earlier than if the bonds were simply to be held to maturity, which is what seems to be the MP group per telegraph article earlier are getting triggered by (one assumes to do realise the latter will happen anyway although it seems they might well be stupid enough to think it's just a matter of the former alone that causes those losses....)
And more unlawful behaviour.
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: And more unlawful behaviour.
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
Only when the appeal has been heared to a conclusion.Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: And more unlawful behaviour.
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
What's your 'outrage' with this one then?Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
turbobloke said:
Only when the appeal has been heared to a conclusion.
The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
The restrictions may be in place until any appeal is heard but the High Court has ruled she acted unlawfully.The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
I don't know why you're trying to spin it as if that isn't the case.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
Only when the appeal has been heared to a conclusion.
The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
The restrictions may be in place until any appeal is heard but the High Court has ruled she acted unlawfully.The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
I don't know why you're trying to spin it as if that isn't the case.
Or are you against it as it would never affect you day to day?
119 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
Only when the appeal has been heared to a conclusion.
The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
The restrictions may be in place until any appeal is heard but the High Court has ruled she acted unlawfully.The restrictions are still in place until then, so members of the public can still expect some help from BiB with their quality of day to day working and family life when faced with extremist activists intent on destroying quality of life by going too far for some figleaf cause. Hopefully the appeal will be successful but it looks unlikely.
I don't know why you're trying to spin it as if that isn't the case.
Or are you against it as it would never affect you day to day?
Collectingbrass said:
Given what has come out about Contaminated Blood, The Post Office, Hillsborough, etc etc etc ad infinitum, why do you think it's ok that the right to protest is curtailed?
It is typical of society today - it’s ok to protest if it is something I agree with otherwise let’s ban it. Hmm. No, 600, they haven’t.
Those that have been affected have been trying to make their voice heard for said period, but for a very long time they have been ignored. By politicians, the press and well…you lot, “the people”. Instead righteousness indignation and protest has been expressed about nearly every other subject under the sun, but popular, powerful protests on the contaminated blood…no.
I had a very similar story to one of the victims talking with the media over the last cpl of days. It’s been a subject I’ve followed for a long time, I was just incredibly, fortunately lucky to be on the other side of the coin to the chap interviewed. The way I found out about the situation 20yrs ago was when I was suddenly “banned” from giving blood by the vamps. There was v little other info or advice given.
Those that have been affected have been trying to make their voice heard for said period, but for a very long time they have been ignored. By politicians, the press and well…you lot, “the people”. Instead righteousness indignation and protest has been expressed about nearly every other subject under the sun, but popular, powerful protests on the contaminated blood…no.
I had a very similar story to one of the victims talking with the media over the last cpl of days. It’s been a subject I’ve followed for a long time, I was just incredibly, fortunately lucky to be on the other side of the coin to the chap interviewed. The way I found out about the situation 20yrs ago was when I was suddenly “banned” from giving blood by the vamps. There was v little other info or advice given.
Gecko1978 said:
Interest rate cute incoming I also suspect an mini budget later in the year with tax cuts....will labour snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
I think PH might spontaneously combust if the Tories retain power and Trump wins.Right up until a month or so ago I was convinced the Tories were toast. Now I'm not so sure. A lot of headline short term stuff could start going their way over the summer and the Labour strategy of 'do nothing and we'll be fine' may push heads above parapets. It will be interesting to see if SKS can keep the loonies in his party under control and silent in the cauldron of an election campaign.
I don't know anything about polls so it may be bs but I was reading recently that indications from the local elections indicated a GE outcome much more like a hung Parliament than a thumping Labour majority and a current lead of more like 10% than 20+%. I think if Labour had a charismatic leader they would be home and hosed but SKS really is pretty dull and uninspiring. That may match the promise (lowering of expectations?) of stability but I'm not sure it's what enough people want in a future PM. The thing that I'm most sceptical about is when I'm told lifelong supporters are going to switch at the next election. I know there can be a lack of clear blue water between the parties but come on.
I don't want to argue about something that none of us can be certain of, but I find it interesting to discuss the shifting sands. I know that I cannot personally affect the result because my vote is in a guaranteed Tory constituency and so getting worked up over politics would be about as productive as chopping one of my fingers off. Same with Trump. I'll just do what I can do to adapt to the circumstances.
Edited by Unreal on Wednesday 22 May 08:35
Boringvolvodriver said:
Collectingbrass said:
Given what has come out about Contaminated Blood, The Post Office, Hillsborough, etc etc etc ad infinitum, why do you think it's ok that the right to protest is curtailed?
It is typical of society today - it’s ok to protest if it is something I agree with otherwise let’s ban it. For whatever reason peaceful protest was often banned during lockdown, when it should not have been. That aside though I think the right to peaceful protest is fairly well upheld.
This is about a quite different matter, which is the actions of a few hundred protestors, and never much more than a handful at any one protest, to effectively blockade the roads to try and create as much inconvenience for others as possible as the main method of "protest".
The right to block roads as a main method of protest seems to have been effectively created relatively recently in a ruling on a group blocking access to an arms fair. The government have been changing the law and guidance to try and revert to the same situation as applied in 2017.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff