Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[xxxxxy] 18/9/2021 08:06

New fiscal rules?SEPTEMBER 18, 2021 7 COMMENTSI read that the Treasury is getting round to reconsidering their fiscal rules. That is a  necessary and urgent task.There are two key rules affecting the conduct of economic policy that are in place today that  I think should continue.The first is the 2% inflation target that is meant to guide Bank of England interest rate decisions. It also needs to guide the Treasury as they make decisions on levels of money creation and bond buying with  the Bank of England, and as through fiscal policy  they  have a substantial  impact on inflation.The second is the debt interest rule, that the interest charges on government debt should not exceed 6% of revenues. They are under half that at the moment, thanks to very low interest rates and to Quantitative easing. This is a sensible target to continue, and could be toughened to 5% of revenues.There are two rules over the deficit. The first is it should be brought back to balance on current spending within a three year horizon. This is a bizarre target, as the government/OBR  hits it by forecasting favourable changes three years out which might never take place.  The second is capital spending in  the public sector should be limited to 3% of GDP. It has been running below this for some years. Capital spending levels should primarily be judged on prospective returns and ability to be self funding over time.  Add these two targets together and we return to the Treasury's much loved Maastricht target of keeping the deficit down to 3%. The OBR/Treasury are also still wedded to the idea that state debt as a percentage of GDP should be brought down, so they encourage ministers to impose tax rises and spending cuts to get state debt as a proportion of GDP falling. This reflects the Maastricht requirement to get state debt down to 60% of GDP sometime.It is high time we cancelled the Maastricht austerity targets. The Treasury still reports how we are doing against them as if we were still governed by the EU Treaty that made that necessary. Instead we should have a growth target. Like the Fed the Bank of England should have the twin targets of low inflation and faster growth. A growth target would stimulate more thought and action in government to raise living standards and follow policies that boost UK jobs, incomes and business. A suitable growth target would be to aim to return to 2.5% per annum growth from the more anaemic levels of this century under Maastricht austerity..? John Redwood

[utrickytrees] 18/9/2021 07:22

Stansmith just had a thought on mobile phone contracts...whatever you do don't get one with say 2hrs of talktime when we go over to imperial because you'll probably only end up with 110 minute's..no flies on you pal are there???

[grahamite2] 17/9/2021 23:28

Good work from Nadine Dorries, who has already started on demolishing hideous buildings unaccountably given a listing.

I've got a lot of time for her.

[psychochopper] 17/9/2021 23:24

Too tricky in a supermarket setting, but it does rely upon a Taylor Series expansion, whereas I am merely using a binomial expansion in the following:

1/2.204 = 1/2 x 1/1.102, and

1/(1+x) —> 1 - x + x^2 + . . . where x = 1.102 via simple Binomial expansion

—>1/2.204 ~ 0.5 x 0.908

So divide by 2, subtract 10% and then add a bit (0.8%), in line with the method in the previous post.

Doing this, you arrive at 0.4536 whereas the actual value is 0.4537 to 4dp.

I reckon this survives the sometimes frenzied pace and pressure of the fruit & veg aisles, especially as convergence is rapid when using x = 0.102.

[pierre oreilly] 17/9/2021 22:50

Psycho, Runge Cutter predictor corrector.

Guess at the answer in kilos, do the maths to get pounds, adjust the guess depending on the result and repeat.

[grahamite2] 17/9/2021 22:33

Hasn't it been pleasant having a balmy day in the mid 60s today?

[psychochopper] 17/9/2021 22:15

lbs and kilos.

Just multiply the kilos by 2.204. Cannot do that, then double it, add 10% and if you are picky like me, add a further one five hundredth. Probably the easiest way the brain can deal with such arithmetic.

Going in reverse is trickier. But not impossible. I would use a Maclaurin expansion and repeat the method. Pierre?

An iPhone works, but is nowhere near as much fun.

[freddie01] 17/9/2021 21:34

Coventry City Council joins fight against refugee plans as rest 'do nothing'

Coventry is one of seven Midland councils taking the Home Office to the High Court



Coventry City Council has joined forces with six local authorities across the Midlands to take the Home Office and Home Secretary to the High Court over the refugee resettlement scheme.

Papers were served on Tuesday (September 14) over how responsibility for refugees has been distributed across different local authorities in the country.

Coventry joins fed up leaders of Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Stoke and Walsall Councils to push the Government to re-think how it allocates responsibility to re-home refugees.


The move has been made to force more authorities to take their share of asylum seekers and refugees.

The decision was revealed by City of Wolverhampton Council leader Ian Brookfield, our sister title BirminghamLive reports.


'Affluent local authorities turn the other cheek'
Mr Brookfield said the programme - which sees private companies placing people in towns and cities - only featured a third of councils in the UK while the rest "do nothing".

Like other cities in the Midlands, Coventry is a city of sanctuary, and has pledged to take in 150 Afghans and their families.

All of the people they are re-homing are Afghan interpreters and other UK government staff who have risked their lives to work with the UK and are no longer safe from the Taliban.

All seven councils have said that the allocation scheme is not fair because it relies on councils who are known to help, and allows other council, mainly affluent local authorities, to "turn the other cheek."

They also said that the decision of where to send refugees is done with little or no cooperation with local councils, and done with a private company, Serco.

Slamming the "broken system", Mr Brookfield explained why they are taking the Home Office and Home Secretary to court at a full Wolverhampton council meeting on Wednesday (September 15): "We've always played our role as a city of sanctuary status. More recently people will have seen the horrible pictures from Afghanistan.

"Three or four months ago, when this was first identified, the leaders of the West Midlands pledged we would help 750 people straight away.

"We recognise the Afghan refugees had worked solidly on our behalf with the British armed forces in the most appalling conditions in the most dangerous place on earth. We are happy to help.

"But what we've got with this (dispersal) scheme is somebody throwing a huge load of seeds up in the air, seeing where they land and then let them get on with it. "

'This is a failing policy. It's a broken system'
Explaining why the councils, including Coventry, have made the decision, he said: "Not a scintilla of cooperation with the local authorities, it's all done through a private company - Serco in the West Midlands.

"They block book hotels, move people in within 24-48 hours with no discussions with local authorities, no finances to help some of the most damaged people we will ever see.

"It's not good enough for us. We've had people coming in straight from the south coast with no nappies for the kids, no clothes.

"This allocation scheme is not fair because it is centred on places that are known to help and so there are towns and cities like us who are in the same position.

"And yet there are two thirds of authorities in our country who do nothing. Not one person - they turn the other cheek. Mainly affluent authorities.

"For myself and the leaders of Walsall, Dudley, Stoke, Birmingham, Coventry and Sandwell - enough is enough.

"This is a failing policy. It's a broken system."

Mr Brookfield explained the move will see all s even councils take the Home Office and Home Secretary to High Court, and refuse to take any more refugees on the dispersal scheme until they are allocated more fairly.

"We've taken the rather unusual step of seven authorities - half Labour half Conservative - taking the Home Office and Home Secretary to High Court.

"We're telling them it should be mandatory across the country - if everybody did just a little bit, this problem would not exist.

"And we have to say to them, until you fix this the seven authorities will not be accepting any more from the dispersal scheme."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The UK has a proud history of welcoming and supporting those in need of our protection.

"The Government is committed to doing everything necessary to protect the rights of asylum seekers and provide them with the safe, secure accommodation they deserve.

“We are working closely with our accommodation providers to increase the amount of Dispersed Accommodation available to us.

"We need the support of Local Authorities to do that and we are committed to working with them."

[jl5006] 17/9/2021 21:26

How can u weigh understanding?
When does understanding matter?
I guess only when u think u understand.
But unless u have the education to be able to understand/
Then u cant - though you think u can.
Just a paradox.

[utrickytrees] 17/9/2021 21:02

Stansmith has divulged his alterego...Arja. Imo the odds of there being two posters with an IQ below 60 on the same site are slim indeed.

[maxk] 17/9/2021 20:56

Yes, but it weighs more if it's in kilo's.

[scruff1] 17/9/2021 20:54

A pound o lead obviously weighs more than a pound o feathers. Always did