Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[stonedyou] 16/6/2024 09:01

Houthis launch series of maritime attacks on 3 ships in Red and Arab Seas

ALBAWABA- Houthi military spokesman, Yahya Saree, confirmed the attacks, stating that three military operations were conducted within 24 hours.

Saree detailed the operations: the first targeted the ship Verbena in the Arabian Sea, the second targeted the Seaguardian vessel in the Red Sea, and the third targeted the ship Athina, also in the Red Sea. All three vessels were reportedly hit directly.

The Houthi-run Yemeni Armed Forces claimed these operations were carried out in support of Gaza. The escalation raises significant concerns about maritime security in the region.

The US Central Command reported that the Houthis hit a Ukrainian cargo tanker in the Gulf of Aden with two cruise missiles.

Also Read
Ship sinks in Red Sea after small boat attack: Houthis suspected Hezbollah launches massive drone and missile attacks on Israeli military sites

[xxxxxy] 16/6/2024 08:49

Gordon Brown and Nigel Farage are not usually political bedfellows.Yet in an unexpected turn of events, both the former Labour prime minister and the new leader of Reform want the next government to take the same step: slash the money paid by the Bank of England to commercial banks.A technical change to the way the Bank works could save taxpayers billions – something that looks increasingly attractive as public finances remain tight. Speculation is mounting that Reeves will find the policy simply too tempting to ignore if Labour wins power.But commercial banks that would lose out from the change warn the policy risks leading to higher mortgage rates – in effect making it a stealth tax on homeowners.At issue is the way high street lenders earn interest themselves. Commercial banks need a bank – and Threadneedle Street plays that role. It pays the base interest rate on all the cash stored, an important mechanism for transferring monetary policy into the real economy....Daily Telegraph

[gbh2] 16/6/2024 08:44

The turmoil caused by the possibility of a Labour government is making trading easy and lucrative :)

[scruff1] 15/6/2024 23:16

Good meme someone sent me. Sunak dressed as Del boy complete with fat cigar and the words 'No income tax, no Sky TV'

[scruff1] 15/6/2024 23:09

I thought she were a toolmaker. Or was that someone else or is she married to a tool?

[gotnorolex] 15/6/2024 23:02

You are probably right tricky Carson "It's the way I tell them!" must have been Starmer's mentor!
There will still be state assisted Choir schools when Labour smack 20% VAT on Independent schools. The London Oratory being one of them where hypocrite Blair sent his kids who were given places by dint of No10 privilege and very certainly not because they had Angelic voices!

[gotnorolex] 15/6/2024 22:02

scruff developers would love to get their hands on The Tavistock. Belsize Lane 3 bed flats on the market for three million plus!

[utrickytrees] 15/6/2024 19:53

NHS is a fraud like everything else in this country its under foreign ownership.

[utrickytrees] 15/6/2024 19:36

Most normo tories will feel that betrayed that instinctively they will prioritise revenge over duty. Unless the Tories are made to suffer the consequences of their inactions we are on an ever decreasing circle into oblivion. Vive Ange!!

[stonedyou] 15/6/2024 16:30

A top US senator has betrayed Washington’s worst kept secret about Ukraine

Lindsey Graham spoke the quiet part out loud when he said the country is a “gold mine” America can’t afford to lose


By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory


US Senator Lindsey Graham, a reliably hawkish Republican who loves provocative statements, has caused a fresh stir by saying the quiet part out loud. In a recent interview on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Graham argued that Washington must not permit Russia to win the war in Ukraine because of the rich deposits of critical minerals on Ukraine’s territory, which are worth 10 to 12 trillion dollars, according to the senator.

In particular, Graham made three claims: First, that Russian control over this “gold mine” would enrich Moscow and enable it to share the extracted minerals with China; second, that Ukraine, if it retains control over them, could be “the richest country in all of Europe” and “the best business partner we ever dreamed of”; and, third, that therefore the outcome of the war in Ukraine is a “very big deal.” Indeed, according to Graham, the stakes are so high that the US must help Kiev win “a war we can’t afford to lose.”

There were other striking statements in that interview, but it is this passage that has attracted most attention and condemnation: Graham, critics point out, has revealed what the Hindustan Times, for instance, calls the “real reason why the US is aiding Ukraine.” That reason, as it turns out, is commercial, selfish, and strategic. So much for all that talk about Kiev’s “agency,”; “democracy,221; and “freedom.̶1;

Ukraine, for the US, is an asset to be used – and used up – in a much greater, global geopolitical game, or to be precise a collection of assets: Apart from a strategic location, critical minerals, black-earth soil, and some gas as well, there are, of course, people. Graham also has a record of calling for more military mobilization in Ukraine. He is infamous as well for his May 2023 comment, in a conversation with Vladimir Zelensky, that “Russians are dying” in the war, while US aid was the “best money we’ve ever spent.” Apart from the general nastiness of Graham’s proudly brutal way of thinking, to make those Russians “die,” plenty of Ukrainians, of course, have to die as well. Zelensky did not seem to mind.

Graham’s critics are, of course, correct. But most of them, I suspect, would also acknowledge that there is nothing surprising or unique here. In essence, the senator’s statement is simply a form of brutal honesty: While he is provocatively shameless about his cold and mercenary approach to politics, he represents the mindset of the Washington elite. At the same time, however, there is also something deeply misleading about his position, if in less obvious ways. Let’s try to separate the cynical frankness from the persisting dishonesty.

Disregarding his specific figures, Graham is right that, unlike most other European countries, Ukraine has substantial reserves of critical minerals, and there is no doubt that these raw materials are of great significance. In general, the term refers to “elements necessary to produce the chips and batteries found in high-tech devices such as smartphones and laptops” and “for the manufacturing of renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines, electric vehicles and solar panels.” At the same time, the global supply of many critical minerals is complicated because they are concentrated in limited locations, which makes them objects of geopolitics. Oil 2.0, if you wish.

The importance of these substances for the US, for instance, is so great that its Secretary of Energy has established a precise list of 50 minerals considered “critical̶1; (mostly overlapping with a second list of 18 “critical materials for energy”). Driven by its desire to diminish its reliance on China, the EU as well has shown intense interest in Ukraine’s critical minerals, which are at the core of its official strategic partnership on raw materials with Kiev, formally set up in 2021. Since 2022, the Ukrainian Geological Survey has partnered with the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, to, in essence, catalogue and digitize Ukrainian deposits for Western investors. Ukraine’s environmental impact assessments rules have been “simplified221; for the purpose, that is, most likely, loosened. In 2024, the EU solidified these operations with its Critical Raw Materials Act.

At the same time, even despite the ongoing war, international investors from the West have already been lining up, including from as far away as Australia. Indeed, it is an American-Ukrainian venture, the BGV Group, “that has the largest and most diverse stake in Ukraine’s critical minerals.”

So, here is the first point Graham is wrong about: If anyone has been busy securing Ukraine’s critical minerals (and, more broadly, materials), it is actually the West. We see a classic case of projection, with a loud accusation directed at Moscow betraying what the West has been up to. Nothing very surprising there, either. Consider “spheres of influence,” for instance, a thing Russia must not be allowed to claim – even right up on its border – while that of the US extends to east of Kiev and Taiwan, for instance.

Yet there is a larger point here, beyond the senator’s run-of-the-mill hypocrisy. What is perhaps most fundamentally misleading about his claims is their implicit premise, namely that there cannot be a way in which the West and Russia – and others – could share Ukraine’s resources, obviously under conditions of international trade and investment no worse than usual, so that Ukraine as well would benefit. It is not Russia that has insisted on making economic warfare a routine tool of geopolitical competition, but the West. Graham is not only a rather vile cynic. He is also shortsighted; blinded by his poor man’s realpolitik. He has lost sight of the simple option of cooperation, even among competitors. In that respect as well, he is representative of America’s sadly declining elite.

[joestalin] 15/6/2024 16:14

From Migration Watch:-

This week, the Labour party released their manifesto, and as we expected, there was much of what we have been hearing for some time about illegal Channel crossings - ‘go after the criminal gangs’ and ‘create a new Border Security Command’, and ‘smash the gangs’. They will also, ‘fast-track removals to safe countries people who do not have the right to stay here…… and negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to.'

Really? Are these safe countries that we already have agreements with or are the agreements yet to be negotiated? They are of course also going to dismantle the Rwanda plan. Having come this far with it and after millions of taxpayers’ money on the scheme, one would have thought it at least worth a try to see if it works. Surely, the taxpayer is owed that at least.

So much of what Labour are proposing is either already being done or will have the effect of drawing in more migrants – like swifter clearance, which will amount to asylum or leave to remain on the nod for those from areas of the world they can’t be sent back to. And asylum in all but name for those in the queue, now around 35,000.

As for legal immigration - the much bigger problem, (we heard just three weeks ago that the provisional figure for the whole of 2023 was a colossal (net) 685,000) - there was little of substance on how it would be reduced, beyond ‘reforming the points-based immigration system so that it is fair and properly managed, with appropriate restrictions on visas, and by linking immigration and skills policy. They will also, ‘not tolerate employers or recruitment agencies abusing the visa system.’ Or, ‘stand for breaches of employment law.’

We do not believe that any of this will have much impact on the present scale of immigration. Moreover, any limited impact will be slow in coming. We do not see net migration falling below half a million during the next parliament. While net migration of 600,000 will be adding the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham every two years.

One thing that struck us about what was in Labour’s manifesto was its similarity in what was in the 2019 Tory manifesto:

‘Only by establishing immigration controls and ending freedom of movement will we be able to attract the high-skilled workers we need to contribute to our economy, our communities and our public services. There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down.’ Look where that got us.

The Conservatives, who appear to have accepted that they are in for a drubbing on 4th July, published their manifesto two days earlier. It included the commitment ‘to stop the boats’ by persevering with their Rwanda plan, and to reduce legal migration by introducing a cap, something we at MW have been calling for, for at least four years – as we mentioned in last week’s newsletter. As Mike Jones, our executive director, said on first reading the manifesto, “too little, too late.” Here’s our press release and comment.

Forgive us if we gloss over the LibDems on immigration – little point. Same with the SNP, Greens or Plaid Cymru. But what about Reform, who, it seems, have overtaken the Tories in the polls? They are, after all, now claiming they will be the real opposition to the next government. Be that as it may, what one can say is that they do appear to be alone in capturing the mood of the majority on the issue of immigration and how to reduce it.

They propose to cut it by applying a cap that will be equal to the number of people leaving the country. As already mentioned, we believe a cap is essential for immigration to be reduced. What we are not sure about is how ‘one in one out’, as Reform are suggesting, would work in practice. However, what we do go along with is that without a cap, there is little chance of reducing net migration (what determines population growth) to the sort of levels that will lead to our population settling at manageable levels.

We have another three weeks of debates, claims and counterclaims. Will we hear anything convincing or workable from Labour or the Tories on how the current catastrophic levels of immigration will be reduced? We doubt it.

[hardup1] 15/6/2024 15:17

"Labour capital gains tax on main homes not ruled out
Good luck all"
It has been reported in the media that Kier Starmer has guaranteed that Labour will not introduce capital gains tax on main homes.

[utrickytrees] 15/6/2024 13:38

They're redeploying a camera on the back of the Jock onion bag to better capture the action areas.

[scruff1] 15/6/2024 13:12

Labours not for profit economy. Should be the end of taxation then. Soooooper. Bet BP and Shell are already working out ways of not making a profit in the UK or ensuring that Bonnie Ange And Clyde Kneel cant get their grubby mits on it. Ditto anyone else with a good stash. Its not hard to see the result being the usual huge hole in the budget that can only be filled by the usual whipping boys - those working but not wealthy and not on benefits.

[bargainsniper] 15/6/2024 13:03

How Gordon Brown could tempt Labour into a stealth ‘mortgage tax’

Ex-PM’s proposal to save £3bn a year risks a backlash on homeowners

A technical change to the way the Bank works could save taxpayers billions slasing the money paid by the Bank of England to commercial banks.– something that looks increasingly attractive as public finances remain tight. Speculation is mounting that Reeves will find the policy simply too tempting to ignore if Labour wins power.
But commercial banks that would lose out from the change warn the policy risks leading to higher mortgage rates – in effect making it a stealth tax on homeowners.

[psychochopper] 15/6/2024 12:58

Could not watch the match live last night owing to a previous engagement. So got home at 23.05hrs, made a coffee, and watched the recording. I was wondering if the match had been called off, because by watching at 12x speed, all that happened was that goals were being scored - an avalanche of goals - and I imagined that they were showing highlights of all Scotland’s previous World Cup and European experiences.

Anyway, I got up this morning to find out that there had indeed been a match “played” (well, it took place, I suppose), and it was a real match that I had quickly scanned. I’m still laughing.

[bargainsniper] 15/6/2024 10:54

Labour capital gains tax on main homes not ruled outGood luck all