³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Time for a savers strike.

Fix a day on which to remove OUR cash from the banking system until th feckless and greedy borrowers, business and people, pay up something decent 6% or more.

This cut was Obviously the wrong thing to do, and as we all knew suspected the losses of this crisis are ALL to be stolen from the only decent people that had nothing to do with causing it. Their saving income stolen to give to the feckless, their value of their savings stolen by inflation all to favour feckless borrowers.

Time to revolt, savers. Remove OUR cash from the system.

I know it will cost us but less every time they steal our interest rate payments. Money under the bed is safe from subsidising the greedy people in debts they chose, to have it all now when we went without sensibly. Also safe form bank collapses.

JSG

Why is no one else concerned about the effect of these cuts in BOE lending rate on the value of the pound? We've had runs on individual British banks, how about a run on the Bank of England itself? We'll then have to ditch the pound and adopt the Euro. That is what I predict will be the next phase in the crisis, and I've managed to predict just about every step so far. Only thing I don't know is whether it's all down to greed and incompetence or part of a grand plan by unforeseen forces that want us to be a minor part of a European Superstate.

Why do the media insist on seeing the Bank of England’s base rate as a one size fits all ? Base rate is a SHORT term VARIABLE rate at which the B of E will lend to banks against the security of bills and bonds, it is liable to change every month when the committee meets.
No one in the media ever seems to mention the effect this has on mortgage interest rates. Base rate may well have come down by 1.5% today but if the recent reductions do the job they are intended to, we will stave off long term recession and rates will back on the rise sometime next year, in fact if it is anticipated that this large cut will work quicker than a series of smaller cuts we could actually see longer term fixed rates rise in the anticipation that rates will rise to more normal levels quickly, its called the yield curve and is generated not by the cost of money today but what money will costing over a period of 2, 3, 5, 10 years etc.
As for the effect on variable mortgages its all down to what you signed up to, Trackers will have a fixed percentage that they cannot be above base rate, if this was greater than the differential between the rate you were paying and the old base rate it may well be that you don’t get the full benefit passed on, but this will all be clearly stated in the mortgage documents you signed.
One other thing that no one seems to take into account that there is a cost (staff to pay etc) to the organisation that provides you with your mortgage which no matter how low rates go they will always need to recover before even they start to make a profit, the Bof E could go to Zero (or negative for that matter) but please don’t expect anyone to lend money for free.

RE James St George

I was on the show yesterday voting for a rise in interest rates (Mervyn King obviously isn't a viewer!).

I was asked to appear because I sent an email to Simon re "Savers Rights" in it I asked the question "shouldn't us savers get together" with the ultimate sanction of a mass withdrawal!

If anyone else is interested e-mail working lunch - perhaps the team could give us some publicity? It would be good for the show to be proactive in protecting the interests of so many viewers.
Please could someone from the team pass on my e-mail to James

Send you an e mail?

No I will go further.

I want to know when someone in Parliament is going to champion the cause of of the DISPOSSESSED and the SOON TO BE DISPOSSESSED and the SCARED-STIFF-OF-BEING-DISPOSSESSED.

This is LIBERTARIAN:

"Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty"

Note in particular!

".. that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty.."


I SAT NEXT TO A SELF-PROCLAIMED LIBERTARIAN IN THE LAST ELECTION CAMPAIGN AT A HUSTINGS MEETING IN SLEAFORD LINCS.

His name was Douglas Hogg.

Even though I have met him and shaken his hand and campaigned fairly against him and sat next to him in a Parliamentary campaign and even though he is a QC I have been unable to persuade him to do ANYTHING to stop the dispossession.

DISPOSSESSION

"To deprive (another) of the possession or occupancy of something, such as real property.."

He, the Libertarian, thinks it is wrong to distinguish between the:

"undeserving poor and the deserving poor"


WHO MADE THESE PEOPLE POOR?


This is being repeated all over Britain. Where are our MPs. If they are not campaigning against the TRAINWRECK taking place in our county courts they are working on something LESS IMPORTANT.

"Go to the Citizens Advice Bureau there is nothing I can do" said Cons MP Edward Leigh to one hard-working member of his Gainsborough Constituency.


THIS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE. THIS IS A MASSIVE FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY AND AN INDICTMENT OF EVERYONE AT WESTMINSTER.


GC

#1 and #5
interesting how those who claim to have so much knowledge can have such contrary views.

#6, not contrary at all.

Just completely different topics. I am neither campaigning for nor against savers.

GC

Completely different topics ?
One wants the banks to keep their money safe and pay higher interest rates to savers (6% or more) and the other wants banks to lend money cheaply and not seek repossession when borrowers default.
Hows that going to work then ?

davidroots

There do seem to be more than the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and such like want to admit who want rises not falls in rates, current official attitude is lunacy, they all admit too low rates got us here, so their solution is grossly lower rates, clear nonsense. All the costs are coming out of savers. Millions of often older people now have vastly Less to spend in the economy, much more of their spending is here not on imports, holidays and the like too. Unlike th greedy indebted, who are getting all the help out of saver's money.

See the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ have your say all top recommended post all for higher rates. 'How will the reduction in interest rates affect you? '



Bad business and bad people have too much debt, Good businesses have none, why aid the bad ones only, at the expense of the good?

If in the USA with 1% I would have my cash out already, I do like the idea of creating a run on banks by savers until we are decently treated. Wider why would all the cash rich lands put their money into our system at such prices?

Labour caused this deliberately, engineered by false inflation numbers excluding house prices, for re-election feel good factor. Now they are trying to re-inflate the housing bubble, when we all know the house prices have to halve from their highs, and not to think of buying till they do.

Double rates to 8-10% and halve house prices for sanity and sense. Smaller mortgages but more expensive to service, maintaining sensible house prices and making the daft increases again much harder to fund.



JamesStGeorge

Sadbloke

Guycroft may be well meaning but wrong. People should not be left to keep houses or anything at all if they do not pay for it. Once such non evictions became known anyone would grab the biggest best house on the biggest loan they could arrange and then never pay, sitting pretty in the house, plain can not work. You can not be 'dispossessed' of something you have not paid for! It is not yours. Pay up, or give back.

Guycroft,

People are 'poor' principally as they spend badly.

'WHO MADE THESE PEOPLE POOR?' They did.

Easy get out of debt Labour brought in like voluntary arrangements, feed into this attitude borrow and never pay back. No one should Ever be let off paying back what they borrow at all, they are entitled to no 'life' at all untill they do. They might then be more careful!

As much as I disagree with Guy Crofts ideas I can at least see that some would benefit (although in my opinion I do not believe anyone should benefit from their own failings)
But as for creating a run on the banks, just how do you think that would benefit anyone ?
I would also ask where you generate your number of 6% or more what do you base this on, what kind of investment, how much risk, how long are you willing to tie your money up for and why would this be a fair return ?
Half house prices and double rates ? Well actually this would have no effect on the amount required to service the loans and with a lower initial cost could actual encourage more to borrow, it would also have the effect of reducing the amount of money the banks required which in turn would reduce their requirement to use your money and therefore, you wouldn’t be pulling your money out of the bank they would be telling you they don’t need it !

sadbloke

Ordinary deposits no risk savings the base rate needs to be 6% or more as a normal level. Less is just not on with any inflation to counter and tax on it all. Not at all unreasonable. So a minimum of 5% after tax above real inflation as normal. Preferably more never ever less. Such a balance would be fair to both saver and borrower.

Never forget the entire mess we are all in was caused by way too low interest rates for decades. Lessons need to be learnt and interest re-balanced generally higher than recent decade's folly. Cheap borrowing is bad borrowing requiring less consideration, personal and business.

Absolutely right the total cost must not be much different just the proportions, so more on interest less on house price. As it has to absorb incomes in the same way, that is the function of house prices. If houses cost as little as a car people would not need to work half so much, government cannot have that.

Hopefully the mere threat of creating a bank run by savers would re balance the influence to where is should be, rewarding the good decent people who did all the right things fairly and not as now pandering to those that over borrowed and failed to pay it back for a have it all now greedy attitude, now instead it is devaluing saver's money and stealing their interest income to give away to the bad.

I was wrong you and guy croft are not so far apart
You expect to be paid in the region of 10% (5% above inflation after tax) for RISK free lending
Guy wants people who default not to face repossession.
Seems to me you both want something for nothing.

Very far from nothing sadbloke, for the use of saver's money. Please note I paid a mortgage when rates were over 10%, and most of the time far far higher than of recent years. So it is not at all unreasonable, and it was no problem to pay on below average income of the time!

But StGeorge the problem is you want NO RISK and still expect a top return , I have no problem with obtaining as high as rate as possible for any investment but the risk involved must be reflected in the rate paid, it seems what you want is for someone else to take all the risk while you profit from a high rate of return, if you could achieve the kind of return you are talking about without risk why would anybody take any risk at all, that includes the banks and finance companies if they could grow money at 10% without risk don’t you think they would be doing it !
In my opinion we have already gone too far in protecting up to 50K for everybody, all those who put their money in Iceland did it for one reason, a better return and therefore I see no reason why they should be bailed out to the same extent.
My argument is that just like GuyCroft who is happy to see people make financial decisions and not suffer the consequences; you also seem to want to have the benefits without any consequences.
And yes I too have paid 10% plus for my mortgage, but just because that’s how it was in the past doesn’t make it right now.

Does anyone else feel the same as I do that democracy is dead in water? My understanding of the right to consensual government in the UK was based morally and constitutionally on a free market economy. The events of the last few weeks put this in doubt in my mind(excluding the speaker of the house debacle, and that in itself is mind-numbingly terrifying). It appears to me that my fellow countryman Mr Brown has lost the plot big time if he thinks that folk with savings of any sort would not consider mass withdrawals from financial institutions for the way they are being treated for being prudent about looking after their affairs. It would appear that we should all have declared ourselves bankrupt several times over during our lifetime and none of us would have anything at all to worry about. If there were a concerted effort to have a day of mass withdrawals count me in, I know there is not a lot to be gained by this action, but yet again there is precious little to lose either. It might however make this inept country sit up and take notice of the quite man/woman.