dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 12:30:49 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. I agree with this BUT this IS what happened! Do you not remember the lengthy pre-referendum debates? Do you think anyone really knows any more today than they did then? If we really did, then Parliament would not be so split and would have come to a consensus by now. The fact that Parliament cannot come to a consensus is evidence in itself that there is no clear right or wrong answer - it is a choice and that choice was made.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 11:01:04 GMT
The BBC website has an article this morning saying 200 MP's have written to TM asking her to rule out a no deal brexit. It appears to me that this would be the kiss of death in our dealings with the EU.
The threat of no deal is the only negotiating card we have to play. Give that up and you are forced to accept whatever crumbs the EU decide to feed you.
Probably the same MPs who will never agree to any deal either. Basic negotiating leverage is irrelevant to them as they want to remain. Should be treason to continue advocating remain - only focus should be on TM deal/no deal
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 20, 2018 15:55:42 GMT
In this day and age it is sexist to speak about the male sex in such a prejudiced manner - men deserve to be treated as equals and with a bit of respect - instead of the usual age-old prejudices of men being more abusive, violent and unfaithful Is this not a case of the prejudice being in the observer ? The OP has written nothing which is suggestive of any particular gender. Yet you have assumed it to be referring to a male as the abuser ? Have I missed something ? "Jane" + "punching in face" are the main giveaways - nevertheless my sarcasm clearly leaves a lot to be desired
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 20, 2018 15:45:48 GMT
Sometimes being with Lendy feels like being in an abusive relationship. They keep promising they are going to change, you get hopeful that they are going to change, you convince yourself that they really are going to change this time. Then you get punched in the face yet again. In this day and age it is sexist to speak about the male sex in such a prejudiced manner - men deserve to be treated as equals and with a bit of respect - instead of the usual age-old prejudices of men being more abusive, violent and unfaithful. Stupid!
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 20, 2018 9:14:28 GMT
ig.com it is easy and (judging by the 15% drop today) everyone is doing it How have i missed that . Have they got Interserve listed ? Hope you got short in time. Down 20% today
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 15:51:55 GMT
ig.com it is easy and (judging by the 15% drop today) everyone is doing it How have i missed that . Have they got Interserve listed ? Yes
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 15:41:29 GMT
Another 5% hit on the share price today, now trading at sub 80. It's interesting that so many people are stating the obvious by wanting to short it but i'm not aware of a single CFD platform that has even listed this instrument yet (happy to be corrected, and make some easy money). If it was easy we all be doing it. ig.com it is easy and (judging by the 15% drop today) everyone is doing it
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 15:24:13 GMT
The only way that would work was if it was as in Scotland 🏴 Proportional representation scoring each option on first,second,third choice. That however rarely gives an overall majority. Tories don't like that AV system which is why they campaigned against it in the last referendum but one. I think they are likely to run remain against the May Deal only. Just as they thought the people were too thick to rank 1, 2 and 3 instead of putting a tick, they won't trust you to vote the May deal, which is what you are supposed to do. That was in relation to GE voting. All ref's are proportional representation anyway.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 15:22:53 GMT
I am against a second referendum but if there were to be one I think the only logical method would be to offer 3 choices with mandatory 1st/2nd preference so in effect two rounds of counting. A - No deal B - May deal C - Remain Nothing else would be even vaguely plausible. However this would give May deal a very big advantage as almost all 'Remainers' and 'no deal'ers' would choose May deal as second preference. It does however feel right that the compromise between hard and nothing would almost certainly have to win by default That wouldn't go down well with Leavers, who'd complain it was biased, 2 Leave options splitting the Leave vote, 1 Remain option. It isn't splitting the leave vote because at least one leave vote would be in the final two - and then the votes are re-counted to ensure the leave vote isn't split and that a minority cant win
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 14:19:37 GMT
I am against a second referendum but if there were to be one I think the only logical method would be to offer 3 choices with mandatory 1st/2nd preference so in effect two rounds of counting.
A - No deal B - May deal C - Remain Nothing else would be even vaguely plausible. However this would give May deal a very big advantage as almost all 'Remainers' and 'no deal'ers' would choose May deal as second preference. It does however feel right that the compromise between hard and nothing would almost certainly have to win by default
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 18, 2018 10:18:11 GMT
How about "in line with the loan agreements"? What statistics would that show? A loan agreement is a contract between two (or more) parties. All loan agreements worth the paper they are written on do have defined "events of default" (and non-payment of interest/capital when due is always included). Whether the FCA or anyone else have their own definitions is really not the point. So if the borrower is in breach of the loan agreement then the loan is in default! Right? Waiting 120 days for a duck to be called a duck is, frankly, ridiculous. Not aimed at lending works specifically who I haven't used (yet). So just another general rant Not sure that would be very helpful. Ts&Cs change and then one year wouldn't be comparable with another year. It is possible that different types of loan or categories of borrower have different terms and conditions. Also I'm not sure that a temporary spike in arrears because NatWest or some other bank has IT problems is very insightful. 45 days seems somewhat arbitrary, but not unreasonable. I would be very pleased to see some sort of harmonising of reporting across platforms. There would always be an allowance period of 7-14 days for late payments to come in - so IT glitches or other minor issues wont mean immediate default anyway. Just saying that a default is a default so calling it something else is totally incorrect. If it is more helpful to have 45/90/180 days late reflected for stats purposes that it fine but then the stats should say that. The way it currently is, one could mistakenly assume that all loan repayments are up to date unless showing as defaulted - which is clearly not the case. IMO 90 days late should be considered well beyond 'default' stage and into bad debt territory
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 12, 2018 13:55:42 GMT
So when a loan goes over 120 days overdue, or into default does it stop being in arrears? Yes - it should only be balances 45-119 days within ‘arrears’, and anything 120+ days would be recognised as a ‘default’, in line with P2PFA definitions (there is no current standard regulatory definition of default, though that may well change with the FCA Handbook changes coming from their review of the current rules). How about "in line with the loan agreements"? What statistics would that show? A loan agreement is a contract between two (or more) parties. All loan agreements worth the paper they are written on do have defined "events of default" (and non-payment of interest/capital when due is always included). Whether the FCA or anyone else have their own definitions is really not the point. So if the borrower is in breach of the loan agreement then the loan is in default! Right? Waiting 120 days for a duck to be called a duck is, frankly, ridiculous. Not aimed at lending works specifically who I haven't used (yet). So just another general rant
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 15:07:04 GMT
Exactly this - soft Brexit to represent and unite the essentially split electorate, then (if possible) negotiate a good FTA from a position of strength not weakness. But that would have required leadership and courage, of which we have had precisely zero. I keep getting the urge to use the football chant "two nil and you f***** it up". Having said that, 3-2 comebacks are rare so I wouldn't bank on remain prevailing just yet. "the referee's a w****r" may be more appropriate for you (or at least self confessed remoaners)
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 13:11:33 GMT
... but uniting can only be done by leaving and enacting the vote. So I agree remoaners are by definition not going to unite. and Remoaners do not account for half the electorate. Remainers counted for 48% - remoaners probably about 5%. Shame Parliament is not reflective of that. We would have a much better deal
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 12:55:54 GMT
N o deal was not what was presented in the referendum so has no mandate. Plus parliament (rightly) wont sanction the disaster of leaving with no deal, and it has no popular support (28% last poll). It is (and always was) a bluff that has been called. I agree we should have united, and many Remainers/MPs would have united behind a unifying leader and compromise soft Brexit plan - we didn't get that. We got a fudged half hard Brexit whilst alienating Remainers (who were 48% of voters, now likely higher). We lacked a brave or competent leader and a brave or competent opposition. It has been terrible politics all round, but seeking to blaming Remainers for it is disingenuous. That is more "remoaner" nonsense - such as people never voted to make themselves poorer. No they didnt. That because it wasnt on the ballot paper. Just like no deal, good deal, bad deal or anything else. Just LEAVE I am not blaming "Remainers" as some of us accepted that leave won and can get behind brexit to make the most of it (just like Theresa May)
|
|