He's a right Darling

[empip]

... Darling has backed down from his £100,000 pledge under pressure from banks and the Association of British Insurers, which said it would distort the market.
The ABI had suggested a guarantee of just £30,000, arguing that level would be enough to cover 98pc of savers in the UK. Anything higher could encourage people to put their money into savings accounts, rather than investment products, .... the £35,000 guarantee that comes into effect today means only an extra £3,300 of savers' money is protected...

More manipulation ...

No mention of time - The yanks make a point of their compensation being paid 'within days'...

It is a wonder Mr Darling did not decide to fine anyone with more than £35k savings !! He along with chubby Kelly, just love the 'fine 'em' mentality.

 

[tim west]

Or perhaps he is listening to the advice of those that are more knowledgeable or specialist in the field of finance?

 

[JohnD]

Or perhaps he is listening to the advice of those that are more likely to have to foot the bill?

Once upon a time, car manufacturers lobbied against seat belts, and transport firms lobbied against restrictions on drivers' hours.

Cigarette manufacturers are always against controls on cigarette advertising or sales to young people.

 

[tim west]

Or perhaps he is listening to the advice of those that are more likely to have to foot the bill?

I would have thought that to be the taxpayer rather than the banking fraternity?

 

[JohnD]

would you really?

 

[tim west]

It normally is the taxpayer that funds the governments coffers.

 

[JohnD]

wrong

example

"The investor protection scheme provided for in the Building Societies Act 1986 gives those who have invested money in a building society which has become insolvent the right to receive a payment from a fund to which all authorised building societies are required to contribute."
http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19871349_en_1.htm

same with claims agains uninsured motorists when they kill or cripple you

example:
"The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is a safety net for customers of financial services firms. It pays compensation if an authorised firm is unable to pay claims against it, usually because it has gone out of business. The Scheme is funded by the industry and covers deposits, insurance and investments"
http://freespace.virgin.net/bank.help/Facts/documents/7349.html

 

[tim west]

But that is different to the governments guarantee pledge of £100,000

 

[empip]

Or perhaps he is listening to the advice of those that are more knowledgeable or specialist in the field of finance?

And when did such people - as they must exist - do anything for other than their vested interests?

The compensation limits for the new Scheme are: Deposits 31,700 (100% of 2,000 and 90% of 33,000); Investments 48,000 (100% of 30,000 and 90% of next 20,000); Longterm insurance at least 90% of the value of the policyholders guaranteed fund at the date of default; General Insurance, compulsory, 100% of valid claim/unexpired premiums, non compulsory, 100% of the first 2,000 of valid claim/unexpired premiums and 90% of the remainder of the claim.

Funny that, how at least inflation is added to our bills, but the payback for default remains stagnant.

 

[JohnD]

But that is different to the governments guarantee pledge of £100,000

explain please

p.s. you mean his non-pledge

Darling raises savings protection to £35,000
Alistair Darling on Monday announced changes to the deposit insurance scheme that will protect £35,000 of each person’s savings if a bank goes bust. But he drew immediate flak from critics who claimed he was retreating from a pledge to set a ceiling of £100,000.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09d4f216-706b-11dc-a6d1-0000779fd2ac.html

 

[tim west]

The way I understood it, the government took the president decision to guarantee from it's own coffers(or the bank of englands) the crashing of any bank.

What you are talking about are schemes set up between banks, societies to underwrite themselves.

therefore when i said it was the taxpayer that would have footed the bill I meant the money would have come from funds accumalated from tax rather than from any banks insurance scheme.

Hope that clears it up

 

[JohnD]

The way I understood it, the government took the president decision to guarantee from it's own coffers(or the bank of englands) the crashing of any bank.

I haven't seen that. Was it in the papers?

The BoE made an exceptional guarantee to Northern Rock depositors (like me ) for a limited but undefined period. Everyone else has the £35k limit, which is paid for by all the other banks (they are compelled to contribute) and not by the government, the BoE or the taxpayer. There is no government guarantee for any bank other than NR.

 

[tim west]

But I didnt say it was for others ok i take it back i did. in my last statement i shouldnt have put all banks, i was making the point of where the money was coming from rather than who to

 

[tim west]

Or perhaps he is listening to the advice of those that are more knowledgeable or specialist in the field of finance?

And when did such people - as they must exist - do anything for other than their vested interests?

Sorry pip missed your comment, I would answer by saying that the level of person that government officials converse with on such policies would be in a consultancy position rather than those set to gain anything out of decisions made, it would be too open to claims of insider dealing otherwise.

 

[JohnD]

but surely "Industry representatives" means they represent the interests of the banks.

Not suggesting they personally receive bribes