The key issue to understand here is that when the government made almost £900 billion of new money using the QE process that got spent into the economy via our commercial banks, like Lloyds, Barclays and Santander.
What happened as a result was that these banks ended up with over £900 billion supposedly on deposit account with the Bank of England. They are being paid Bank of England base interest rate on these deposits.
In 2021 that bank base rate was 0.1%. Even in March this year it was expected to peak at around 2% and then fall to 1.25%. Now the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a peak of 5% and then only a slight decline to 4.25% by 2027.
I used this new interest rate forecast plus forecast falls in these deposit account balances because of (unlikely to happen) plans to reverse QE to forecast how much extra interest the banks will be paid over 5 years as a result of the increase in official interest rates.
The answer is £155 billion of extra interest due over five years.
Now, in practice I accept some might need to be paid for technical reasons. So I adjusted for that. The excess payment then became to £136 billion over five years.
That is £27 billion a year on average for the next five years that the government will be paying to the commercial banks on money they never earned but were instead given because of the QE process.
Let me put this in context. £27 billion a year also happens to be the amount of increased tax a year imposed yesterday. All of that is going to our banks. They are the only people gaining from it under Hunt’s plans.
Alternatively, £27 billion was the total cuts a year imposed yesterday. And what I am suggesting is that all of those cuts were made to ensure we can pay the banks what they are not owed, but which the government wants to pay them.
This is absurd. This interest need not be paid. There is no law requiring it. Pre-2008 nothing at all was paid on these balances. I reckon 0.1% on total balances over £100bn would be more than enough to fulfil the policy goal for making payments. And that would save £136 billion.
In other words we could, by simply denying the banks their unearned gains, provide enough to protect and reinvest in the NHS and to protect and invest in education.
The government has made a choice. They have decided banks should gain. As a result they have decided people will die and children will not get the future they deserve. And they have done that so that bankers can have massive bonuses on ill-gotten income.
This ID suggestion feeds into something I have long believed would solve multiple issues in UK. A national identity card.
The resistance to this based on suspicions regarding tracking or fears based on memories of WWII in Europe are now redundant. All citizens can be tracked/monitored via their mobiles, CCTV and credit cards, travel pass etc. anyway. So, why not have a handy standardised ID, as we do in France?
A national ID could be applied for by all British citizens and new residents after a set completion of time, say 5-7 years. Before which a ‘temporary’ card could be issued. This would also greatly help immigration, border control, healthcare, employment…. Including a chip with finger print or iris recognition could extend the card for further uses.
All this does of course presuppose that the people have a governing force they trust to protect them and their freedoms, not curtail them.
There was also a constitutional objection, based on the idea that a British citizen had no need to prove the fact. I was against ID cards because of that.
Unfortunately, the scandal of the “Windrush generation” put paid to that notion.
So the British only need to identify themselves when they go abroad. Not, presumably when they turn up at the NHS. Not, if they sign on for benefits. Not, when they want to file a police complaint against anyone who is also British, and especially if they are not.
The British have but to announce their name loudly and clearly for all around them to accept whatever they choose to say they are. No proof required in Britain as long as you are British. And white. And not poor.
Well, no-one is obliged to like us, @Susannah, but I’ve always been very cautious (British understatement) of writing off any group of people because of my preconceptions about them, or my experiences with individual group members.
Again, apologies if I’m misunderstanding you. You’ve certainly misunderstood what I’ve been saying!
Has she though? I remember your thinking I had similarly misunderstood you. You know sometimes Porridge when a lot of people misunderstand you, it isn’t them you should be looking at
It’s good to assume the best of the people you interact with on a forum, because (a) we’re not all as skilled at communication as - well, let’s say as @vero - is; (b) we lack the non-verbal cues that we use in face-to-face discussion and (c) we have preconceptions.
We all have prejudices and assumptions about the world and about other people (Conservatives, Russians, PSG supporters, …), including what they must think because of the label we’ve assigned to them many of which we ourselves create, largely unconsciously. It takes a lot of effort to unlearn these but it’s well worth it, because the alternative is for people to huddle together in groups defined by how they differ from the other groups. I should be an expert in that subject, because some churches are like that.
If Bob has written something that I think is “vainglorious”, “specious” or arrogant, then - because I assume the best of him - I ask myself whether perhaps I’ve misunderstood, and so …
I would consider it courteous and wise (and something which would improve the tone of the debate rather than coarsen it) to ask for clarification.
Sorry, a bit of a treatise!
But it still beats me how anyone could think that
a reference to a peculiarity of British constitutional law
an expression of regret about how we, as a nation, treated Caribbean people who had come to the UK to create a new life
and the explanation that what had happened to those people was what changed my mind about ID cards
is in any way “vainglorious” or assuming that British people deserve special treatment.
shortly not to be so… you will need photo ID to vote in UK elections soon (if not already). IIRC a photocard DL will suffice or a bus pass or, dare I say it, a passport
Well I haven’t misunderstood him, even though I don’t agree with him in this instance, I have no objection to ID cards. But for @Susannah to bring race into the discussion as if she thinks Porridge is prejudiced because of skin colour is not worthy, and insulting.
@Porridge will probably fall over backwards, but for once I don’t disagree with him.
I’m struggling to articulate it - and perhaps it was always a little vainglorious - but pride in a society in which officialdom took you at your word, in which the police couldn’t stop you and ask for your ‘papers’ does I think have some basis. It’s a bit like police not carrying guns.
I also agree that Windrush along with many other recent changes in British society have undermined the mutual respect and freedoms Brits used to have - bearing in mind that many of the Windrush generation lived unmolested by officialdom for decades without having to prove anything - until the current Tory government made the UK ‘hostile’.
But, by that, you obviously knew who you meant. So yes, you do not know what Porridge’s stance is as you put it, but the insinuation was there that you thought it involved only white faces.
