Fall of the £ again

[JimX]

1 GBP =1.13835EUR this morning,

[PhotoLady]

Not unexpected given the recent turn in the election....

[josef k]

The money markets love certainty. Unfortunately that is what we haven't got following the UK election, and won't get while May remains in power. I don't see any improvement in the rate for some time.

[JimX]

See that pig fly by?

[Rita Sherry]

That's the talk at the moment Jim. Theresa May is severly wounded and, it is said, wanted to resign when the election decision first became known. Several senior Tories are urging Boris to step up to the plate. What's amazing is that there are so few 'able and competent' waiting in the wings.

On all sides

Rita

[PeteandSylvi]

Politicians don't get over themselves as they run on ego. That's why on all sides they take every opportunity for a swipe at someone else. It will gradually settle down particularly if the media get something more topical to slag off. Another Rolf Harris would help.

The most important thing I take from this election mess is that it will be May representing Britain to the EU and other world leaders. The thought of that lightweight Corbyn dealing with Merkel or Trump fills me with fear.

But back on topic, the value of the pound is, of course, not dependent on anything truly tangible but is simply a commodity in play by dealers. At present they see more opportunity to make money by marking it down, at the slightest hint of trading opportunity that will reverse. Either way and regardless of what damage they may cause, they will receive their commissions.

Pete

[Jimgward]

Mrs May is yesterday's politician. Damaged goods - for her own party. The Tories are renowned for turning on their own.

Boris would be a disaster as would Rudd. Davis would be better for Brexit,

What's needed now, is a cross-party Brexit team, led by the Tories, with the aim of a soft-brexit, but prepared to play hard ball to get it. Stay in the single market, allow all Europeans in UK to stay, keep control over new immigration and laws. Should suit everyone. But this is a country decision and not Mrs May's personal task - or anyone else's... or even any single party.

[Rita Sherry]

Mrs May is yesterday's politician. Damaged goods - for her own party. The Tories are renowned for turning on their own.

Boris would be a disaster as would Rudd. Davis would be better for Brexit,

What's needed now, is a cross-party Brexit team, led by the Tories, with the aim of a soft-brexit, but prepared to play hard ball to get it. Stay in the single market, allow all Europeans in UK to stay, keep control over new immigration and laws. Should suit everyone. But this is a country decision and not Mrs May's personal task - or anyone else's... or even any single party.

Jimgward

In the main I agree your last paragraph, in fact I have suggested it elsewhere, but I do strongly feel, given the events of the past few weeks, a very close look at who we let into the country (UK)should be a number one priority and an even closer look at those supposedly British Citizens who have returned from their training sprees with Daesh. There is already in place legislation for the former and it should not be very difficult to introduce same for the latter should there not already be provision. Any politician against such a measure can explain themselves to those who elected them whatever the colour of the party.

By the way dont worry overmuch regarding the currency markets (easy to say I know given the figures) they will adjust but watch the markets they are booming.

Rita

[PeteandSylvi]

I agree with Rita that a priority must be given to the prevention of further acts of terrorism. I have put my thoughts of a framework for dealing with this but realised that it would be very off-topic for this thread. I have therefore started another discussion thread to follow on from my thoughts called Preventing Terrorism.

I look forward to your reactions.

Pete

[smudger]

Already responded Pete.

[Jimgward]

Mrs May is yesterday's politician. Damaged goods - for her own party. The Tories are renowned for turning on their own.

Boris would be a disaster as would Rudd. Davis would be better for Brexit,

What's needed now, is a cross-party Brexit team, led by the Tories, with the aim of a soft-brexit, but prepared to play hard ball to get it. Stay in the single market, allow all Europeans in UK to stay, keep control over new immigration and laws. Should suit everyone. But this is a country decision and not Mrs May's personal task - or anyone else's... or even any single party.

Jimgward

In the main I agree your last paragraph, in fact I have suggested it elsewhere, but I do strongly feel, given the events of the past few weeks, a very close look at who we let into the country (UK)should be a number one priority and an even closer look at those supposedly British Citizens who have returned from their training sprees with Daesh. There is already in place legislation for the former and it should not be very difficult to introduce same for the latter should there not already be provision. Any politician against such a measure can explain themselves to those who elected them whatever the colour of the party.

By the way dont worry overmuch regarding the currency markets (easy to say I know given the figures) they will adjust but watch the markets they are booming.

Rita

Rita

The markets may be booming, but that helps the few. It is a false position, due to the weakness of the pound. The uk is slumping. Inflation on the increase, GDP falling, wages behind inflation, affecting spending. We could easily slip into recession, unless good news comes. The national debt, massively increasing by the day, prevents spending. The DUP deal will be a disaster. Dancing with wolves. It will endanger the UK, in particular NI. The basis of the good Friday agreement, was not UK government favouring any single party. The Tories have now undone that.

[cyprusgrump]

The markets may be booming, but that helps the few. It is a false position, due to the weakness of the pound.

This of course simply isn't true...

A booming stock market benefits the millions of 'ordinary' people that have their pension pots invested in it - not just 'the few'.

[Jimgward]

The markets may be booming, but that helps the few. It is a false position, due to the weakness of the pound.

This of course simply isn't true...

A booming stock market benefits the millions of 'ordinary' people that have their pension pots invested in it - not just 'the few'.

That doesn't put cash in the pockets of those who spend, to keep the economy working. Pensioners, largely, are past their days of spending. It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business.

[cyprusgrump]

The markets may be booming, but that helps the few. It is a false position, due to the weakness of the pound.

This of course simply isn't true...

A booming stock market benefits the millions of 'ordinary' people that have their pension pots invested in it - not just 'the few'.

That doesn't put cash in the pockets of those who spend, to keep the economy working. Pensioners, largely, are past their days of spending. It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business.

Oh please! That is just daft!

[kingfisher]

CG-Agreed- One of the many reasons the young have to resent "pensioners" aside from the fact they have had it so easy- is that they are often filthy rich and spending their children's inheritance!

[cyprusgrump]

CG-Agreed- One of the many reasons the young have to resent "pensioners" aside from the fact they have had it so easy- is that they are often filthy rich and spending their children's inheritance!

Precisely!

[Jimgward]

This of course simply isn't true...

A booming stock market benefits the millions of 'ordinary' people that have their pension pots invested in it - not just 'the few'.

That doesn't put cash in the pockets of those who spend, to keep the economy working. Pensioners, largely, are past their days of spending. It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business.

Oh please! That is just daft!

No, it's not.... while increases in value of pensions, ISAs and other investments is important to many, it doesn't give cash to the majority who are spending money on consumables, houses and so on....

[cyprusgrump]

That doesn't put cash in the pockets of those who spend, to keep the economy working. Pensioners, largely, are past their days of spending. It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business.

Oh please! That is just daft!

No, it's not.... while increases in value of pensions, ISAs and other investments is important to many, it doesn't give cash to the majority who are spending money on consumables, houses and so on....

But, but, but... We're constantly being told that we have an aging population...

More pensioners living longer and spending longer. A quick google tells me that 1 in 6 of the population are over 65.

I'm not saying they are 'the majority' but your contention that gains in the stock market only benefit 'the few' is clearly false.

[PeteandSylvi]

That doesn't put cash in the pockets of those who spend, to keep the economy working. Pensioners, largely, are past their days of spending. It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business.

Oh please! That is just daft!

No, it's not.... while increases in value of pensions, ISAs and other investments is important to many, it doesn't give cash to the majority who are spending money on consumables, houses and so on....

The majority are supposed to work for their cash. Without a stock market most major employers would not exist. But why do you underestimate the spending power of the older generation and its ever increasing proportion of the population? We all buy food, insurance, cars, furniture, white goods, gadgets, computers, clothes, medical supplies, toys for our grandkids, etc etc. Do you really think all that and accompanied taxes are insignificant?

Pete

[smudger]

"It's the younger set that keep retail, housing, car manufacturers, goods in business."

This would be the same younger set who are increasingly living back with mum and dad into their late 20s early 30s as they can't afford mortgages, cars, holidays etc?? Or rather, can't afford the standards of living which the said parents have after spending their lives working, scrimping to bring up said children, which these children now see as their right? The same younger set who voted Labour after believing Corbyn and his fools who told this younger set that they wouldn't be able to work abroad, they wouldn't be able to travel abroad, that the Labour party would abolish tuition fees??? The thing Corbyn forgot to tell this younger set was that they would have to pay for it elsewhere!!!

As someone here has already said, another damned fine reason for not giving this younger, immature and materialistic set the vote in the first place!