Local councils have 8 days to sort pay crisis due to Icelandic banks.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Poppy9 wrote: »

If council staff don't get paid it would be catastrophic. No homecare (even if it's via a private agency as no money to pay them, no residential care in either private or council owned property, no schools open as staff wages wouldn't be paid, no rubbish collected, no roads maintained, no enviromental health etc.

So what's new?

Generali

tomstickland wrote: »

You're going to be feeling very pleased with yourself!

Well it's nice to be right but I quite like England and Britain (and most of my family and friends live there) so I hope everything works out ok.

Cannon_Fodder

Poppy9 wrote: »

My LA didn't invest in Icesave but I understand that neighbouring authorities did but they were following Govt. guidelines and that it wasn't deemed overly risky.

If council staff don't get paid it would be catastrophic. No homecare (even if it's via a private agency as no money to pay them, no residential care in either private or council owned property, no schools open as staff wages wouldn't be paid, no rubbish collected, no roads maintained, no enviromental health etc.

Just another end of a Labour government, then.

I do hope people give whoever replaces them enough of a chance to put things right properly, not let them back in when things are a bit rosier...

mr_magoo_5

Be careful who you upset at the local council, because if the system goes down, they will have powers under a State of Emergency that include summary execution!

I had a check returned earlier. "Insufficient Funds".

I had to ask, Mine or the banks?

WTF?_2

I wonder if the same idiots who accused savers of putting their cash in Icesave of being 'greedy' would level the same accusation at the councils?

The simple fact is that depositing money in a bank isn't meant to be an 'investment'. It's supposed to be safe. Therefore, it makes sense to save with the bank that offers the most favourable rate. Up until the last few weeks, the notion of a complete banking collapse was unthinkable by most so it follows that the general public looking for a place to park their savings would choose somewhere like Icesave.


Seems to me that there has been a massive failure of regulation here ... all the Icelandic banks were licensed to operate in the UK and covered by the FSCS (only in part, in the case of Icesave) so how on earth could they have been operating in such a dangerous, cavalier fashion? What have those morons in the FSA been doing? As far as I can tell, their main efforts have been to try to blame the short sellers for all the woes of the markets. What a shower of idiots. :mad:

beingjdc

Generali wrote: »

Surely it would be better just to reduce the amount of the grant to reflect that.

Probably, but in authorities like Westminster (and probably Tower Hamlets these days with Canary Wharf!) you actually couldn't reduce the grant enough, they would still take in more money than their total budget, because there are simply so many businesses per person compared to the rest of the country.

PayDay

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I wonder if the same idiots who accused savers of putting their cash in Icesave of being 'greedy' would level the same accusation at the councils?

Yes. Those that have time to be councilor, are usually the type whop don't have the demanding jobs.

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The simple fact is that depositing money in a bank isn't meant to be an 'investment'. It's supposed to be safe. Therefore, it makes sense to save with the bank that offers the most favourable rate.

Many didn't read past the high rate with the Iceland banks.. They just never read how they would have to rely on the small nation to pay the first 20,000 Euros or that withdrawals could be stopped. From reading the boards. I think that some savers still don't realise what a lucky escape they had and how they could have lost 16K of their savings. Some seem more concerned about their interest.

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Up until the last few weeks, the notion of a complete banking collapse was unthinkable by most so it follows that the general public looking for a place to park their savings would choose somewhere like Icesave.

It was last March when the press brought it to the attention of Icesave savers that never read the small print.

Northern Rock, Lehmans, Bear Stearns, B&B have all failed in the last few months.

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

I'll enjoy it a lot more once I'm in Aus and no longer expected to pay for it all.

Have you got your flights booked yet?

What's to stop a lot of smaller firms moving to other EU countries and avoiding paying for it all too?

hethmar

As a lay person, I had read the high interest the Icelandic banks were paying but I felt uneasy putting money in them because I kept wondering WHERE they got their money from - there are so few resources in that country. So out of this basic naivety I restrained myself and settled for lower rates with Nationwide.

If a thicko like me could be concerned about their security HOW could the advisors of these councils have gone ahead and put billions in them. It does make you wonder if these people have ever been good at their jobs.

MissMoneypenny

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I wonder if the same idiots who accused savers of putting their cash in Icesave of being 'greedy' would level the same accusation at the councils?

The simple fact is that depositing money in a bank isn't meant to be an 'investment'. It's supposed to be safe. Therefore, it makes sense to save with the bank that offers the most favourable rate.

We have an EA in my family and he is a councilor. One of the councils where I use to live, was run by a sacked postman.:eek:

But it didn't make sense to a lot of savers (me included) to invest in in a Bank that offered the most favouable rate. It was a red flag to me and I had a lot of money to invest.

If I had thought for one moment that others on this board had money in there, I would have said something a long time age.