NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Interesting idea Betrayed.

Do you think Ivor McCandless would be part of such a thing?

Answer No . Neither would Mr Boyd.
I think it is more likely a civil servant phoned or confided with
Philip Bradfield on the instructions of a Minister.

Ivor McCandless and 'that woman' referred to in this forum by new poster Orra today have not in the slightest manner comprimised negotiations regarding a satisfactory resolution nor should they be accused of betrayal.

Toastandbutter

Thanks for your contribution Orra and......welcome to the site.

I dont see anyone suggesting the savers have been betrayed, as you mention??? what do you mean?

Also, worth nothing that Mr McCandless and friends, I understand, are PMS savers and are hardly likely to slice their own pockets open on purpose!

I know this might sound really radical, but lets reflect on another possibility.

I mean, hasnt the News Letter been pretty accurate in its reporting on PMS up until now?

What if - I mean let's just imagine for a second - that the News Letter was actually doing its job properly and uncovered the fact that the government was indeed planning to shortchange the PMS savers, despite the oft-repeated pledges from Owen Paterson, David Cameron and Nick Clegg for "a fair and just" PMS solution.

Nobody made the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government repeatedly humiliate ex-PM Gordon Brown over his hollow boast that "not a single British saver has lost a penny" during the banking crisis.

But the coalition has made this a rod for its own back.

If they conspire to offer PMS savers a solution which causes them to "lose a single penny" will they deserve to be boo'ed from to the rooftops and slammed from across the floor of the Commons that they are no better than Brown?

If they had not baited Brown on this they could not be held to account with the standard Brown set. But they have and they must face the consequences from 9500 PMS savers and their representatives.

It also has to be mentioned that the DUP has taken two years and counting to resolve this!

.....In February, the Treasury Select Committee said PMS savers had been innocent victims of government failures.

Chairman John McFall MP said: “We do not believe that, as a general rule, the taxpayer should stand behind a financial institution. However, it is clear in the case of the PMS there was a fatal regulatory gap, which no lay person could reasonably have identified.”

He called for a swift remedy and recommended that the government should consider offering a guarantee or other support to assist a commercial takeover.


Before he was elected, David Cameron said;-

"Last year we saw the Prime Minister betraying those who had done the right thing, when he boasted that 'not one British saver has lost a single penny' in the banking crisis.

"He should try telling that to investors in the PMS who worked hard, saved hard - and then saw their money disappear. Are they not British, did they not lose money, why has he forgotten about them?

"So I give you this pledge.

"If I am Prime Minister a Conservative and Unionist Government will work with the Executive here to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS.

"It's about saying we're all in this together, you've done the right thing and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded."


Now if October 20 comes and PMS savers are then told that a fair and just solution must also be fair to the British taxpayer as well as PMS savers... well I don't think that will wash very well with 9500 PMS savers.

I suggest there are only a few days left for them to make their voices heard on this.

Well Owen, what will it be? shortchanged with a sheepish face... or living up to your word?


T&B

Toastandbutter

Just in case we have forgotten, this is what Mr Paterson said last week at the Tory conference;-

“Last year, referring to the banking crisis, Gordon Brown boasted that not one British saver has lost a single penny.

“In saying this he completely ignored those investors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society who saw their money disappear.

“During the election David Cameron and I both pledged a just and fair solution to this crisis, and we have been working hard recently on this with the Northern Ireland executive, and we will honour that pledge.”


Mr Paterson, do you think you should be judged by this "not a penny lost" standard on October 20?

goodbyepci

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/deal-close-for-crisishit-savers-14974746.html

goodbyepci

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/pms-mess-must-be-sorted-out-14972902.html

crazymess

"Significant step forward" - Owen Paterson

Will outline the way forward for members by 20th October - Spending Review


Hot off the press!!!

see you got there too goodbyepci!

Orra

Why be so negative? All savers want £ for £ including myself and as I read it the letter writer in the Newsletter it comes across clearly. The Coalition have not made a 'rod for their back' with Cameron's promise made first as I understand it in an ante room in Ballymena Town Hall to senior UUP members.
The message from you contributors to the letter written was one of betrayal. Answer the points I made in my very first post and don't try imagining what some civil servant said on the phone to Bradfield, now that's imagination without substance. Wise up.

crazymess

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00v3l9p/Good_Morning_Ulster_13_10_2010


Approx 1.40 mins in

Toastandbutter

Thanks Orra

Mr Paterson said last night: "...we remain committed to ensuring a fair and just resolution which will balance the interests of members and taxpayers".

Now that sounds like savers are being softened up for something that falls short of the ideal to me.

The "just and fair" solution promised so many times has never been qualified by taxpayers' interests until now.

So yes, I do think Paterson has made a rod for his back with his baiting of Brown about "not a penny lost" boast for British savers.

You say it doesnt, but you dont give an argument to justify your opinion, so you ring pretty hollow.

How will a PMS solution which is now to be qualified by taxpayers' interests look compared to all other British savers who have not lost a penny, Orra?

You talk of "Bradfield" and his "imagination without substance"?

Are you suggesting that Mr Paterson's statement of last night is actually suggesting a full refund is in the pipeline?

Please explain your rationale?

T&B

PS I cant see that you have asked any questions so I am unable to answer any. If you ask any I will reply to them.

Toastandbutter

Orra

I have read the letter in question in yesterday's News Letter from RD again.

It nowhere suggests the previous plan B loans package is sufficient to return pound for pound, it actually raises a doubt that it will be, while you yourself contradict the letter by saying it will be "sufficient".

We dont even know what the new rescue package will look like yet and how much will be in it. The original loans package never promised a pound for poound refund, so by repeating them now RD has not made a case that a pound for pound return was ever on offer - or is now.

The PMS had approx £315m assets and the loans package was originally £175m for creditors and £51m for shareholders.

Originally there was a gap of some £100m in the PMS finances.

By all means if any of my figures are wrong please correct them, but I do not see an easy way these loans will return pound for pound.

Arthur Boyd will certainly have his work cut out over time in trying to make the PMS property portfolio, loan book and rent work hard to make up the difference, I should think.

I wholeheartedly commend Isobel and Ian's work in the lobby group; As far as I can see, everybody does, including the News Letter which has done so in many articles. There is no criticism of them that I can see.

I dont for a second think RD has betrayed PMS savers; I don't see that anyone has suggested such a thing. This seems very emotive and unncessary language among people of a common interest.

But it seems that those who are holding the politicians to close account on their promises are being turned into the enemy here.

Remember, the Treasury Select Committee said in Feb that politicians' delays in actioning a PMS solution was "a farce" and "unacceptable".

In fact the aim of such scrutiny of politicians is to extract the most possible from their promises in the interests of PMS savers.

Those who commend politicians for what they have achieved should not oppose those who also hold them to close account for what more needs to be done. Democracy is about both.

If we did not need to hold them to account there would be no need of a free press or free speech, for we would simply trust in them to be unfailing in their integrity and transparency without any checks or balances.

Sadly, we are all human and they need accountability just like the rest of us.

T&B