One would be naive to believe that the Government which effectively “owns” Natwest, is not in the enviable position of both being able to manipulate or pressurise Natwest into doing precisely what it wants the bank to do. But as is constantly explained, their/our shareholding is at “arms-length” and thus the bank’s activities are in fact simply interpretations of the regulations and guidelines of The Bank of England, FCA, PRA, FPC, HMRC, and so on and so forth. It might also be naive to think that The Treasury wonks have decided that it might be able to eliminate the (Not-to-be-called-Black-for-fear-of-offence) Illicit Economy by eliminating cash. This they would argue, has the benefit of not only increasing income tax revenues but also ensuring that those working for example in the many cash-only Take-Away restaurants, the Notting Hill and Glasgow Shebeens, all the “Dailies”, Gardeners and Men (or indeed any of the other 50+ gender identity types shown HERE) with Vans might feel less inclined to claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
However, the government cannot say we are doing away with cash – largely because the ECB, the general public and people with an IQ higher than custard, think it should be kept. Their entirely reasonable thinking is that:
- It ensures your freedom and autonomy. Banknotes and coins are the only form of money that people can keep without involving a third party. You don’t need access to equipment, the internet or electricity to pay with cash, meaning it can be used when the power is down or if you lose your card.
- It’s legal tender. Creditors, such as shops and restaurants, cannot refuse cash, unless both they and the customer have agreed on another means of payment in advance.
- It ensures your privacy. Cash transactions respect our fundamental right to have our privacy, data and identity protected in financial matters.
- It’s inclusive. Cash provides payment and savings options for people with limited or no access to digital money, making it crucial for the inclusion of socially vulnerable citizens such as the elderly or lower-income groups.
- It helps you keep track of your expenses. Cash allows you to keep closer control of your spending, for example by preventing you from overspending.
- It’s fast. Banknotes and coins settle a payment instantly.
- It’s secure. Cash has proven to be secure in terms of cybercrime, fraud and counterfeiting. And, as it’s central bank money, it doesn’t entail financial risks for either the payer or the payee.
- It’s a store of value. Cash is more than just a payment instrument. It allows people to hold money for saving purposes without default risk. It is useful for small person-to-person gifts and payments. For example, parents can entrust small amounts of cash to their children for small purchases, or a person can give a friend or acquaintance cash to purchase something on their behalf.
- Cash also contributes to the financial literacy of children.
Personally, I am fond of cash which I regularly surrender at Tote windows – and expect on the rare occasions that a win occurs – to be paid back in cash. I also give it to the seemingly countless hordes of children passing themselves off as relatives, or the offspring of chums, who might come and sweep the garden badly or dust the books in the East-Wing Library without putting them back on the shelves, or clean the pond one hasn’t got, and to whom you are obliged to give a tenner for doing naff-all.
There is however an apparent quid pro quo from GoneWest Bank’s conniving, which is that they are to be allowed to decide with whom they bank – based on a set of moral values set down by Oliver Cromwell and Greta Thunderberg. This, according to Alicia Hybrid-Scatter-Cushion, head of Diversity, Inclusivity and Cranial Envelopment for the Young (DICEY) at GoneWest, will mean that the bank will always attract the brightest and the best from a wide range of Geography 2-2s gained at Basingstoke. They will quickly be fully enabled to manage other people’s money, based on moral certitude, rather than ROI. This was made apparent over the weekend when all the swipe card machines at The Old Westhanger and Aldershot Gazehounds Hunt Country Fair, were turned off because the words Hunt and Hounds appeared in the Title. The fact that hunting doesn’t happen anymore and that The Old Westies last bought down some old badger in 1965 and that they have had neither hounds nor badgers in the 400 hectares on either side of the M62 they haven’t hunted for 30 years, is neither here nor there. Both they and all the charities they support, and all those little ankle-biters’ ice cream funds are consigned to the Dustbin by our brave new world.
Meanwhile in other news:
We didn’t do badly at Goodwood – in fact after five days and making selections in almost every race including ones that were abandoned, we made a 6.63 pt profit! That is the hourly earnings equivalent of a man making and selling beedie cigarettes by the road in Bangladesh during the monsoon We started keeping records in 2021 with a 1000 pt bank. and according to our Excel spreadsheet – which can be found HERE – we have 419.64 pts left. That also represents a loss of 100.52 profits for the YTD. Must do better – but it’s still cheaper than shooting, yachting and stamp-collecting!
And finally in Golf, we have the St Jude Championship part of the Fed-Ex Cup playoffs, which starts today.
Sandy Lane, Raceweb’s Bajan-based golfing correspondent and Stapleford bandit Our new golfing correspondent suggests the following:
The ‘Big Four’: TOM KIM (aka Joohyung Kim) [33] – JON RAHM [9] – MAX HOMA [33] – COLLIN MORIKAWA [22]
Next Best: SAM BURNS [33] – TONY FINAU [33]
The current best odds are shown in brackets
I don’t disagree with Sandy entirely – but my two against the field are RICKI FOWLER [28] 3 pts e/w and VICTOR HOVLAND [20] 2 pts e/w
I think RAHM 4 pts Win is a good shout and I also fancy SAM BURNS 3 pts e/w will do well.