´óÏó´«Ã½

As the economy flounders on the rocks, businesses go to the wall and good honest working people lose their jobs we can tell what Gordon Brown has been thinking about - yes, he's had his teeth whitened

Hi Nick,
Why is gordon brown helping small firms by giving them money?

Are the conservatives and Liberals for or against the idea of lending to businesses?

Although it is NOT business facing - dont we already have a nationalised national bank of course - the remnants of the old Girobank - repackaged by Alliance and Leicester and trading under the Post Office umberella.

Someone in my opinion has missed a trick here - create a nationalised bank into which as happens now not only Post Office accounts are directed e.g child benefit,benefits in general,small savings accounts but also target an arm of it on "small" business - if the small element could be quantified on to a local level - thenpart of the offering could be for small business to provide effectively sub post - office type counters in every town,village and hamlet in the Country NOT now covered by a post office in name.

I appreciate this is very generic thinking BUT it would be a political vote winner and provide an excellnt public service at little real cost for anyone with the balls to do it....certainly be something they grey and rural vote would jump at!....

Yes we probably will see a national bank.


But what of the billions and billions the Government has already given the banks? It is shocking in the extreme that they haven't inserted some sort of contract and reasonable rules where the banks we are supporting are forced to lend.

Also - the government seems to be content with leaving the banks to it. Surely - with this much tax payers money at stake, the government owe the taxpayer a duty of care to oversee the banks.

With government policy we are not really seeing them reverse their mistakes which got us into the mess in the first place:

i.e. tax, spend to fuel a boom and light touch regulation

Dear Nick,
It makes absolute good commercial sence, to so, A nationalised Business Bank, for small business ONLY , great idea.

What a stupid idea! HMG could not run a brewery never mind a bank. It would cost the taxpayer a great deal more in subsidising HMG's bank with complicated "bank credits" to add to the "tax credits" and "pension credits" we already have.

Far cheaper to go into the market, buy a bank and install some HMG directors. The tax payer would loose money as the bank went down the pan but at least it should (hopefully) be limited to HMG's initial investment.

Either way, the bank would make uncommercial (high risk) loans and lose lots of money. Good risks would get a better deal from independant banks wereas HMG's bank would, in effect, be a sub-prime lender.

Nick,

I think there is clear implied agreement that the current system - whatever that is - isn't working as envisaged for businesses.

I'm not sure anyone knows whats really going on, certainly Gordon Brown hasn't a clue about this from his "answers" on PMQ today.

When Mandelson and Campbell have told you what is "really going on", perhaps you could enlighten us all.

Good idea.
Please get on with it quickly.

The upgrade to the Post Office IT systems that was performed in the late 1990's included a 'Universal Bank' facility.

Unfortunately, the Government inexplicably got 'cold feet' on that part of the system even though developent was going well, and insisted that it be withdrawn, even though the software had been written and I believe still currently resides in those terminals you see in your local Post Office.

Seems like a big missed opportunity now.

Still, it was only taxpayers money down the drain on that development, so who really cares (in Government).

#6 - What a typically negative raction - of course HMG would NOT run it,its highly likely they could use the PO model and develop that.

I will expand a little on my earlier point.

Such a "small business facing bank" could offer a range of benefits and services to small business - sub contracted if you like to established and reputable organisations to generate funding of its own.

Ina ddition it could be the focal point for all invoice/billing that small government makes to National and Local Government and Government based contracts and with quick clearing and quick bill/invoice payment one of the keystones of its strategy clear and speed up the processing of money and money transfer that is the biggest bugbear of any small business.

If Brown,lets be honest he is the only one currently who could make this happen could grasp the nettle then it would be a major and welcome advance.

No one is advocating a freebie - just a bank with the interests of samll business at heart open and accessible anywhere and everywhere! - wont do employment/unemployment any harm either - ??

I think a "National" bank run the government is a truly wonderful idea! Given the frequency with which public servants leave sensitive documents on train seats under this government, I will inspect them with renewed interest to find the piles of fifty pound notes left lying there. It will make travelling even our crowded trains a prospect to look forward to!!

Wow! What is going on?

Expert opinion at variance with the real life views of the public, public statements of some people being not very good at what they do, allegations of novices not being required, vote results being spun and some experts accused of not understanding their own rules.

But enough of John Seargent and SCD.... when is Gordon Brown going to face the public vote ?

being a complete dunce when it comes to economics, I bow to the assembled learned members here....but wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to cut the tax that small business have to pay? Thereby, leaving more of their own money with the business to invest in people, plant and such or just to keep the business running? Didn't somebody suggest that a week or so ago?

If they did set up a new bank, they could fund it by calling in the huge loans we've given to the existing banks with which they are seemingly doing absolutely nothing apart from sitting on the cash.

ps....after all the chat yesterday about 'the return to proper politics' and 'clear blue water' it must have been a pretty boring PMQ's if this was the most interesting thing to come out of it!

Nick

Are Brown et al going to ask the banks to give back the money we gave them to help businesses with loans, etc.,?

#3 and others, good idea. The Post Office network is an ideal place from which to run the "proposed" national banks shopfront.

However a national bank doesn't really need a counter service per se since a lot of transactions are performed electronically and via transfers etc.

The Government hasn't supported Royal Mail much to date - the only just about won a contract to keep benefits payments against PayPoint - so this would also be a good vote for the service.

Now time for another 150+ comments that go completely off topic, lambast Nick Robinson for Labour bias, ask for General Election, and say how great the Tories are! :-)

Nah it would be much better for Small businessess to go to the benefits office and claim for a loan guarantee form that they could then take to the bank.

Might as well have as many people as possible dependant on and therefore voting for the government the next election,

#11 MalcolmW2

Brilliant!! :-)

13 - middleenglandtim

I'm no economist, either, but I imagine the problem is that the businesses need the money now, and would normally get it by borrowing from a bank. Tax cuts mean money later - too late to save the business.

Nick,

I think you might be spot on with your analysis... but what on earth is DC thinking about?

If the banks aren't lending on a fair basis - one of the conditions of the bail-out, Brown claimed - then Cameron should hold the GVN accountable. After all, we as taxpayers have invested heavily in Brown's re-capitalisation plan and as such, we expect his promises to be met.

Brown took the plaudits, so Cameron should let him stew in his own juice, if the plan is failing to deliver. Highlight the failure by all means, ask the GVN to get tough, but leave it at that. There iis no need for Cameron to go any further.

Besides the idea of HM GVN running a bank is a terrible idea.

#10.

Having some knowledge of PO systems, they are already in possession of a large banking switch and use it to process card payments for welfare, national savings and an assortment of Bank of Ireland products, re-badged as PO products.

As a banking switch, it's one of the largest in Europe and manages the largest monetary flows in the country.

So the foolishness of this government trying to take Card Account off them is revealed.

Creating a 'national' bank presence through PO wouldn't take much effort.

However, establishing a bank does.

Again, another Tory and Lib Dem idea about to get stolen.

What's was that in a previous post, the opposition have no credible policies?

Yes, so lacking in credibility, the government keep stealing them.

Having worked in banking this idea is frankly crazy to form a nationalized bank for the purposes of lending to small business would be massively expensive and then if a lot of them defaulted on the loans you have an even bigger problem.

G. Browns biggest mistake was to re-capitalize the banks without taking out the toxic debt when you do this you are left propping up this debt as well as trying to lend at low rate to business and morgages. Along with this problem you have low interest rates which does not encourage investment.

Believe me when I say the risk of lending by the banks at this time to anyone who is not able to pay back is huge. Thus business will suffer for G. Browns mistake and forcing them to lend against better judgement will start the credit mountain all over again.

#12

Seriously, that's just getting boring now. It's quite ridiculous that elections are held according to the incumbent Government's wishes anyway, but people going on about Brown holding an early general election for over a year now makes it even more important that the length of a governing session are set in stone.

Nick,

Wouldn't such a National Bank fall foul of EU competition rules?

What a fantastic idea.

#15 stuartjreid

The Government hasn't supported Royal Mail much to date - the only just about won a contract to keep benefits payments against PayPoint - so this would also be a good vote for the service.



...and how do you think they managed to win this contract? By magic? Labour have not been popular since they decided that sub-post offices weren't cost effective and should close. There was such an uproar about this that GB realised he wouldn't win any votes if nobody living outside a town or city could get to their savings or draw their pensions.....enter Lord Mandleson!!

18 - Vague

Yeh understand that - but loans have to be paid back, and who knows what rate they would have to borrow at in the first place. I'd rather keep my own cash than give to HMG as tax and then borrow it back at a punitive interest rate.

Doesn't the Govt already have a bank anyway. Who owns the BoE? Why can't they lend direct to business?

I know....showing my ignorance again! :-)

Yes, very interesting all this economics stuff what we really want to know is if Tony Blair and his cronies are war criminals or not?
Let's put him on trial and find out once and for all!
I've also noticed that soldiers who have been killed are no longer mentioned at PMQs. I don't know if this is because the politicians have finally realised how tasteless it was (Possible!) or if it has come to the point where they find it convenient if they just don't mention them at all (Probable!)

"Dear Nick,

"Has ANYONE , considered the fact that, this whole financial crisis was in fact CONTRIVED, There is reason and evidence to written in Book-----THE SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE---
Did THE bankers create this problem because they Knew where it was going to end.???

Not another nationalised bank surely.

Haven't we got enough already?

Banks are lending to good solvent businesses although at higher rates.

They are the ones to judge whether a company is healthy or failing by the cash flow projections the company has to provide to the banks to get an overdraft facility or loan in the first place.

Banks never did lend to failing companies and nor should they. It would be pouring good money after bad.

Good companies will always survive for they can restructure according to the market place

In a recession others will fail because their market has all but disappeared.

You cannot buck the trend

According to Cassius, it is not intriguing - but inflationary.

You see they have got this GBP4 billion coming in from the EU and no means to get it where it is supposed to go.

If it is given to the UK banks it will just get used to prop up their balance sheets, along with the reduced bank rate, taxpayers' cash and other government institutional support.

What this is really about is the failure of Gordon Brown's rescue of the banks last month. The focus was stopping the banks going bust rather than revitalising the economy. Another Brown bodge backfiring, methinks!

Having saved the bankers' bacon, Brown now wants them to do the business for the rest of the economy. Fat chance!

I note in PMQs today in answering Nick Clegg that he drew on the example of Barclays to prove that the bankers are giving up their bonuses. No they are not! Barclays is not taking UK government money. What we need to know is anyone at HBOS, RBS, Lloyds etcetera getting bonuses this year? Answer that please Gordon?

I am sorry but I see no policy from the government at all. All we are getting are a set of ruses intended to deal with the last problem. If they didn't have Mandelson, bless him, then even that wouldn't be happening. It just isn't good enough!

What we need is a sense of direction, some idea of a plan. Until we get that there is no hope whatsover. We will just keep dropping further and further into recession. Maybe the Tories are right: there is nothing that can be done at the moment other than grin and bear it.

All that can be gleaned form this latest turn of events is that the bank bailout is still not working just like absolutely everything else that hte government has tried.

The housing market assistance has failed to free up the marlet or prevent it collapsing.

The mortgage market is still forzen.

The banking bailout has failed to stop the collapse in banking shares.

SMEs can't get interim financing.

Interest rate cuts have failed to revive consumer spending.

The car sector continues to collapse.

Meanwhile Hattie and Gordon continue to tell us not to talk the economy down...no need Hattie...it's already collapsed around your shell likes.... just like sterling.

Only one thing remains clear in all this... the fiscal 'stimulus' will be a complete failure because it is an attempt to pour a few billion into a trillion pound hole. Futile.

The withdrawal of leverage from the system is brutal and inevitable. There is nothing they can do to stop it except add billions of pounds to the bill for future generations to pay down.

Confidence has disintegratd and the only thing remaining of which to be confident is that Hazel and her thought police will soon be on to stop us reflecting these thoughts in the pretext that we are being 'dangerously subversive'.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the uK is bankrupt.

This will be one helluva mess for the tories to clear up.

Call an election.

I've said for a while they should have done this with Northern Rock, give them the money we gave to the banks and let them lend it out to the banks (generating revenue for the LIBOR rate) and small businesses so they can continue to trade.

Aparently when the Government took over NR they put into place a guideline that they were restricted on the % share of the UK loans / savings market (which is why they closed some of their bonds to new customers a couple of months back).

It seems quite typical, the government get a good idea (nationalisating NR), muck up the implimentation, throw lots of money at it (money to the banks), then try to set up at huge cost another organisation to do what should have happened in the first place.

Well government involvement here will do less damage than they've done so far with Education, Child Care, in fact every agency where their fat fingers are. It is after all, only money, and not precious lives.

Am I missing something here?

If the businesses were good credit risks, the banks would lend to them; if the banks won't lend to them, presumably they're not good credit risks. And if they aren't good credit risks, then the last thing we want is the government propping up a lot of lame ducks.

I speak as someone who lost businesses in both the 1981 and the 1988 recessions; I'm not unsympathetic to people whose businesses are going down the tubes. It's bloody tough. And a lot of businesses which would otherwise have been sound had it not been for the calamity of the irresponsibility in the banking sector which the present administration presided over.

It's a shame. It's desperately sad. But we should not be pouring good public money after bad. If these businesses are sound, they will adapt and trade through the recession. If they're not, then pumping money into them isn't going to help.

Yeah, but, now that HMG is buying huge stakes in these banks at inflated prices, they can't then be seen to be undermining our investment by undercutting the high street banks on lending rates/overdraft fees. How are we going to get our investment back if they do that (we are going to get our money back, aren't we)?

Also, most of our 'exports' seems to be financial services (never been entirely sure how you export a financial service, maybe someone can enlighten me). What happens to the balance of payments deficit when the banking sector is nationalised?

Finally, the government running a bank? Do me a favour.

If you had a car that did'nt work you would replace it with one that did.So if the banks won't do what they are supposed todo get a bank that will lend money.

I don't want a subsidised loan - my buisness doesn't have debt.

I want low tax.

If I can borrow the money, and put it on deposit at a profit, I guess that would be OK.

Maybe I could use a loan to start up a loan-shark division.

Nick says what's really going on?

Well, I just heard a young lady who described herself as spokewoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes say that the Government are trying to do it by the back door.

Quite.

Another one to add to their long list of sins.

Poprishchin @ 27

I absolutely agree with you we dont seem to be hearing anything about this report. Looks as though T. Blair is going to get away with another illegal act.

Labour seems to be bullet proof.

It would be nice to see some critisism of the lack of answers from Brown. In fact it would be nice to see some "analysis" of browns performance at PMQs, instead of just slating the opposition.

I watch PMQs every week and am still waiting to hear Brown give a straight answer to anything. He's sly and sneaky & seems to think his answers are smart, anyone that trusts what he says needs their heads examined.

Today he was directly asked twice why sterling has fallen. - Nothing even resembling an answer (and of course it's because the world realises the state the UK is in, even if UK voters don't yet).

When he gave the banks billions of our money, the reason was supposedly to save the financial system - not directly the banks. The deal was that they were supposed to in turn free up credit where needed and lend at the same levels as last year.

The reality of course is that the banks have used the money to fill their own black holes and to rip off "customers" with high interest rates. This is purely to regain their obscene profits.

Given that they're not playing ball, it's time Brown got some balls and told them they either play fair or they return our funds immediately. Let them go bust. If they're not passing it on they shouldn't have our support. As usual it's probably down to a "deal" that's been incompetently negotiated by government.

In amongst the financial trouble, apparently Mandelson finds it more important to comment on John Sergeant's exit from Strictly Come Dancing.

No more spin said Brown in 2007, so yep that's just the kind of important narrative we want at a time like this from the Government.

Another government contract going well then.



1. Brown uses our money to bail out banks so that they can continue to lend money at low rates.

2. Said banks decide to keep the funds and lend at much higher rates to boost profits. (who would have foreseen that EH?) I mean normally just asking someone to do something nicely works doesn’t it.

3. The government then decides to start again and do it themselves.



I heard Nick Clegg this morning toying with the idea of councils setting up banks.

Can you imagine that, councils officials running a bank !!! You think the forms are bad now!!! Imagine actually getting a decision on a mortgage. I can just hear it now, we will require 5 sets of drawings in triplicate

These people cant even empty the bins and sweep the streets and mend the roads properly.


Hilarious if it wasnt so scary.



Did you know that thanks to the new contract for GPS (another great piece of Nu Labour negotiation) Salaries have gone up 58% since 2003. Working times have actually fallen from 43 to 36 hrs a week in the same period. The average GP earns 114k per yr now with some actually taking home over 250k a year.

Nice one.

Just what we need, a Freddie/Fannie for SME's!

I think the revolution will be complete if banks were forced through legislation to compete with the proposed GSE that would be borrowing at near sovereign interest rates due to implied goverment backing.

Some of banks might have escaped full nationalisation last time but when this 'Subprime II' hits it'll be check-mate!

6. hcidata

You say..... Far cheaper to go into the market, buy a bank and install some HMG directors.



Well we have actually, quite a few actually. Brown and Darling just think that a more hands off approach and a few stern words will deliver results.

Morons

Did the government know that the banks would not loan the money given to bail them out? Was the public duped into thinking the banks would start lending again to justify the large payout?

It seems odd, that the people who are supposed to be running the country all have economic and banking backgrounds (with the exception of GB) and I wonder how many of them knew that the banks would keep the money?

Things have gone mighty quiet of late....

Nick, I never thought I would hear a sensible suggestion from the LibDems.
They are right: we don't need a national bank but funds could be made available through existing bodies such as Councils or even that huge and wasteful white elephant created by Labour and called Regional Agencies. One of their tasks should have been to help the businesses in their areas. It happens all over Europe, I cannot see why it shouldn't happen here.
I want to reassure the earlier poster that the so much spinned help so far hasn't reached the small businesses (and I doubt it will ever do). As a small business owner myself I had planned urgent renovation works to my premises. With the strong decline in business and the still unreasonable conditions proposed by the banks I postponed indefinetely the investment. If the government made funds available to me and thousand other businesses at reasonable rates (subject to strict conditions of investment within a short/medium time) we could get the economy going. Unfortunately, as they are not in touch with reality, they have recapitalized the banks so that they can carry on business, parties and bonuses as usual. Does Mr. Brown really think that anyone is going to borrow money at the banks' conditions when revenues are simply not coming in? He is the only one able to do so because at the end of the day he will get that money back from taxes. We will simply go bust.

I would very much like to see a nationalised bank. Meanwhile, it's outrageous that our money is poured into failing banks for very little return. The government should at least have a high level of control -- and should use it wisely, not in the cringing NewLab way.

31 Stanilic

Unfortunately the GDP4 billion pounds is over the next four years which is only GDB 1 billion pounds per year.

This is EU money we get back anyway and is already loaned out through the banks under the government loan guarantee scheme.

Many businesses will not take it up because the interest rate is much higher than the normal bank rate.

Like everything else it is all spin by this government. It is not new money.

yet again half hearted inept ideas that will in the end cost the tax payer dearly, but hey we voted these fools into westminster thus we are ultimatly to blame.

we need a strong self thinking government that will put the people first before companies,banks and overseas policy.

but what have we got and whats waiting nothing but self interested publicity hounds that will cause more problems and cripple this once great country further.

We should tell the banks we are Foreclosing on their loans!

#31 Regarding bankers giving up their bonuses.


Front page headline Northern Echo today "Obscene bonuses for Rock's top men" - Giving evidence to a committee of MP's NR Chairman Ron Sandler states that senior levels of the company will receive a higher rate of bonus than rank and file staff who are getting 10% salary if a quarter of HMG loan repaid- the "secret" scheme is not yet finalised but Mr Sandler didn't deny rumours senior execs could receive 30% bonus!! The highest bonus that would then be paid is £210,000! Approval of the scheme requires AD's approval but as 57% of loan has already been repaid Mr Sandler is confident that it will be approved - we will see if AD has the bottle not to approve it

Lots of good points here, but a National Bank of some kind is definitely a good idea.

But why stop at businesses? Perhaps they could offer mortgages too - ideal to slow down or even halt the housing slump and a way to let those who can afford to take advantage of realistic house prices.

I know what people here would think about that, but if someone is a proven payer and has an income and a good enough credit rating surely a nationally provided mortgage could work, and earn money for the government or the BOE. The government could even bundle in their part-ownership and key worker schemes, too.

If the new bank is run on commercial terms and has a directly accountable, and non-governmental administration that would do away with the naysayers who claim goverment incompetence.

I remember the 80s. Thacherism, privatisation, and wantant capitalism hurt those of us who weren't middle class enough. Then again, I don't remember the 70s, and the other approach :-)

Maybe we should put Gordon in charge of a whelk stall and see how he gets on with that before letting him run a bank.

39. JohnConstable

I say, old boy, that sounds rather kinky!

How will this help banks pay back the money they owe tax payer?

Nick,

I remember a certain bank which went by the name of, oh now what was it, come on Terry think about it, ah, yes got it, was it, could it have been the Trustee Savings Bank!

Now why don't we create a new bank and call it Lloyds Group, but demerge the TSB and have that as the national bank. Next they'll be privatise the ´óÏó´«Ã½ because they want them to suffer because Lord Reith supported the government during the national strike in 1926! Well that is what I think anyway.

As for the Tollpuddle martyrs, why did they not sail from Plymouth, better close what is left of the naval dockyard and transfer the work to Scotland.

I've just come back from a holiday in Europe ... very refreshing, in more ways than one. ... here are 3 cardinal rules for any regular posters to think about ..
1. Bring all banks who are the recipients of taxpayers money, under public ownership ... you know you want to ..
2. Stop reading the Daily Mail. ... you wont learn the truth that way and it'll just make you more depressed...
3. When the time comes, vote the way your conscience tells you ... that way, we'll have the first Green Party government in our history...

.. life is only a bitch if you insist on making it so ..

RE POST 27

The trial is well overdue ,i could make a long list of extra charges.

Regarding a State Bank we have one already and they were inept.

I really dont think another one would help,i hate to say this but things will need to follow their course.

The property market needs to CRASH both residential & commercial.

People need to learn to save it before they spend it.

Business etc will just have to muddle through,avoiding debt.

Every 1 pound borrowed costs circa 4 pounds to pay back,its a hard lesson.

A last ditch attempt to stave off 6 million unemployed... which won't work.

Labour isn't working.

It would appear that GB doesn't have a clue what hes doing and just piled money into the banking system with no guarantees of what they were going to do with it....

He is living in hope that somehow somethings going to turn up........

Well if we look to America who he now seems to like blaming for all the ills of the british economy, then unless something is done one of the big 3 car makers at least is going bankrupt after christmas....so theres going to be no joy from that front ????

perhaps nick you could ask him what his forecasts say for 3 months time, just when will we see the effects of his so called policy ???

mrsmiddleeng@52

Ah, that explains why NR is so aggressive in repossessing the homes of defaulting borrowers, much more so than other banks. An example yet again of targets having unforeseen consequences unless you know what you're doing.

#62

I think that this one should be moderated. What has our Nick (Nick Robinson NR) got to do with repossessing the homes of people who cannot afford to keep their homes.

#61 AqualungCumbria

perhaps nick you could ask him what his forecasts say for 3 months time, just when will we see the effects of his so called policy ???

Never mind about that, Nick. Just ask GB how he can justify giving MP's such a long Christmas Holiday when so many of us are worried about whether we'll even have a job after Christmas..!

...and while you're about it, ask Alastair exactly how he can justify giving the Bank executives a 30% bonus (which has ben reported lately)..!

The whole bloody thing stinks!

i heard the news today...oh boy.......apparently some political guy (who has been voted by the public to keep his job entertaining us,) has decided to quit because he thinks the jokes gone too far....methinks ok i can see the point ....then GORD comes on (another political guy who hasn't been voted for by the public) doesn't quit because he doesn't think the joke has gone too far...............Seargeant for PM anyone????

phoenixarisenq @ 55

I would agree that it could be interpreted that way.

However we all need a little light relief now and again.

#43 carrotsetc.
In the late 60's there was indeed a bank run by a local council - the City of Birmingham Municipal Bank and it was very successful !!. In the fullness of time and under pressure from government it was taken over by Trustee Savings Bank and the original purpose of providing a banking system for the citizens and employees of Birmingham was lost . I closed my Municipal/TSB account soon afterwards when it became more difficult to deal with them .

21 Susan Croft

well Susan you seem to have a pretty good knowledge of banking,so why dont you enlighten us about the way that you would be doing things i am not being facetious I am always open to the views of others more experienced in banking than myself. so if you have a little time let us now how you think the economical situation should be resolved.
Not what Labour have done wong, just tell us what should be done, or are you afraid that labour might steal your policies?
What you need to remember is that Dave and George havn't got a clue about what to do, so go on tell us, the Tories might adopt it, you will be doing them a favour. It's a racing certainty that they have no ideas of their own, Go on help them out. cant't wait to hear from you.

55 phoenixarisonq


#I say, old boy, that sounds rather kinky!

You have been warned about getting to excited before, go and take a cold shower.

TAG@63

My humble apologies to Nick for any confusion caused!

shellingout@64

"Just ask GB how he can justify giving MP's such a long Christmas Holiday"

So they have more time to spend and boost the economy??

54 distant travellor


#Maybe we should put Gordon in charge of a whelk stall and see how he gets on with that before letting him run a bank.

I really like whelks and the people who sell them so there would be no change there then.

If Gordon ran a whelk stall he would still be a better businessman than Cameron or Osborne.they would be more suited to running a bait shop trying to convice anglers that their artifical bait would catch more fish than fresh bait.

67. jabber_jabber

Arhhhh the good old days eh.

Do you really think a council could run a bank now.

Personally I think the less they take on the better.


The answer is simple; put directors on the boards of the banks we have already purchased and start setting policy this week.

Not rocket science is it?

72. grandantidote

Were all agreed then Gordon Brown should be running a whelk stall.

#74 carrots

.....off Beachy Head!

The Municipal Bank in Birmingham was going in the 50's,it was a thriving bank until it was taken over by the TSB.If it wasrun with the same standards as then I would definitely open an account again,I'm sure it was used by B'ham council to finance projects in the city,which might help to keep local people in or create jobs in these difficult times.

Not a single politician, not one commentator or presenter and certainly not a single 'expert' in the news has correctly identified the two interlinked problems the world is facing today:

1. The little financial difficulty: True, it started with sub-prime mortgages, BUT it is far deeper than that. After all the total of sub-prime mortgages is reported as being some $1.5 trillion, whereas Governments have so far pump close to $10 trillion into the banks. If the problem was just sub-prime mortgages, or 'banks not lending to each other', this $10 trillion cash injection would have solved in one go.

No, the problem is 'derivatives'. These dents and bets are worth some $500 trillion. Compare that to the GDP of the whole planet of just $50 trillion and you get some idea why this fantastic burden of debt can NEVER be repaid.

The only solutions are
a) hyperinflation to degrade the whole of that debt (following Zimbabwe)or
b) legal cancellation of all derivative contracts (!!) or
c) collapse of the whole financial system incl just about all banks, and starting all over again.
We need to choose one and go for it. The future is bleak whatever Gordon does, but pumping borrowed money into the economy in the utterly vain hope of recovery is just about the worst possible strategy.

2. The little problem of Energy and Growth.
Next year the world production of crude oil will, for the first time in history, decline for geological, not political or economic, reasons. Peak Gas will follow some 10 years later.

2008 is the end of the Era of Growth (as growth is predicated on the availability of cheap energy) and the start of the Era of Decline.

No matter what investment is made in oil or gas fields, the total production from 2009 onwards will decline every single year by perhaps 4%, thus our energy sources will halve every 20 years or so. This has already happened in 60 oil producing countries around the world, incl USA (1972) and UK(1999) and now, in 2009, global production will begin to decline.

The 1930s depression was bad enough, but this decline will be on a massively larger scale. To start with, it will be at least 40 years long. 40 years will take us to about 25% of current energy usage, which is what we can expect from all renewable sources combined. So at that stage, provided Governments have been wise enough to have invested massively in renewable energy, renewables may be able to take over from fossil fuels and perhaps stabilise the world economy.

So, the budget should
a) embrace the Green New Deal (£50 billion per year invested in renewables)
b) forget about tax cuts or other increases in current spending
c) choose a strategy for the self inflicted financial crisis - and follow through