´óÏó´«Ã½

There's a mutter of muted celebration in the office this morning.

The won a major award last night. Once again, it's the . This year more than ever, it is richly deserved. Record numbers of people are checking in with our business pages - as many as 2.65 million people a day. It helps make the ´óÏó´«Ã½ one of the most-read websites in the world.

And - not a single one of the team has told anyone else here about it. They are that modest. They're also too busy to crow.

So - from this desk to their desk - many congratulations.

Congrats also to the ABI Financial Programme of the Year, which is over on Radio 4. It's a must-listen every Saturday lunchtime, and its presenter is a giant in broadcasting about money and finance. I had the great pleasure of being his producer over a decade ago, and he replaced me as a business presenter when I was fired from Radio 5 Live (nothing involving answerphone messages, in case you're wondering).

He's so well regarded he was also short-listed for an individual award. I was on the shortlist as well but it was obvious I hadn't won as I first knew about being on the list was when I arrived at the dinner and read the brochure. Also, no-one had checked if I was coming. Ah well. I'll survive on the reflected glory of the greater ´óÏó´«Ã½ news machine ...

The is our main story. We'll tell you what it means if you've got your bank accounts there or do your business banking there. I've just heard the banking expert tell ´óÏó´«Ã½ News that it's "hug a Barclays boss day" because the bank's not asking British taxpayers for cash.

And we've got a Hallowe'en fright for you today. We've done the sums on how much the stock market has fallen in the last month. The value of your shares is down by more than 14 percent on average. I've been told it's the worst monthly performance in living memory.

So we're decking the studio out in Hallowe'en motifs. There's going to be a witch. And Naga's here of course. Our broomstick touches down at 1230.

The Bank of England has issued its - and it's decided that things in the banking world aren't very stable at all.

You might hope this would not come as a surprise, least of all to the Bank of England itself. After all, we're relying on the Bank to guide us through the current crisis. The Bank is doing much of the detailed work behind the scenes on the high street bank bail-outs.

Yet today's report - warning that banks will have to curb their loans to us in the years ahead - is quite different in tone from the issued just six months ago. Then, the Bank said "the most likely path ahead is that confidence will return gradually". Now it says banks need a "fundamental rethink". And in between the two reports, we had what it now calls the "biggest episode of instability since the start of World War I".

Robert Peston, our business editor, has written magnificently once again on the topic. He reckons the banks' bail-out has now cost 5 trillion pounds.

But if you're unsure of all the high-flown talk about "benign international macroeconomic conditions" or vulnerability "to credit and liquidity risks", fear not. We've got the plain English guide to the Bank of England report at 1230, or a time of your choosing after that on iPlayer or the website. If you ask in the comments, I'll post the script on the blog too.

Just a word about those numbers - I'm using the standard terms they use in the City and financial circles nowadays. By 5 trillion I mean 5,000 billion - which in turn means 5,000-thousand-million - or 5,000,000,000,000. Now to my mind, that's wrong. I was brought up using the British scientific measurements - by which 1 billion was a million-million, not the thousand-million the City uses. On that scale, a trillion is a lot more than it actually is. But who are we to argue with the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe?

The clock says 0436.

Even after 11 years of breakfast radio and TV, I don't think I've ever been at a railway station this early in the morning.

Certainly not to catch a train.

I did once spend the night on the platform at Preston station, but that was many years ago when travelling from a university interview in Edinburgh to another in Manchester the next day.

I picked the overnight sleeper as it was cheaper than a B&B. The travel agent (remember them?) didn't warn me about the change at Preston just after 3am.

Let's just say I'm better at geography now.

Why so early today? I went to Leeds last night to hear the speech by the Bank of England governor, Mervyn King. To get back to the office before 8am, I had to catch the first train this morning - and that was the 0505. Ah well.

I thought about dubbing it the "Recession Express". After all, that's where Mervyn King says we're going. And that's the part of his speech which is getting all the headlines today.

But chatting to the Yorkshire business folk in the room last night, that remark only told them what they knew already. They know from their own customers and order books that business is slowing down.

They were more interested in his hints about where interest rates will go in the future.

And after last night, they're assuming another cut in borrowing costs is on the cards.

That's quite a turn-around.

Throughout the summer, the debate had raged - passionately but politely - between the Bank's interest rate controllers.

On one side were those who thought the economy needed cheaper lending immediately. On the other, those who worried that a cut in interest rates now would fuel higher prices in the future and cause an even sharper slow-down in the years ahead.

It was a finely balanced argument.

.

But then we had that emergency cut in borrowing costs around the world.

Last night, Mr King revealed why the rate controllers had shifted their position.

They're now much more worried that the economy will be hammered by the banking crisis. The collapse in confidence in the banks - and the falls in their share prices - had made the credit crunch worse.

With both lending and take-home pay squeezed, consumers and businesses were suffering.

And it all had happened very, very quickly.

So even though the controllers in the months ahead, they expect it to fall back again next year.

Their judgement now is - the bigger risk to the economy is from a sharp and prolonged slowdown, not run-away prices.

Incidentally, all this time we've been blaming the credit crunch - the freeze in lending between banks - for our economic woes. But Mr King told us the credit crunch wasn't really the problem at all.

It's just a side-effect.

The real problem was the banks' own financial strength. They borrowed more and more from each other, on short-term loans that had to be renewed regularly. They then loaned that on to us, and we invested in over-priced assets like housing.

As the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s business editor Robert Peston has written on his blog, when property prices dropped, people skipped repayments and lending to banks froze - they were caught short.

The Government has now bolstered the banks' finances - by using billions of pounds of our money to buy their shares.

Many of you are still unhappy about this. You don't see why bankers should be bailed out.

But Mr King effectively said we had to save the banks - to save ourselves.

He says we're still "far from the end of the road back to stability".

But now we've shored up the banks, he thinks we may have "turned the corner" in the crisis.

So while one R-word - recession - gets the attention today, he held out the hope that we may eventually use that other R-word - recovery.

I told you this exercise thing was a mistake.

Naga hobbled in this morning moaning about how stiff she is. A vigorous afternoon at the gym, apparently.

She's now leafing through yesterday's blog post about my health and fitness, making remarks like "well of course, joining a gym didn't work - you didn't go!".

Your comments on the item are a little bit more constructive. Thank you for them.

Some go right back to basics. On the blog, Jivegal says "eat less". Over on , Nigel Grainger says "I guess the obvious eat less and exercise more is old hat now?".

The blog comment that struck me most of all was from Worldwriter, who had a heart attack a year ago. Thanks for describing your fear, and also for telling me what you did to adjust your life - losing weight by eating more fruits and vegetables than meat.

The reason that I've been blogging about health and fitness is because the man who runs WeightWatchers . I thought we had a genial chat with him about the business, but a few of you thought we were a bit tough.

Sandra Forder emailed to say: "All you seemed to concentrate on was the money Weightwatchers makes and not the difference to peoples lives. Our program works as it is about healthy eating for life."

Susan Pearson, also by email, said the most important point of the scheme was the support it offered its members. "I have successfully lost weight with WeightWatchers, but find my weight drifts up if I don't attend meetings occasionally once I have reached an ideal weight."

A sideways look back on the blog from annchiswell: "I joined weightwatchers earlier in the year, but left as they seemed to talk mostly about food, and it made me so hungry!".

And , charlesarthur hoped I'd make an economic joke about people tightening their belts. Don't worry Charles - I did not disappoint. Economic jokes are thin on the ground, so I'd never pass one up.

Thanks again for all your views and experiences. Remember I'm interested in your tips for losing weight without losing too much money alongside it.

Health and fitness is also a multi-billion pound business, so I'd like to know if you think we should take a more thorough look at it on Working Lunch.

By complete contrast, we're looking again at people who have a great idea - and enough courage to quit their jobs and set up shop on their own. These are the everyday heroes of business. The company just happens to sell, ahem, chocolate. Rich, luxurious, dark, aromatic chocolate.

Oh the mind is willing --- but the flesh is weak.

The man who runs is our special guest today.

Stop sniggering at the back.

I know what you're thinking. If there was ever someone who needed to lose a few pounds, it's me.

I did sign up for a gym many years ago. But the only pounds I lost were financial ones - in the shape of the monthly membership fee.

So I take a sceptical view of any weight-loss, diet or exercise programme that involves shedding fortunes before flab.

There's no doubt this is big business.

According to the research organisation , the UK health and fitness market was worth an estimated £3.45 billion in 2006, and is expected to grow by another 5 percent a year until 2010.

Another firm of researchers, , puts the value of the business at £4.4 billion, and predicts it will be worth £5.0 billion by 2012 (Just in time for the ).

And that's just the gyms, health clubs and exercise equipment some people buy for their own homes.

Food is another financial feast entirely.

The market researchers Mintel calculated we bought £2.3 billion worth of reduced fat and reduced calorie foods in the UK last year.

There's no shortage of companies chasing what now called the "fat pound".

Unilever, the British food giant, makes low-fat versions of traditionally lardy products like Walls ice cream and Hellmann's mayonnaise; by the way, it also owns the SlimFast range. Tate & Lyle, the sugar company, has low-calorie ice cream. All the big supermarkets sell low-calorie meals. Tesco even offers its shoppers their own diet plans.

And WeightWatchers? Well, according to its website, it costs £40 for the first month, and then another £10 for every month after that. This, remember, is just for the advice and support it offers. Food is an optional extra.

But one million people have signed up for it here in the UK. And the company says that in the last decade, its British members have lost 40-thousand tonnes of flab from their now-skinny frames.

It's worked for them - but do you need to lose pounds from your pocket before they go from your waist? I'm sure you've got some cheaper alternatives. It's time to share.

See you at 1230.

Not much time to blog this morning. The days when there isn't an obvious choice for the main story tend to be much busier.

But we think we've got a good one. . The inflation figures earlier this week showed the overall cost of goods and services is still way above the target set by the Government. But there was a hint that food prices might start easing off soon. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ asked a firm of retail analysts to examine this in more detail - we'll bring you their conclusions. It's a bit of good news if your budget is stretched.

We'll also hear from the man who runs Waitrose - he's our special guest today.

He's got a bit of a strategic puzzle. Waitrose has a very specific place in the food market - it styles itself as a seller of top quality, locally-sourced food, and charges more than the average for it. But can you keep that position when commodity prices are rising and family budgets are being squeezed?

There must be a temptation to cut prices or introduce a discount range, just to remain competitive. But if you do that, do you then weaken your overall reputation and damage your brand?

It will be an interesting discussion.

Oh, as you'll know when you see him - he's a real foodie. He's decided to make it a real working lunch by bringing in his own picnic. You'll not be so silly as to let that change your shopping habits, will you? I thought not.

See you at 1230.

I knew there would be trouble letting that dog up onto the sofa.

We interviewed the former Boomtown Rats guitarist Gerry Cott this lunchtime. He now runs one of the most successful animal training companies in the country. And he brought along one of his - er - employees: a West Highland terrier called Bobby.

Glenis emailed working.lunch@bbc.co.uk
afterwards to say that Gerry can't have trained Bobby too well if it was allowed to sit on the couch that's used by our guests.

I take your point. I wouldn't let dogs on the sofa either. It's not a matter of hygiene, it's dominance - a dog on a chair thinks he's in charge.

But if you look at our studio, you'll see putting him on the couch was the best way for you to see him. He was too low down on the floor for the normal camera shot, and the table blocked the view.

A few people also emailed in fairly uncomplimentary terms to complain about the interview itself. Ian Jones and SL Feldman referred to us as a "dog show".

Well, yes, the programme did have a dog today. But the dog wasn't the show.

We looked at what's happening with your electricity and gas bills. Naga explained today's share price moves. We followed up the problems some of you have been having with the Cahoot website. And we looked at an issue that annoys so many Working Lunch viewers, nuisance phone calls.

But the dog wasn't even the story.

The interview with Gerry was about his personal experiences as someone who took a risk to set up his own business.

Just think about what he did. He took his hobby, something he loved doing, and turned it into his livelihood. Which of us wouldn't want to do that with our lives?

In the process he provided a service to his clients, generated sales and employment, and paid taxes - the taxes that help pay for our schools, hospitals and other public services.

This is (forgive me) no shaggy dog story. This is what business is all about. Our economic future hangs on the fortunes of our small companies. In a world where low-skill manufacturing is increasingly dominated by China and low-skills services have migrated to India - and when those and other rival nations are getting smarter and more technologically sophisticated - we will rely on companies that use their creativity and knowledge to spot new opportunities and exploit them. Small companies tend to be faster and more flexible, putting them in pole position. They are the new dogs that can learn new tricks, and we need many more people like Gerry to take that risk and set up shop.

And was it funny? Of course it was. His business is teaching dogs to do tricks, for goodness sake. Does that mean it shouldn't be on our programme? I don't think so. Business is the nation's lifeblood and livelihood, and that includes the comedy and drama alongside the hard work and inspiration.

UPDATE 1.10pm.
This statement has been sent by Cahoot's top boss Matthew Timms:

"We apologise that cahoot.com was unavailable yesterday and today (Wednesday 15 and Thursday 16th October).
"The site will shortly be up and running and you will be able to see any transactions you made up until 7.30am yesterday (Wednesday 15 October). Any transactions on your account made after that time will have been actioned but may not display yet so please don't worry. These should be updated over the next 24 hours. Any payments set up to go yesterday or today should be processed as usual.
"Please bear with us as we bring the website back up and running. We are working as quickly as possible to do this.
"Once again, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused you."

In these nervous times, even the slightest disturbance can cause alarm.

Some of you have emailed this morning to tell us you're having trouble accessing the website of the Internet bank .

You've sounded a bit worried so we've looked into it. And we can bring you a little bit of reassurance.

The company says the website is down because of a power failure. Nothing more alarming than that.

However - the website has been down now for 24 hours. As well as being inconvenient, it's possible that may have disrupted some automatic payments.

We've asked the bank to tell us if direct payments have been held up.

They don't have an answer yet, but will get back to us.

UPDATE: Cahoot says its website will be up and running shortly, but some transactions made after 0730 yesterday morning may not appear on online statements for another 24 hours. The transactions have been made, they're just not visible on your statement. We're still waiting for the definitive word on direct debits.

Sorry there wasn't a blog yesterday afternoon. I had to rush home straight after the programme to let the phone engineer in.

After three days without TV, phone or Internet it was a bit of a personal priority. It's amazing how you miss these things. Chez Curry, we had to talk to each other after dinner rather than slump in front of the box as usual. There's a reason they call conversation the lost art.

The appointment was for one of those time-slots that spanned the entire afternoon. I don't know if this annoys you, but it irritates me slightly. Around 28 million of us now have some sort of regular work - that's more people in work than any other period in our history. The idea that someone will always be at home during the day is from a bygone age.

Yet all manner of company - from phone engineers to parcel deliveries - have delivery schedules based on this out-dated assumption that someone's at home, or we can skip work to be at their beck and call. One of my colleagues is complaining this morning that he can't get concert tickets that he's already paid for because they insist on a home delivery between 9am and 5pm - the entire working day. Why on earth can these things not be done in the evening, like online supermarket deliveries? Or in narrower time slots that don't devour a whole day? Use the comments to share your views.

Speaking of jobs - the unemployment figures were released this morning, and more people have joined the dole queue. The TUC and others fear it could get even worse. Rachel will talk us through the numbers.

One interesting line that's emerged during the morning - at least one major department store group has told us it will hire fewer casual workers to deal with the Christmas rush. This seasonal work is of huge importance to students as they pay their way through college. So we'll ask the man from the National Union of Students what he makes of it.

He was coming in anyway to talk about student budgeting - Naga is going to spend the next few months helping some students in Leeds to manage their money better. We'll see the first of her reports today.

Naga is light of step and lilting of voice today after a fat bouquet of flowers arrived for her. See the photo of her pretending to ignore them.

It wasn't because of our item yesterday about men being most romantic at the age of 53, though you have responded to that too. Dean says he's looking forward to turning 53 so he can treat his wife to a romantic trip. I'll not say where in case she's reading. Rob wonders if all this wooing is a sign of romance or desperation. Carol asks if the men are buying for their wives and partners, or their younger replacements. "The devil is usually in the detail", she notes.

And thank you Michekeith for your kind words about the programme in the comments. We had more good news today, showing many more people are tuning in to watch. We know you have a lot of choice on the box (when it's working ...) so thank you for selecting us.

See you at 1.30pm.

Ooh la la! Almost forgot to tell you - PY Gerbeau is here too. He's the man who came over to rescue the Dome, and liked the company so much he tried to buy it ...

All TV couples develop their own chemistry, some more effectively than others. The air sizzles with furtive romance when Phil and Kirstie are on that . At the other end of the scale, there's the all those years ago (though to be fair that was really no fault of their own).

Naga and I? The jury hasn't decided if we're closer to Richard and Judy or Little and Large.

But we've been making coo-ing noises at each other all morning, after reading in the papers that men at their most romantic when they hit 53. Naga asked if I remembered what it was like, the cheeky minx.

It's reported that and chocolate, treat their partners to a candlelit dinner, or sprinkle rose petals in the bath.

She's quite taken by the idea of rose petals. I think they just clog up the plug hole. We may need to work on that chemistry thing.

Anyway - it's tickled our fancy. We're interested in your most romantic moments. And your least-romantic ones too. You can leave them in the comments or email working.lunch@bbc.co.uk and I'll post the best ones.

In the news - the cost of living has risen sharply again. The inflation rate the Bank of England looks at is up to 5.2 percent. Another inflation rate, used by the Government to set next year's rise in the state pension and benefits, is up to 5.0 percent. Simon is finding out what that means for your pocket.

We're very aware that many of you think living costs are rising even faster than that, as you spend more of your money on food, fuel and council tax - which are all up by more than that. Your comments are welcome - just post them below, and I'll try to use some of them on the programme.

And it's Tuesday so we're looking at gadgets. As well as the one I road-tested yesterday (see blog below), the inventor of the wind-up radio Trevor Baylis is with us.

We're winding him up and setting him off at 1230.

Tuesday is our day for looking at technology on Working Lunch.

And right now I'm road-testing tomorrow's offering - an over-sized, round, plastic button.

I'm not sure what it does. None of my colleagues will tell me, even though they all know.

This isn't as cruel as it sounds. The device is supposed to be so easy-to-use that any idiot can pick it up without any instruction and make it work within seconds.

Hmm. We'll soon see about that.

It claims to be green - not just in colour, but in energy use. If I click it when I walk away from my desk, it will send my computer into some sort of sleep mode - saving energy and money.

All I have to do is install the and then plug the button in to the USB port.

(One dispute with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ corporate firewall later ... )

OK. It's in. And glowing menacingly on my desk, like the in .

So - to turn off the computer in one easy step, I just need to clic ----

Today's the day we got the bill for the credit crunch.

We already owned Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley's mortgages and loans - after the Government stepped in to rescue both those banks.

Now we're buying 60 percent of RBS - owner of Natwest and the Royal Bank of Scotland. And a big chunk of the soon-to-be-merged Lloyds TSB/HBOS - which will own Lloyds, Halifax, Bank of Scotland and a whole host more.

We're all bank shareholders now. Our colleague Robert Peston has called it a "momentous Monday".

Think of it this way. If one of the major political parties had stood at the last election with a manifesto promise to take the major banks into public ownership, how many votes do you think it would have attracted? As political blogs like have noted, such a plan hasn't been mooted since Labour's manifesto in 1983 - the manifesto later dubbed "".

The cost to us is £37 billion. And this is real money. This isn't like the billions of pounds that the Bank of England has loaned to the big banks over recent months. That was like giving the high street banks an extra credit card, guaranteed by the Bank of England. We only had to cough up if the banks didn't pay it back.

This is hard cash, which the Government is using to buy bank shares. Not for nothing are ministers describing it as an "investment". We only get it back if we can sell the shares at a later date - and if the shares are at the same price or more than we're paying for them.

We're going to look at the questions you've already raised in your emails this morning - questions you're asking as taxpayers, customers and shareholders: Where will the Government get this money? What will happen to my account? What will happen to my dividend payment?

And what about that promise to continue loans to small businesses and homeowners - it looks lovely, but does it actually mean anything? Simon's looking into that.

Elsewhere - as it's Monday, we're bringing you more tips on saving money. (That's why we call it Money Saving Monday.) So you'll hear more about my Granny and her economic regime. Today we're looking at her Golden Rules for grocery shopping. It involves a lot of rummaging around in the bargain bin.

As it happens, my mum and dad are over for a visit so they're going to be in the control room during the programme. Mum, if you're reading - you will NOT be allowed to speak.

It's all glamour, this telly lark.

Our deputy editor Nigel has just ruined his nicest shirt - all for the sake of Working Lunch. I took a little photo of the evidence on my mobile.

It's something involving fully-inflated balloons and a sharp-nibbed marker pen.

Needless to say, A+B = pop. The silly billy.

Meanwhile - ? No reserve, opening bid 99p. It's described as a unique opportunity, but note that Greenland and Bjork are not included in the price.

I was slightly startled by a question I was asked last night.

It was from someone much, much smarter than I am, someone who watches the news regularly and keeps up with current affairs.

The question was this - "I understand that the credit crunch means the banks don't lend to each other so much, but why does that affect my overdraft?"

And that made me think.

Perhaps it's time for a back-to-basics guide to the credit crunch.

We could do it on the telly. Or on this blog.

What else are you not sure about when we talk about the topic? What do we skip over - when you'd actually like a nice, clear explanation?

Please don't be embarrassed to say - 'I don't get this, tell me again'.

You can start in the comments - or email me working.lunch@bbc.co.uk.

By the way - if you're interested - the top-of-my-head answer was that banks sometimes borrow the money that they then lend on to us.

If they can't do that - then we either don't get a loan or have to pay more in interest for it.

That's when the credit crunch hurts our pockets directly.

Often the loans between the banks will run out before your loan from the bank is due for repayment - for example, banks will borrow from each other for just one night or one week, while an overdraft will last an entire year.

So they need to borrow from each other over and over again.

That's fine if they trust each other to pay it back.

But the credit crunch happened when they stopped trusting each other. The end result of that is that there's less money being passed around the economy.
It may not be a perfect answer, but it's just what my mate was looking for.

It's strangely calm after yesterday's excitement. "Strangely" is our word of the day, after one of the newspapers described me as "". I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not, though as they used a 15-year-old photo where I am both younger and thinner, I'm not going to complain that much.

We're looking at Iceland this morning. Those of you with money in those Icelandic banks are emailing us with lots of questions - mostly along the lines of 'when will I get it back?'. Some interesting queries too from people who thought they'd moved money out but have yet to see it re-appear in other accounts. We're looking into those and will have some answers for you. Please do keep emailing us: working.lunch@bbc.co.uk

In the news, Iceland's financial watchdog has now . We'll resist the temptation to refer to it as that "Kaupthing-thing".

Oh - and did you notice that their, oh wait, OUR money with these Icelandic banks? They say they were acting in the interest of council tax payers by getting the best interest rates. Who knew your town hall treasurer was scouring the best-buy tables at the back of the papers while you were cooking the Sunday roast? We're trying to find out if that money is now at risk, and if our council tax bills will rise if it does go missing. Let me know what you think about that in the comments.

Naga is spooning - no, make that shovelling - porridge down her throat. I'm trying to snap a photo on my mobile to show you, but she's on to me and keeps ducking.

Naga is tempted to slap her hand over my mouth most days (if not every hour). But today I really wished she had, right at the end of the programme when I was talking too much - and more importantly for too long. Over-running your time slot is a cardinal sin in live TV. I've single-handedly made ´óÏó´«Ã½2 late for the rest of the day. By 26 seconds.

But we did have a lot to talk about. The bank bail-out, the surprise cut in interest rates, and the extra protection for savers with the Icelandic bank Icesave made for a packed programme.

And for our inspiration, we turned to you. You sent an astonishing number of emails this morning, asking some very challenging questions about the bail-out. So Simon explained how the deal worked, and our banking expert tackled your questions - or as many as we could put to him.

And many of you are still concerned about those Icelandic banks. Rachel has been doing a sterling job over the last few days, taking your questions and trying to hunt down some answers. We dealt with many of them today - you can catch her report again on the Working Lunch website. We're going to come back to the issue again and again until we've told you all you need to know. Watch out for our savings special with Christine Ross on Friday's programme.

So thank you for your questions and comments. Please do keep them coming in. We hope you think the 30 minutes you spend with us is a wise investment.

We tore up our regular programme first thing this morning. And we've just torn it up again.

We decided early on to devote the to the . It's £50billion and we're all paying for it, so unsurprisingly you've had some tough questions about it. Like - where is the money coming from? What will the banks do with it? And what about those multi-million pound bonuses for the banks' top bosses?

We'll ask as many of those as we can - and keep them coming. Email us at working.lunch@bbc.co.uk

But then at midday, borrowing costs were cut around the world. It's a sudden, surprise move by the global central banks to boost spending and borrowing. Here at home, it means half of 1% off the rate the Bank of England sets.

So all change again on the programme. We'll ask if it will do the trick. And we've not forgotten that most of you are savers who will lose out from the cut.

As I type, I'm keeping half an ear on the Chancellor's briefing to MPs in the Commons; if he says anything new of note we'll tell you.

Meanwhile there appears to be smoke coming out of Naga's keyboard as she's typing so quickly, the director is demanding that we get to the studio and the editor Tracey is standing by my shoulder for no real reason. See you at 1.30....

Our big guest yesterday - Sir Richard Branson - had some good news for air passengers. The cost of flights might be on the way down soon.

The reason? That recent fall in the cost of oil. Big airlines like Virgin imposed top-up charges when oil prices were rising. Now Sir Richard says it's time to put them into reverse.

(Of course some airlines - like Ryanair - didn't impose any fuel surcharges, no matter how much oil prices rose. Rivals note tartly that it just changed its pricing structure so we had to pay for luxuries like luggage instead.)

This is an interesting observation in perspectives.

If you're a motorist or an airline passenger, or you run a factory or a freight haulage company, you'll welcome cheaper fuel.

But in some quarters, the fall in oil is being reported as BAD news.

And in a way, it is. Part of the reason the oil price is falling is the slowdown in economic activity in the United States and elsewhere.

There are many sides to even the simplest economic news. But I don't remember many people celebrating when the cost of oil was rising because of the economic boom in China and India - ie when it was the side-effect of something good.

Speaking of oil - our big guest on Friday is the man who runs Shell in the UK. If there's something you want me to ask him, just stick it in the comments.

Three other interesting thoughts from Sir Richard:

1. This is the toughest economic slowdown in his memory.

2. Banks that get into trouble should be allowed to fall.

3. Entrepreneurs should continue to take risks as there are still opportunities, even in a downturn. But those risks have to be calculated.

When he started his Virgin Atlantic airline, it wasn't long after the collapse of Freddy Laker's Skytrain.

So he made sure that when he bought his first plane, the deal said he could hand it back the following year if it didn't work out.

He ended up buying a second plane instead. And then some more.

I like my gadgets. I've got a mobile phone, which my friends complain I never answer. I've got a Blackberry so I can nag my colleagues round the clock. There's an MP4 player in the bag somewhere, though that's mostly for Terry Wogan's weekly podcast.

I don't buy gadgets for the sake of having a new toy. My mobile is battered and scratched and old, but it still works perfectly well; so instead of an upgrade, I just bought a new cover. The PDA is new-ish, but only because the old one smashed and I got it replaced on the insurance.

So I like them, but only because they're useful and make life easier. They're must-haves, not want-to-haves.

Which is why I'm treating this thing on my desk with some suspicion.

It's a portable reader system, or as it's more usefully known, an electronic book. And apparently it's going to be the next big thing in your bedroom and your office.

This one has been loaded up with 14 different books, but can hold as many as 150 in its internal memory and many more on memory cards. That's one of its big selling points - it's certainly a lot more portable than 150 bound volumes.

But is it more convenient? I don't like the way the screen flickers, and if I have to have one more charger at home I may have to seek planning permission for my own power station in the garden.

See what you think yourself when we give it a road test on the programme.

Tuesday is our day for looking at gadgets. I've got a shed - my tech shed - and Naga is banned from entering it.

Oh, in your bedroom and your office? This technology isn't just for Barbara Cartland novels. Businesses that use a lot of paper, or process a lot of documents, are looking at it keenly. It could save them a lot of paper - particularly the small green slips that say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand ..."

What else have we got?

See you at 1230.

New beginnings all round today - The older one of my sisters is a trainee vet. Before watching today's Working Lunch, she helped deliver these little beauties into the world.

Some of you have been asking if small businesses are covered by the financial compensation scheme if banks go bust - in the same way that individuals are.

We asked the body that runs the scheme - the . This is its reply:

"FSCS was set up mainly to assist private individuals, although some smaller businesses are also covered. Larger businesses are generally excluded, although there are some exceptions to this (for example for claims in respect of certain compulsory insurances).

As an indicative guide only, for the purposes of deposit and investment claims, smaller companies are protected. A smaller company must meet two of the following criteria (as set out in section 247 of the Companies Act 1985 or section 382 of the Companies Act 2006 as applicable):
* Turnover: not more than £6.5 million
* Balance sheet total: not more than £3.26 million
* Total number of employees: not more than 50

For claims made under an insurance contract, small businesses are protected. A small business under the COMP rules is one that has an annual turnover of less than £1m.

The same levels of compensation apply whether the claimant is a private individual, small business, or a small company."

Ever have one of those days when you got up really early and thought you had loads of time? Then suddenly you looked up and you're late for everything? Welcome to my first day on the job.

It's been a busy morning. Shares are falling sharply, because of worries about the banks' finances and the various bail-out plans (or non-bail-out plans) on both sides of the Atlantic. We'll look at that from the City.

We also got a lot of emails over the weekend about just how safe our money is in the bank. We're going to answer as many as those as we can.

There are two sides to this. Some of you have stored your money with banks from Iceland. In fact, a surprising number of Brits have gone to Iceland, thanks to the big, fat savings rates they've offered in recent months. But now one Icelandic bank has been rescued by its government and there are reports of crisis talks about the others. So are you covered if the worst happens? Tune in at 1230 to find out.

The other element is the German government's promise to its citizens to protect all of their money. The thinking in some quarters is that if the biggest economy in Europe has to make that sort of pledge, our Government will have to follow suit. However, our business editor Robert Peston has been digging deep into this and the promise doesn't look as copper-bottomed as it first appeared. He's writing about this on his own blog - www.bbc.co.uk/robertpeston - take a look for yourself.

We'd like to hear from you if you've got money in foreign banks offering accounts here in the UK - if only to judge just how much attention you want us to pay to this line of the story. Don't put your personal details in the comments; email us instead on working.lunch@bbc.co.uk

Got to go. I'm late. And Naga has stopped hogging the make-up room. Wish us luck!