成人论坛

Nick,

I am being asked to believe that the wonderful management of the UK economy over a 10 year period was achieved through judicious decisions by the previous Chancellor and his freeing up of the Bank of England, and clearly nothing to do with benign global economic factors. Yet I am also being asked by the same people to accept that negative economic repercussions emanating from outside the UK are clearly not the fault of the UK government. So when everything is rosy, Brown and his team accept warm congratulations, but when the going gets tough, it is all the fault of others. Perhaps you cannot see anything wrong with this explanation, but I would suggest that this betrays an absence of critical and independent analysis. I for one would mark you as grade D in your political exams.

You are being very kind to David Cameron. It's clear that yesterday he was being shamefully opportunistic, risking making the problems at Northern Rock worse without a shred of evidence to actually justify blaming the Government.

What makes his position particularly dishonest is that the recent Redwood policy report on deregulation actually called for a REDUCTION in regulation of the mortgage markets - a move which would open the way for just the sort of problems that have caused the financial problems in the US that have in turn damaged Northern Rock.

There was a credit crisis before the Northern Rock difficulties stole the headlines which in themselves have made the situation worse for that particular Bank. The banks may be criticised for the current credit crisis but the government must also be held to account for the part it has played in encouraging easy credit. Cameron is right to criticise the way in which Labour, and Brown in particular, has built the economy, in both the public and private sectors, on mountains of debt. Brown's much vaunted action on giving independence to the Bank of England did not, in fact, mean that he gave them unfettered control over monetary policy. On the contrary, he gave them control over the setting of interest rates by establishing a committee, the selection of whose members he retained control over, and whose inflation target was set by him. However, he changed the basis of that target from the well understood one of RPI to the CPI, which is almost meaningless to most people who cannot recognise its relevance to their own experiences of inflation. This allowed Brown to set a target which resulted in a relaxation of interest rates. This action was a cynical political ploy before the last election to help Labour win and kept interest rates lower than they should have been for longer. At the same time Brown was pumping vast amounts of taxpayers鈥� money into the public sector and effectively keeping two sets of accounts by authorising billions of additional expenditure through the PPPs and PFIs without showing them on his balance sheet, whilst actually subjecting the taxpayers to an enormous future liability. To this can be added a myriad of other actions which have damaged this country鈥檚 long term economic stability.
It would be a dereliction of duty if Cameron were not to highlight the serious flaws of Brown鈥檚 handling of the economy which far from being prudent has been reckless.

David Cameron attacks the Government vis-脿-vis Northern Rock less than a fortnight after his 鈥榯hink tank鈥� led by none other than John Selwyn Gummer suggested full deregulation of mortgage market; this policy although not publicly endorsed by Mr. Cameron was said to have his full backing.

This Latest attack by Mr. Cameron is merely irresponsible meddling in the country鈥檚 finances for purely political purposes; Mr. Cameron who is currently the leader in spinning at Westminster has brought a new meaning to the political debate, not only does he spin his messages in advance, he now spins his policy from one polarisation to the other.

This in itself is not too strange when you consider he is leading the most bipolarised party in British politics, if he is indeed truly leading the party; Mr Cameron should be aware of the damage he could inflict on the British economy as he struggles for control of his own party will not be forgotten by investors and savers.

It's been pretty clear for some time that the bubble had to slow down at some point. There's been gains from it helping drive the economy but readjustment doesn't necessarily mean collapse of the economy. Alistair Darlings response has been pretty sound and, I note, Ken Clarke is relaxed about this as he says there's no need to go hair-shirt over it. I would agree we're living in changing times but turbulent is a bit of an extreme. Learn lessons and move forward, etcetera.

The bigger story for me was the government allowing lobbyists to put GM crops back on the agenda. The last time I checked, Britain has farming, transport, and dietary issues that would give a more fundamental, sound, and long-term pay off than GM crops. Contamination, health, and real financial benefits remain doubtful. Of course, the quick fix and cost free bullet is always more appealing than real change that requires investment with less spectacular returns.

In some ways, these issues reflect each other. If you dig beneath the hood you see masters of the universe running big companies and lots of little people being toyed with like an ants nest. It's the eternal hierarchy and relationships game but government shouldn't be in the winners and losers game. If the government can take a step back and develop a sound, responsible, and long-term approach both crisis and disaster in waiting may be avoided.

There's concerns about the environment, housing market, pensions, and economic growth but I'm feeling broadly optimistic about the whole thing. Getting bent out of shape over a detail strikes me as being an overreaction. When you let a pebble grow into a mountain you end up being rigid and lash out. This just makes things worse. I'd take this bump for what it is 鈥� a practice opportunity for when a steel bar is violently applied to the face without comic relief.

It's drifting off the subject but the chest beating of the Liberal Democrats and showboating of the Conservatives isn't much use to government. All this "man the barricades" and "let loose the dogs of war" stuff is so much nonsense. They're beginning to learn, if Menzies Campbell's comments on being "relaxed", and David Cameron's easing off are to be believed. It's not enough and too soon to be serious but worth noting. Well done. Keep it up.

When people change their approach to handling issues it's uncomfortable and stumbles are expected, but the sound approach of Alistair Darling and light hearted dismissal of Ken Clarke are wheel and grease united on the wagon. Governance with a rational mind and light heart will get us through this difficulty and, hopefully, get our minds back on developing a forward thinking, investment led, dependable, and sociable nation.

Late last week I saw a programme on the Beeb that showed Eddie George, the former Governor of the Bank of England, say that the Bank deliberately left interest rates low in order to avoid tipping the UK into a recession. So the Bank deliberately stoked consumer-led growth, which led to a mountain of debt. And all this, after a massive increase in public spending for little further output, as evidenced by authoritative studies into education and health. Where on earth have the Tories been in all of this? Despite the number of marketeers now in important positions in the Conservative Party, I hear more about George at Asda than I do about George, the Shadow Chancellor. If they really aspire to be a party of Government they need to pull their socks up.

Both Cameron and Osborne shot themselves in the foot with their attempt to blame the Northern Rock's problems on Gordon Brown.

As they have now belatedly realised, this is one economic problem they cannot blame on Labour.

To people in the city, Cameron's attack made him look as if he did not understand the basic economic facts of the case.

This is the first time I've been disgusted with David Cameron. Others have called him opportunistic, or accused him of being all spin and no substance - but I saw a kindred spirit proposing common-sense ideas and taking his time before declaring his policies. I was really looking likely to be a Tory voter at the next election (especially given Labour's treatment of health and education...).

Well, maybe I'll still vote Tory. I still don't trust Brown with our schools, after all. But if I don't, it'll be in large part because of DC's comments the other day. It's just not on - unacceptable, and he ought to take the unusual step of apologising, rather than just hoping we'll all forget he ever said it.

So, Darling is setting himself up to be the fall guy? Very generous after only a few weeks in the job. Who was his predecessor?

If we are to believe the Government, and there isn't a problem, why not have kept matters quiet. Announcing that a major lender needs support from the Bank of England isn't a smart move and despite suggestions to the contrary people will panic. Especially as the media seems to suggest that a large proportion of Northern Rock loans are made to those that may not get help from other lenders.

Cameron is doing no different that what Labour would have done had they been in opposition. Perhaps it's about time that the Government was honest about the state of the economy for a change, instead of following the blind approach of 'Nothing to worry about.' People aren't stupid.

Brown wants to be careful here - the parallels with the early period of Major's Government are becoming more apparent. Instead of inviting Thatcher to Number 10 last week, he should have invited Major - he could arguably learn far more from him: a 4th term PM for a party that started out popular against his predecessor and then became engulfed in crisis after crisis. The rumblings about the financial markets and a potential slow down in house prices, could suggest history may repeat itself. As a former Chancellor, like Major was with the ERM, Brown needs to be careful at this time...

The Government could act by changing opinion on debt and spending. Instead of allowing banks to loan more money than most people could reasonably afford, and then loan again when those said people are in trouble, credit should be made harder to obtain. Similarly, perhaps debt should be seen as a stigma as it was in the past, if attitudes change, then perhaps so will banking practises.

Blair must be rubbing his hands together with glee...

Is Willum Bowter Willem Buiter?

I'm no economist; but what goes up must come down and the economy I believe could be ready to recede. Oddly, David Cameron is almost correct (except he mentions the past 10 years; carefully avoiding the years of Tory rule when economic recovery began). All that said, the economy ruined the last government - I believe it could very well ruin this one too.

If we are to believe the Government, and there isn't a problem, why not have kept matters quiet. Announcing that a major lender needs support from the Bank of England isn't a smart move and despite suggestions to the contrary people will panic. Especially as the media seems to suggest that a large proportion of Northern Rock loans are made to those that may not get help from other lenders.

Cameron is doing no different that what Labour would have done had they been in opposition. Perhaps it's about time that the Government was honest about the state of the economy for a change, instead of following the blind approach of 'Nothing to worry about.' People aren't stupid.

Brown wants to be careful here - the parallels with the early period of Major's Government are becoming more apparent. Instead of inviting Thatcher to Number 10 last week, he should have invited Major - he could arguably learn far more from him: a 4th term PM for a party that started out popular against his predecessor and then became engulfed in crisis after crisis. The rumblings about the financial markets and a potential slow down in house prices, could suggest history may repeat itself. As a former Chancellor, like Major was with the ERM, Brown needs to be careful at this time...

The Government could act by changing opinion on debt and spending. Instead of allowing banks to loan more money than most people could reasonably afford, and then loan again when those said people are in trouble, credit should be made harder to obtain. Similarly, perhaps debt should be seen as a stigma as it was in the past, if attitudes change, then perhaps so will banking practises.

Blair must be rubbing his hands together with glee...

"I struggle to find anyone who believes, however, that Northern Rock's troubles result from government action or inaction."

You obviously haven't been talking to the people in the queues outside Northen Rock then...

I'm no economist; but what goes up must come down and the economy I believe could be ready to recede. Oddly, David Cameron is almost correct (except he mentions the past 10 years; carefully avoiding the years of Tory rule when economic recovery began). All that said, the economy ruined the last government - I believe it could very well ruin this one too.

First, I stress that I have no problems with savers being rescued both for their sake and to prevent too much instability in the banking sector for joe public.

I do want to know though what pain the shareholders are going to suffer . They invested for the potential reward, but with it comes risk and, now things have gone awry, they should not in any way be protected from that.

The reality is that taxpayers money has been used to shore up Northern Rock. What return are we, as taxpayers, getting for doing that? Surely if the bank is taking 100% risk on the business it should own 100% of the business?

I had previously thought that cash was king and, if you ran out of cash, then, as a shareholder, you suffered significant pain (often 100% loss). Clearly if the emotions are high enough, the pictures desperate (ie politically unacceptable) enough, that is not the case. The Goverment did the same with Rover, blocking a "evil" private equity takeover in the name of preserving jobs, to watch them all go later when the government-backed less efficient approach failed, and now they are doing it here (with potentially even worse consequences given the moral hazard issues).

If the shareholders get a penny out of this I for one shall be considering setting up a bank myself. If things go well, I do very well, and I may even avoid primary business risks along the way to try and do well. If things go badly, well I will probably still do OK and the government will step in anyway.

The contributors above are right to draw attention to the Redwood (not the Gummer) report. Presumably the recommendation to completely deregulate the mortgage market was one of its recommendations that wouldn't have made the manifesto. Pity we weren't told that when it was released.

David C was, of course, also a treasury advisor to Chancellor Norman Lamont, under whom PSBR ballooned to 拢46 billion: just over 7% of GDP at the time. So perhaps he is not quite the right person to be lecturing us on indebtedness.

This Government by no means gets everything right. Sure, debt is a problem, although nobody has managed to explain to me how you stop people taking out loans in a free market. The old way, of course, was to have periodic recessions and spikes in unemployment and interest rates, which temporarily cured people of taking out loans (and also ensured a regular supply of new people into my profession, teaching). But I find David Cameron's interjections increasingly "inappropriate and untimely", which was how his pronouncements on foot-and-mouth were described. He has an extremely long way to go to convince me that he would be a suitable PM.

Was it not Harold Macmillan who said "events, events events" that dictate the course of politics? Do these most recent developments in the financial system all but rule out an early election in October? Is it not now inconceivable that Gordon Brown would risk being the victim of events beyond his control? Another unlkely outcome from this crisis.??

It's a little early to blame Darling Brown for anything. Six months of negative growth could give ammunition to Cameron, but if Brown's luck holds and meltdown is averted, over-criticism now will cost his opponents their credibility.
It's very easy to attack, but I don't see any ideas from opponents on what they would do right now. The globalisation of risk management has happened, perhaps with the banks taking their eye off the ball. Brown is definitely not to blame for that, but shares a big responsibiliuty to steady the ship. By the way, I give you top marks as a political analyst, and links to expert analyses of the issues is a definite improvement. It is no mean feat to be criticised as pro-Brown and pro-Cameron in the same moments. Stick to being pro-facts and carry on the good work I say

The Government, FSA and B of E have created the Northern Rock problem by advising that they were giving the lender of Last resort funds to Northern Rock. Why did they need to publicise it. This is incompetence - no more no less. Why did they need to employ a PR strategy on such an issue when quite help would have been better?

The reasons why nobody believes any "guarantees" by the Government is because of the fallout from Blair and the WMD. The whole Government system has been tarnished and I believe the run on other institutions of similar business practice will continue.

So is David Cameron seriously suggesting that if he were to become Prime Minister, he'd re-introduce 1970's style credit restrictions to halt debt? If so, that would be a pretty remarkable stance to take for someone who calls themselves a 'conservative'.

Let's remember that it was the Thatcher government which abolished credit and mortgage restrictions and every government since has agreed with this, and rightly so.

I seriously wonder whether Mr. Cameron is a conservative or not given that despite his own party MP's like John Redwood proposing fewer restrictions and regulations, Cameron seems to be constantly pushing for more intervention and interference.

In reality, I doubt Cameron does want to see greater credit restrictions anymore than Brown or Darling does. So this means that Cameron is simply pushing this issue for pure political opportunism and nothing more.

Hi Nick, welcome back. The present problem with Northern Rock was created by the same people who have their savings with that particular Institution and no other reason. When these people trusted their money with this Bank they should have known that this is not any ordinary high street Bank. According to the financial rules and regulations Northern Rock was trading in a proper way buy buying money from other Banks and then lending it to customers at a higher rate, mostly mortgages. This is in accordance with the financial regulations in UK. After what happened to some Financial Institutions in the USA the Banks AROUND THE WORLD stopped trading between themselves because they wanted higher security + higher rates for their lendings to each other. The fact that interest rates in America and in the UK are relatively low, these institutions could not find any Bank to sell them funds because if Northern Rock asked for sky high lending rates no one would be interested in dealing with Northern Rock at high interest rates. If on the other hand the base rate was pretty high, then it would have been a different story. THE PROBLEM STARTED IN AMERICA and the UK Government has nothing to do with this situation.
Nick, let us assume that Gordon Brown changed the rules and regulations and restricted such Institutions like NR in UK to trade in such a way, can you imagine what the opposition would have said about the destruction of the city's financial Institutions and that the UK would be loosing these markets to other countries like, Japan, Germany and New York? On another issue Nick, the Chancellor is not going to dictate to the people in UK to stop borrowing and how to spend our cash, because on one hand we do not want a nanny state and the next ooaah, why did the Govt. not stop people borrowing up to their hilt? Thatcher never stopped people borrowing 100% mortgage to buy homes in the 80s, REMEMBER? Is that what Cameron wants Nick? a dictatorship?
Now let us see what Cameron said! His duty was to be shoulder to shoulder with the chancellor and the Govt. in saying that the situation is being created by fear and rumours.
Nick, Cameron should be ashamed of himself to jump on a band wagon which is very, very fragile, because if he is PM there is nothing to stop someone to say that a Bank is going down and people start withdrawing funds on a rumour and a lie, which would eventually bring the UK economy to it's knees! Cameron should be ashamed of himself to go down so low as to harm the British financial Institutions to get at Brown and his Govt. Nick, on ITV News we have today witnessed who was the person that advised Lamont to keep the Sterling in the ERM in 1992, when the Bank of England lost Billions and Billions in 15 minutes because of Cameron's GROSS INCOMPETENCE! We are finally seeing who the true Cameron is and where he is coming from.
The best reply to a hypocritical Cameron is now coming from Kenneth Clarke who said the following:
Ken Clarke, the last Conservative chancellor, said the problems at the bank shouldn't lead to tough new restrictions on borrowing.
"I think the development of ready access to credit is one of the best ways of boosting a market," he told , told 成人论坛 Radio 4's Broadcasting House.
"So I do hope the reaction to the recent NONSENSE is not that we need a great flood of new regulation, that everybody gets hair-shirted again" Have a nice day Nick and well done.

The Government, FSA and B of E have created the Northern Rock problem by advising that they were giving the lender of Last resort funds to Northern Rock. Why did they need to publicise it. This is incompetence - no more no less. Why did they need to employ a PR strategy on such an issue when quite help would have been better?

The reasons why nobody believes any "guarantees" by the Government is because of the fallout from Blair and the WMD. The whole Government system has been tarnished and I believe the run on other institutions of similar business practice will continue.

It's the height of audacity to blame the Government save possibly for caving in and underwriting a private company. You can't buck the market!

This is a market not a command economy and to the extent that regulation is in place it is light touich in style for obvious reasons and that is why we attract capital and investment.

Where were the overpaid Directors, probably reinvesting their bonus. Surely the necessary assurances provided by the B of E and FSA added to some creattive thinking by the Directors, say for instance instead of announcing a possible loss of profite of the order of 拢100m plus they could have raised short -term savings rates to say 8 or 10% for existing borrowers.

As for the Sharehoders once their fingers have healed surely this will lead to greater control and hopefully the end of 97% plus motgages closer scrutiny of investment and reduced remuneration for Directors.

To equate this with the fiasco of 1992, a genuine case of political error, is farcical.

Personal debt is only growing due to alice in wonderland lending based on unrealistic income multiples.

I am unaffiliated politicaly

What this government is responsible for is a lack of credibility. People queued outside Northern Rock as they did not believe the waffle from the Chancellor, Treasury, and the BoE, until later today when it was stated clearly that there was a cast iron gaurantee that their money would be safeguarded. We will see tomorrow if it has been truely successful. Few but the deluded would deny that there is a huge debt problem in this country. You cannot blame any other party for pointing out this has happened on G Browns watch. It is all about credibility. The ecomony that Labour inherited was healthy and growing. I understtand that we now have the biggest balance of payments deficit in history, and we have all been encouraged to borrow as interest and inflation rates have been manipulated to make us feel well off.
A Darling can hardly be held responsible for much as he only moved into no 11 a short time ago. G Brown has taken all the glory for anything good that has happened during his reign and he may soon regret that.

It's hilarious that people are describing David Cameron as 'shamelessly opportunistic' in this crisis. Did the same apply to Tony Blair when he lambasted the Tories after the James Bulger murder? Politics is not for wimps and whatever the issue is it needs debate not the blithering sycophancy we have seen for the past ten years.

If the New Labour party wants to take credit for building on the Tories' economic miracle then they need to recognise they must take the rap when things go pear shaped. They are not beyond anyone's judgement or comment. They are elected officers and should recognise all the responsibility and accountability that goes with it.

How can Alistair Darling have his reputation on the line. He hasn't done anything, no announcement, no policy, no budget. He is working within the framework set-up in advance by Gordon Brown. Locked in to schemes and plans that he will be unable to change without making Gordo look bad.

Modern economies are built on confidence, of business and consumers.

Business confidence between banks is in tatters, they will not lend to anyone.

As for consumers, despite recent assurances from the BoE and government they still queue outside for their money.

Despite a 100% guarantee of your money in a bank, people still queue and it is irrational?

I would argue, it is not. They are taking responsibility for themselves not to rely on government to give them back their money if a bank fails at a time of the government's choosing.

As for those detractors of Mr. Cameron, remember Black Wednesday? When the economy was in far more trouble due to outside events beyond the government's control, who was shouting from the rooftops to precipitate a bigger political crisis and gain maximum political ground?

Mr. Gordon Brown.

I think Mr. Cameron is right to highlight the shortcomings of the Uk economy under Brown's chancellorship. If it's obvious to the British public especially the customers of Northern Rock. He has done that with a measured response without sensationalism.

Mr Robinson,

You say in your blog - 'I struggle to find anyone who believes, however, that Northern Rock's troubles result from government action or inaction.'

If that is the case, why has McCavity acted as guarantor Northern Rock's customers?

I agree with Stephen on this one..also there are facts out ther which worry me.When I read that in the last decade the average growth of the UK has been about 4% a year but the amount of money in circulation has gone up by 13% a year something is wrong.All those Banks have to use that money to make profit so they are under pressure to land out.So 40% growth over 10 years with a money supply of 130% is going to cause problems.There is none else to blame but Gordon.

Reasons for Mr Brown to rescue Northern Rock.
Its main independent director is Sir Ian Gibson鈥�..also chairman of Trinity Mirror鈥he publishing group that own the Daily Mirror! Would GB be getting good headlines come election time from the Mirror if NR crumbled?
Oh! And Gordon's favourite inquiry chairman (the man who said the NHS needed more money)鈥ir Derek Wanless is also on the board鈥�. He is the chap who led Nat West to a spectacular downfall before being ousted in 1999 albeit with a 3million pay off.

NR has 176,000 shareholders鈥ost of whom were savers or mortgaees &got their free shares when it de-mutalised 10 years ago & most of course live in the N.E鈥abour voters

Gordy needs his friends.

Do you think there would have been a bail out if it had been the Chelsea & Kensington Bank?

Nick, I don't think David Cameron was wrong to use The Northern Rock story to highlight wider issues including high levels of personal debt in this country. He is after all the opposition leader and his job is to hold the government to account wherever possible.

Most experts would agree that "runs" on banks should not be occuring in this day and age. I think the government should be criticised for the handling of recent events and questioned over this guarantee off all deposits in a struggling bank using tax payers money. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Mike *11* you have no idea of what is going on now and least of all you have not even the slightest idea of what went wrong in September on Black Wednesday.
Thatcher took Sterling into the ERM (thanks to the then advisor to Lamont - Cameron the great) for eventual introduction of the Euro into Britain. The ERM is the Exchange Rate Mechanism whereby the value of the pound Sterling had a margin up or down by an agreed percentage.
BUT THE UK ECONOMY OF THE TIME WAS DOING SO BAD UNDER THE TORIES THAT THE VALUE IF STERLING WAS GOING DOWN BY THE HOURS. (1992 we had the 3rd. Tory recession) meaning BUST! = 16% interest rates - REMEMBER?
To refresh your memory, Cameron the great managed to loose Billions and Billions in just 15 minutes, yes that's right, 15 minutes because Lamont kept coming on the Telly reassuring the markets that Sterling was still doing well and strong in value when in reality the whole wold was disposing of Sterling cause no one wanted to deal in Sterling.
Mike, we are not talking about an individual Bank here BUT THE VALUE OF THE CURRENCY and if the Sterling did not recover we would have ended like Zimbabwe with about 400% inflation!

The FSA have simply applied the policy of a goverbnment lead by spin marketeering.

Final salary pensions only exist for the ever increasing number of public sector employees, paid out of direct tax receipts from the private sector employees. A private sector pension is limited in growth because so fund managers are tod to avoid equities or other economic generation based product and stick to government securities.

The gilts are created to allow the unfettered spending of a profligate (to no great benefit other than their own retirement pockets) Labour government.

Albert #22 is being too harsh in referring to band-wagons and the past in relation to David Cameron. I'm very relaxed about criticising the Tories, but strive to do so fairly. If an official Opposition can't say anything about a governing party in case it is criticised for being opportunistic then we might as well do away with elections. And this constant harping back to the past is wearing pretty thin. As I've said before, we might as well blame Gordon for things that Michael Foot used to believe in. Behind all the nonsense on this subject is this: the former Governor of the Bank of England has said that interest rates were kept deliberatley low to stop the UK falling into a recession. Cheap credit = lots of credit = lots of defaults. As for the billions and billions that Albert referred to in relation to the Tories' Black Wednesday debacle, we now know (from HM Government) that the loss was 拢3billion - less than the amount expected to be wasted on inefficiences in the new tax credit system.

One key point in all this seems to me to have been overlooked. If the 'crisis' was indeed a shortage of short-term liquidity (cash) at NR then WHY does the BoE trumpet a 拢4.1Bn Emergency credit facility (as yet undrawn)which precipitates a WITHDRAWAL of around that amount (if not more) of NR savers' CASH deposits - thus reducing the very commodity they were trying to create more of? (Furthermore, we learn after the event that a run on the bank was in fact fully expected and turned out to be 'less than anticipated!!) Do I detect a high degree of financial incompetence and crass stupidity from institutions which clearly should know much better?! This is the height of folly and the most breathtaking example of a schoolboy error since the (former) Iron Chancellor warned the gleeful markets exactly how much gold he was selling and when. 1929-style scenes of gullible lemmings lining up to withdraw cash to put it under the mattress instead of keeping it in a perfectly sound bank - self-fulfilling prophecies anyone?
NR was caught between aRock (sorry) & a hard place. If, in fact, the lender of last resort's cash is the cheapest available due to current LIBOR and reluctance of other banks to lend, it was perfectly reasonable for NR and BoE to do so, but the associated RISK of unnecessarily induced public panic, fanned by the usual ill-informed media hype & hysteria had to be properly managed and that is the gross failure here. It has also led directly to NR being heavily short sold on the stock market and their reputation unnecessarily severely damaged as a result. Fact is, 100% of first 拢2K and 拢31300 of anyone's 拢35k savings was already guaranteed, irrespective of the Badger's white charger. As for the 'collateral damage' caused to A&L and B&B, don't even start me on that. ANY banking system ultimately relies on CONFIDENCE - forget that at your peril. Runs on banks beget runs on banks.

Who was it that flogged off our gold reserves at remarkably interesting rates?

No 36. Getting out of the ERM was the best thing that happened to the UK economy, which has never looked back since and led to Labour inheriting the best economy ever. Incidently all political parties were in favour of joining the ERM at the time, so all were proved wrong. Staying out of the Euro is essential for our economic health.

Why does David Cameron keep 鈥減utting his foot in it鈥�?
Does he think that he can advantageously stir up mud or does it come naturally, as previously demonstrated?

It would appear that the recent "crisis" has only reinforced the image of the Opposition as totally out of their depth in dealing with such issues.

Can you imagine Cameron/Osborne in such a situation - having to steel themselves to make a decision without resorting to their Notting Hill or Old Etonian chums? Makes one shudder if they got near the fabled levers of power.

At last we have some policies from the Conservative Party, anything is preferable to the our current uninspiring government, I am sure they are the cause of the current epidemic of depression.