Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Do you ever wonder if Gordon Brown has too much money?

127 replies

AtheneNoctua · 16/04/2008 18:16

WTF, as if Norther Rock wasn't bad enough... let's just sell out the taxpayer to whole banking industry.

Banking industry bail out

OP posts:
Miggsie · 16/04/2008 18:24

...well how else is he going to get all those highly paid non executive directorships at the banks when he stops being prime minister?
He can hardly say "you bunch of greedy gits got just what you deserve, dig yourselves out of the hole you dug" can he? They won't invite him home for tea then, will they?

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 16/04/2008 18:39

(directed at Gordon not you)

OP posts:
Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 16/04/2008 22:46

So everyone is happy for their taxes to go to the banks then?

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 16/04/2008 22:48

No, I don't wonder if he has too much money because I know for certain he has too few brains.

He can't even coordinate his PR team to plan his trip abroad to max effect.

He's been upstaged by the Pope and is barely registering a blip on the radar.

Alambil · 17/04/2008 09:57

too much money and too few brain cells = prime minister; whoever it is.

Upwind · 17/04/2008 10:16

In his 1997 Budget Statement, Gordon Brown said: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery." Then the the cost of homes trebled in ten years.

So what he actually did was remove house prices from the inflation measure the Bank of England uses. And do nothing to regulate an explosion in mortgage backed securities which led to more 125% mortgages, self cert mortgages. Bankers made massive bonuses and Tony Blair was rewarded with a cushy job at a bank. Does Crash Gordon expect the same payback as he uses tax payers money to bail out the banks?

Two approaches to banking could work - little regulation, and allowing them to go bust if they take crazy risks like Northern Rock did OR close regulation and bail outs if it all goes wrong. The way things are now, they get to have their cake and eat it. Heads they win, tails the taxpayer loses.

Poohbah · 17/04/2008 14:23

He sold off all our Gold aswell.

I got my tank of oil to heat my house this morning, it cost £600. That's a 100% rise on last years. That's 100% inflation!

Also Diesel costs £1.24 per litre so even running a citroen C3 is becoming really expensive. I feel a fuel protest coming on.

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 14:29

Yeah, and he sold the gold when the market was down... guess he didn't the money enough to wait until he would get more for it.

I so hope he loses the next election, or should I say non-election?

OP posts:
Upwind · 17/04/2008 14:44

Who benefited from him selling off the gold against all advice from within the treasury department?

Genuine question, I have no idea but am sure that someone did. It literally cost us billions. I have heard rumours about his "old friends" buying it up, but was too embarassed to ask who they might be

Poohbah · 17/04/2008 14:59

No idea, but no one asked me first!

claricebeansmum · 17/04/2008 15:03

So the government is effectively going to buy the nations mortgage debt? And then the banks continue as they are out of control and then...is there an economist here please!

Kewcumber · 17/04/2008 15:09

Well I'm an accountant and ex-corporate treasurer and it baffles me. It sounds way too complicated to me. If liquididty in the market is the issue why make arms length loans at a sensible rate available to the banks, secured againt the mortgage book. Why do we actually have to "buy" the mortgage books of the banks. Anyway, ALL the banks? it'll cost a bleedin' fortune!

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 15:09

Not the government, the taxpayers. You and me.

I'm no ecomonist, but I suspect that the longer house prices remain inflated the harder they will crash. (and since I don't own a home I'm not entirely opposed to this) But, surely it is not good for the nation as a whole.

Do you think the government will get to own the house that they buy?

OP posts:
Kewcumber · 17/04/2008 15:09

no-one offered me any cheap gold on any street corners either, bah!

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 15:10

Hi Kew!

OP posts:
Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 15:10

Hows tings?

OP posts:
Kewcumber · 17/04/2008 15:10

Maybe its Brown cunning plan to have a huge stockpile of new council houses wihtout actually building any?

Kewcumber · 17/04/2008 15:11

pretty good except have been off sick for 2 weeks with chest infection so am bloody tired. How was Chicago?

noddyholder · 17/04/2008 15:13

This is seriously bad and will probably be sold to the public as an end to the credit crunch but it is far from it.They are buying up all mortgages pre December and anything taken out after then doesn't apply and so people coming to the ends of deals etc will be no better off.What will happen when some of these mortgages default?Taxes and inflation are going to rocket and backs will have to increase rates to make money from their existing customers to cover them.

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 15:19

Chicago was fab.

Sorry about illness. We should get together for an after work dinner some time and catch up. It's been ages. Work is threatening to send me to Kaz again.... yawn. Don't really want to go, but I expect to not have a choice. At least it isn't winter!

OP posts:
Upwind · 17/04/2008 15:48

From the link above: "The scheme would temporarily allow banks to swap their mortgage-based assets for government bonds.

The hope is that banks will find it easier to borrow and lend to other banks using these bonds as security, which in turn would ease up lending to individual borrowers...

...banks' mortgage-based assets are being exchanged for safer government debt, therefore the government is taking the banks' risks onto its balance sheet."

but also:
"The government does not consider this a bail-out of the banks and the BBC understands the scheme will not go ahead unless it can be designed to protect the taxpayer from any loss."

????? if it was possible to design such a scheme, that could inject massive liquidity, risk free, surely the bankers would have already come up with one? Or is it just that despite their massive bonuses they are not as bright as the government bods?

Or is it that they think the general public are too stupid to understand when their money is used to bail out the bankers? I really don't understand this.

noddyholder · 17/04/2008 16:08

They did this in the US along with cutting interest rates quite sharply and it didn't work.Desperate measures to prop up a banking system that has gone awry.Bust always follows boom it is history and as this is the biggest boom we have to expect the biggest bust but they have an election to get through and I suppose this might cover their arses til then and then the whole thing will come tumbling down

noddyholder · 17/04/2008 16:10

also by doing this they can avoid the banks that are about to go under being revealed to the public causing another run like NR.They do think we are stupid but the ridiculous property market has caused this and we do need to get back to basics so something has to give.They will need to get teh £ from somwewhere?Us I think

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 17/04/2008 16:46

Well, I'm going to pack in this whole work and tax thing if they think I am going to pay for other people's houses when I can't afford one of my own.

They should have a surplus of council houses anyway once they own all the houses whose mortgages they want the taxpayers to finance.

Gordon is buyin time, but I think it will crumble anyway before he calls an election. SErves him right, he created this mess after all. He has been living on borrowed time for years. I think the banks need to suffer a bit and property market does need a correction. That can not be avoided. And the sooner it happens the less painful it will be (in my novice opinion).

OP posts:
oiFoiF · 17/04/2008 16:49

if my bank charges are anything to go by, the bank doesnt need baioling out at all