This thread is just a lame attempt by a rather bitter and spurned whannabe pol to imply that Gordon Brown really was a financial genious and not the financial mong he seems to be.


Coming next: Vince Cable is going to kill the first born.

Hmmmmmm

How to misrepresent a view in one easy leasson.

Brown, screwed up with the banks. Cable was telling him so for years, told Darling what to do and lo and behold, Brown did it.

Cable is the genius of the resession.

Rubbish, in large part our banking crisis was triggered by Browns mong handling of Northern Cockup. If he had let it go bust things would have blown over without spending gazzilions.

Of course Brown bailing out Northern Cockup had nothing to do with it's rather 'interesting' property portfolio and the fact Labour luminaries had mortgages with them.

Whet the amount of 'profit' the government stands to make on the ownership of these banks is NOTHING compared to the costs of the interest payments on the loans taken out to prop them up.

Dont be a fucking idiot please.

You do realise where these huge profits have come from as well I hope?

Of course it would. People wouldn't have gone on to cause a run on other banks - especially when the massive losses were announced.

Browns cockup had nothing to do with Northern Rock as an independent bank, but in his failure to regulate hard enough.

No it was a poor focus of regulation. The banks were better regulated prior to the FSA by the BOE, the industry regulator set up by the banks in the mid to late 80s was superior to any government regulatory attempts.

Brown's cockup has everything to do with trying to look good economically and protect northern jobs/political brand.

Originally Posted by ASICarrot

Whet the amount of 'profit' the government stands to make on the ownership of these banks is NOTHING compared to the costs of the interest payments on the loans taken out to prop them up.

Dont be a fucking idiot please.

You do realise where these huge profits have come from as well I hope?

Really?

I already posted showing that if the shares were sold just before the election then a profit would have been made. How much more of a profit will be made given the rise since 26th april (when the Beeb article came out)?

It is not just the cost of purchasing the shares. Its the rapid enlargement on spending on the mechanism enacted to prop the failing banks up - a rate of failure which was at the very least perpetuated if not directly caused by Brown.

Or are we forgetting the due dilligence period debacle here?

Now that the banks are all shored up and making profit, expect the papers and industry to start pushing for the government to sell the shares back, maybe even give a timeline so that they can get the share price down a bit and make a bigger profit out of the government.

It's sad to see that the people who were at the top during the banking disaster are all still in jobs, weirdly enough a couple of them made it into the government as part of the advisory team to stop something like this happening again, and of course to look after the shares in the banks that the government bailed out. I can see these guys going back to industry within 3 months of the sell off, with a nice cheque in their pocket from their last employer, and a huge cheque from their new employers.

Does anyone know what kind of divedend that we (the taxpayer) would be expecting per share?