vimothy
yurp
I don't really think that's that important though, it's just a general moan, Labour never specifically promised not to nationalise anything. For everyone who claims that Brown is not "free-market" enough there are a million who claim that he is too far the other way. Every step to placate the city has been viewed as a betrayal by the left, now he acts in a Labour way that you might think is more consistent with the views of the people who voted Labour into power and it's another betrayal.
But the extent to which Labour is (or was) regarded as the party of economic competence and the preference of business, is the extent to which it has (or had) abandoned the politics of the pre Blair and pre Thatcher era.
Well, as we already said, it depends on how it's done doesn't it? The fact that the other banks seem relatively relaxed about it (or did yesterday, has there been any change?) seems a good pointer because they would go on the attack at the drop of a hat if they thought that they were going to lose out.
I think it's going to be hard, for reasons that I'll go into at the end of the post.
Seems like a reasonable point but the question ought to be more like "why didn't they help then?" rather than "why do they help now?".
That whole piece reads like ideological anger in response to a nationalisation - none of his arguments are based on economics are they? The hyperbolic language hides the lack of content.
The arguments against nationalisation are solid economic arguments and I take them as given. Regarding the article itself, Anatole Kaletsky is a good finance and economics journalist and is worth listening to in general, IMO.
Yesterday you were complaining that the brand name was so tainted that no-one would save with it - I guess you must be pleased that your fears proved groundless.
It's not that simple, though, is it? This is the problem I alluded to at the top of the post. The fact that city bankers are rushing to take advantage of the government backed rates doesn't mean that everything's fine and dandy. The way I see it, there are forces acting in opposite directions: the bank's "brand recognition" has taken a pretty hefty beating in the eyes of the public and the city, so the government needs to make it competitive and successful. That's why it offers 125% mortgages, despite the fact that no one else in the country will. The degree of distrust will influence the degree of unfair advantage given to the bank. It must. The incentives now exist for the government to err on the side of caution, to give the company the competitve edge it wants, and therefore to inject moral hazard and to distort the market. It's already happening, and it's only day 2!