Is this how the Tories should respond to the "Tory cuts" attack?
Peter Hoskin 12:06pm
As a respite from all the reshuffle talk (don't worry: There Will Be More), it's worth flagging up this passage in Peter Oborne's Mail article today.
"To give one example of RBS's suicidal carelessness among many, it is owed some £2.5billion by the Russian oligarch Leonid Blavatnik which will never be seen again. Next month, when the bank announces its results, it is expected to unveil a truly terrifying loss of approximately £30billion.These losses – and new ones are emerging every day – are all met by the British taxpayer. Indeed, RBS's asset value merely needs to fall by 10 per cent, and twice the annual cost of the National Health Service is instantly wiped off the national balance sheet."
I know this doesn't mean that the Government will be forced to cut NHS spending as RBS sinks, but the bonfire of taxpayers' cash does rather immunise the Tories from those "Tory cuts" attack.
Previous
THX1138
January 19th, 2009 12:18pm Report this commentI can't imagine anything the odious Peter Oborne writes is worth flagging.
Jim
January 19th, 2009 12:26pm Report this commentWhy in the name of sanity are we subsidising RBS's losses?
We should limit our support to protecting savers. If RBS or any other bank have been so bovine as to lose billions in Russia then the shareholders should take the hit.
Better to give the money straight to the people and the businesses that really need it.
If we'd had someone with even half a brain running the economy for the last 11 years we would have a system of banking regulation which would have prevented this level of exposure in the first place.
Hold this thought....Brown has been running the treasury since 1997 and WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH TOXIC DEBT THE BANKS HAVE............
It beggars belief...
In any commercial organisation a finance director like Brown would have been fired years ago.
Instead he gets to be CEO.....
God help us.
Oliver d'Place
January 19th, 2009 12:42pm Report this commentTHX 1138 is a 1971 science fiction film directed by George Lucas, from a screenplay by Lucas and Walter Murch. It depicts a dystopian future in which a high level of control is exerted upon the populace through omnipresent, faceless, android police officers and mandatory, regulated use of special drugs to suppress emotion, including sexual desire.
Says it all really.
Mike, Brighton
January 19th, 2009 12:49pm Report this commentTHX1138 - In what way in Oborne odious? I know his drinking exploits are legendary but I find him one of the best right wing commentators around and his books are excellent.
Slim Jim
January 19th, 2009 1:05pm Report this commentI must defend Mr. Oborne as he is one of our better political journalists IMO. I have enjoyed his books and his TV work, but to describe him as 'odious' is incomprehensible.
JohnAnt
January 19th, 2009 1:30pm Report this commentIt's not Oborne but Osborne that the Tories should be worrying about: this is his area, and what is he saying and doing about it?
The Tories could (just about) win in spite of bringing clapped-out Ken Clarke on board; but they can't win with Osborne. Nobody trusts his judgement after the Deripaska affair.
TGF UKIP
January 19th, 2009 1:43pm Report this commentNot that the pathetic and pusillanimous Cameron Tories are proposing any spending cuts as Dave was so concerned to make clear to Marr last Sunday.
Indeed, Dave spelled it out. Under his Tories, spending would rise from £620bn 09 not to Labour's £650 but to just £645bn in 2010 - WOW! He really is a conservative's conservative isn't he!
THX1138
January 19th, 2009 2:13pm Report this commentOliver- Yep & THX1138 attempts to escape from the state in which he's imprisoned. Hence my name, so whats your point.
JudgeJeffreys
January 19th, 2009 3:13pm Report this commentI'm still waiting for the mass exodus, minus bonuses and pensions, of all the senior bank officials that created the mess that the taxpayer is being asked to rescue them from. So far most of them seem to be grimly hanging on to their (well paid) places.
Frank Goddard
January 19th, 2009 3:15pm Report this commentAs part of the silent majority I would like to give my two'penneth to this forum.First I think that the re-introduction of K.Clarke is very welcome,pity there was no room for D.Davies and the architect of "broken Britain" IDS.
Second,the real reason behind Gormless Brown's so called "inititive",(its for the people and small business stupid),is RBS and HBOS to stop them going to the wall and the 24k Scottish employee's,plus his and all the other Scottish MP's that are in the cabinet, and junior minister positions, would lose their jobs also.Without these politicians on the nu-Labour gravy train,they would be doomed
and we would get our country back.
Frank ....pensioner.
Liz Brown
January 19th, 2009 4:04pm Report this commentThere is diference between spending cuts and in not increasing the level of spending forecast - perhaps too fine a distinction for some?
Slim Jim
January 19th, 2009 4:23pm Report this commentJudge - they'll probably hang on as long as the politicians who are just as culpable. How are we going to reverse this nasty culture of rewarding failure, in both the public and private sectors? There should be a law...
TrevorsDen
January 19th, 2009 4:32pm Report this commentONE
Look you weasels out there ... the country's in the shit - big time.
Someone has to pick up the bill. Look around you, who else is there? Changing govt will not change that, not by much anyway.
Recognising this is not the same thing as saying we should NOT change government. Of course we should.
For two reasons.
1 - The present one got us into this mess and should be thrown out - 'pour encourage les autres'.
2 - A new government can take whatever measures it can free from taint, free from the necessity to trim its measures to protect its reputation and free from electoral considerations.
TWO
We own the banks - bank losses have to be funded from borrowing until future profits, if any, can pay them off. If we have to fund these losses then the consequences for government seem truly eye watering. The question surely is - just what was Brown's pet the FSA doing while these losses were being run up?
THREE
It seems pretty clear the government do not know what is going on. Cameron's 'headless chickens' jibe may be just a soundbite but it rings true to me. We should be afraid, very afraid.
kinglear
January 19th, 2009 5:03pm Report this commentEven today, Darling actually said he had no idea how much the bailout was going to cost. That's mostly because the Banks themselves have little or no idea what they are going to have to write off, and somehow they have persuaded the government to give them a blank cheque. Just try that on your own bank manager.
Hysteria
January 19th, 2009 10:20pm Report this comment@ Trevors Den - yup - I think you have it - looking at the raw data in the economic sphere is truly awful - we really could be heading for default.
Unfortunatley neither main party shows any depth of understanding, and no political leader can be heard talking about the elephant in the room - the need to CUT spending.
All the talk about bail outs etc completely ignores our own home grown Ponzi scheme - National Insurance and public sector pensions......
And we assume that foreign governments wil buy our debt.. but why would they? Why invest in sterling when we do not make enough on the world stage to buy. and in the absence of a balance of payment surplus we woudl be paying back in "Mugabe Sterling".
If this was 1930 we would be chatting about that nice wee man in Germany who got their inflation under control, and Mr Mussolini has the trains running on time.
Oh and by the way, our current enemies are busy attacking us via their proxies in the Middle East..........
I see no-one showing any inclination to talk about any of this - perhaps because they know.....??
Back to top