A mutual decision?
James Forsyth 11:31am
There is an interesting little story tucked away in today’s Daily Mirror, the government might only sell off Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley on condition that they are turned into mutually-owned societies. Jason Beattie reports that the idea of turning them back into building societies is being backed by John McFall, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, and 29 other Co-Operative party Labour MPs.
I suspect that if Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley are de-nationalised this side of the election, something that I suspect Brown would like to do, the price will be the key determinant. But, politically, I can see the appeal of insisting that they be turned into mutuals; it would be a way of signalling that lessons —albeit, not necessarily the right ones — had been learned from the crash. It would also challenge the Tories, who have flirted with the idea of co-operatives, to say whether they agree or not.
Previous
rmh
July 15th, 2009 11:57am Report this commentSo how do we get our money back then?
C Powell
July 15th, 2009 12:26pm Report this commentGiven that other mutuals have got into trouble: the Derbyshire, the Dunfermline etc, the fact of being mutual is not the issue. It's the quality of the management and regulatory oversight which are key, not the structure. That's what the Tories need to focus on.
JW
July 15th, 2009 12:40pm Report this commentHow do you sell a BS to become a mutual society? Will anyone except the members be willing to pay for it and then seeing as there can only be one buyer (albeit a collective one) we can hardly expect to get a decent price.
Chris lancashire
July 15th, 2009 12:52pm Report this commentNot another issue turned into party politics by Brown. There should be one consideration and one consideration only - getting best value for UK taxpayers.
Sir Graphus
July 15th, 2009 12:59pm Report this comment"price will be the key determinant"
I'll say. I once bought a car (bear with me), very keen to take possession before a family holiday. The dealer knew this, and I got a poor deal.
Since any purchaser knows that Brown is similarly keen to make the sale in a politically advantageous timeframe, he (we) will get a similarly poor deal.
If Brown has the choice of selling NR for (a) maximum value to the taxpayer (b) maximum political advantage for himself, which do we think he'll choose?
David Ossitt
July 15th, 2009 2:55pm Report this commentLet us be clear; Brown would recognise a good deal, if it bit him in the arse.
He is a criminal who wastes our money at every turn.
Disorganised1
July 15th, 2009 5:12pm Report this commentSell a building society ? You're talking about a man who couldn't sell gold !
Mary Lockhart
July 16th, 2009 11:07am Report this commentI think it's a good idea to make what we used to think of as High Street Banks into mutuals. The mutuals which got into trouble did so because they tried to ape the commercial banks, which in turn failed because they were too greedy, and their staff too bonus driven. Both failures indicate a lack of business ethics, and I think Co-operatives and mutuals have the key advantage of combining ethical, social, and business objectives. So this time, I think Gordon Brown is getting it right.
Back to top