Lloyds TSB & HBOS

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

Lloyds TSB & HBOS

Remember the promise GordonBrown made to increase regulation to deal with the current collapse of our financial institutions, Well! His biggest move so far is a massive decrease in regulation.
Our Prime Minister has allowed the money men to simply ignore ‘completely’ the normal rules when he let Lloyds TSB sidestep the Competition Commission inquiry to take over HBOS.
This forced deregulation is one more piece of financial blackmail by the Bankers: Give us our bail-outs and exemptions or the economy gets it! But there are other pressures on Brown too.

Firstly, Lloyds TSB’s board is Gordon-friendly. Brown has good relations (They’re long time mates) with Chairman VictorBlank, while the board includes SandyLeitch, a labour donor whose many good works for the party were finally rewarded with a Knighthood. DavidManning, TonyBlair’s old foreign policy adviser, also sits on the board.

The Bank had wanted to take over HBOS (Halifax & Bank Of Scotland) for some time but knew it wouldn’t get past the anti-monopoly laws. Brown’s bypassing of the competition inquiry therefore represents a huge and valuable gift form one part of the establishment to another – the “establishment” Brown claimed if you remember in his speech at the Labour party conference that he wanted to change rather than join.
But Brown has another pressing reason to establish Lloyds TSB, HBOS. Thanks to Brown’s ill conceived private finance initiatives, the Bank is central to NHS hospital and other public services.

During the labour conference his wife took part in the well-publicised visit to the site of Manchester’s children hospital, part of a £420 million PFI scheme. Via various PFI consortia, HBOS is involved in running 12,000 beds in hospitals from London to Halifax. It also finances more than 30 school projects, covering 20,000 school places.
The ultimate financial effect of an HBOS collapse on these PFIs isn’t hard to calculate; the disruption would have been severe if not catastrophic and would have put the nail in the coffins of most, if not all PFIs projects. This from my perspective wouldn’t have been a bad thing at all...

[Marxist Nutter]

Lloyds TSB & HBOS

Remember the promise GordonBrown made to increase regulation to deal with the current collapse of our financial institutions, Well! His biggest move so far is a massive decrease in regulation.
Our Prime Minister has allowed the money men to simply ignore ‘completely’ the normal rules when he let Lloyds TSB sidestep the Competition Commission inquiry to take over HBOS.
This forced deregulation is one more piece of financial blackmail by the Bankers: Give us our bail-outs and exemptions or the economy gets it! But there are other pressures on Brown too.

Firstly, Lloyds TSB’s board is Gordon-friendly. Brown has good relations (They’re long time mates) with Chairman VictorBlank, while the board includes SandyLeitch, a labour donor whose many good works for the party were finally rewarded with a Knighthood. DavidManning, TonyBlair’s old foreign policy adviser, also sits on the board.

The Bank had wanted to take over HBOS (Halifax & Bank Of Scotland) for some time but knew it wouldn’t get past the anti-monopoly laws. Brown’s bypassing of the competition inquiry therefore represents a huge and valuable gift form one part of the establishment to another – the “establishment” Brown claimed if you remember in his speech at the Labour party conference that he wanted to change rather than join.
But Brown has another pressing reason to establish Lloyds TSB, HBOS. Thanks to Brown’s ill conceived private finance initiatives, the Bank is central to NHS hospital and other public services.

During the labour conference his wife took part in the well-publicised visit to the site of Manchester’s children hospital, part of a £420 million PFI scheme. Via various PFI consortia, HBOS is involved in running 12,000 beds in hospitals from London to Halifax. It also finances more than 30 school projects, covering 20,000 school places.
The ultimate financial effect of an HBOS collapse on these PFIs isn’t hard to calculate; the disruption would have been severe if not catastrophic and would have put the nail in the coffins of most, if not all PFIs projects. This from my perspective wouldn’t have been a bad thing at all...

Goes to show that whether the NHS is private or not the tax payer still foots the bill, regardless if whether are allowed any care or have to pay for it. Bit like the railways, i suppose .

Meanwhile it boosts the profits of the already very rich, that's capitalism folks!

[13th November 1002]

Yes, totally agree. Keep an eye on Spanish giant, Satander, too.

Although complete nationalisation of the banks, to be amalgamated under the auspices of a regulated Bank of England would be the way to go, except for the greedy. It's a notion that I am fond of and one that I thought you may quite like too, Mr. Nutter.

I would also like to see the railways, bus, gas, electric, telecommunications, water and all governmental private contractors nationalised also.

No good reason not to, apart from avarice.

[Midas]

Yes, totally agree. Keep an eye on Spanish giant, Satander, too.

Santander has not only survived but expanded over the last few months for one simple reason; the Spanish government insist that banks incorporated there have to have a significantly higher liquidity ratio than in most other EU countries. Amongst other things, this has the effect of instilling a far greater public confidence in the bank preventing runs such as happened with the Northern Rock.

Although complete nationalisation of the banks, to be amalgamated under the auspices of a regulated Bank of England would be the way to go, except for the greedy. It's a notion that I am fond of and one that I thought you may quite like too, Mr. Nutter.

I would also like to see the railways, bus, gas, electric, telecommunications, water and all governmental private contractors nationalised also.

No good reason not to, apart from avarice.

There are many exceedingly good financial and management reasons to have a totally independent banking system. Anyone who understands economics and the part that the the independent banking sector has to play would be able to tell you that. Greed has nothing to do with it; that's a combination of human nature and being able to play the system, partly due to laxity of regulation I will agree, however that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Quite honestly, I can't see why anyone would want what should be competitive services to be nationalised! Nationalisation inevitably removes the competitive element leading to mediocre services, high levels of inefficiency and a general couldn't care less attitude to the financing of the organisation. It also removes the element of freedom of choice; take what's on offer irrespective of how bad it is or do without! There are also absolutely no guarantees that a nationalised service will be any cheaper than the private equivalent, particularly when the total tax contribution is taken into account. Just look at the NHS as a good example; a poorer overall service at a cost per patient treatment that's actually higher than in the private sector.

I can see that there's a case to be made for ensuring a far greater degree of coordination between transport services to end some of the glaring duplications and omissions in services in some parts of the country, but again that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

If you look back through history, not only in the UK but worldwide, the number of nationalised organisations that have either perform better or more efficiently than their private sector equivalents are exceedingly rare. Trying to bring this back is tantamount to trying to step back into the bad old days of uncompetitive and mediocre socialism, which will do absolutely nothing for anyone other than those left wing politicians who will feel they've won, but at what a huge national cost!

Every good reason not to do that.

[Marxist Nutter]

Santander has not only survived but expanded over the last few months for one simple reason; the Spanish government insist that banks incorporated there have to have a significantly higher liquidity ratio than in most other EU countries. Amongst other things, this has the effect of instilling a far greater public confidence in the bank preventing runs such as happened with the Northern Rock.



There are many exceedingly good financial and management reasons to have a totally independent banking system. Anyone who understands economics and the part that the the independent banking sector has to play would be able to tell you that. Greed has nothing to do with it; that's a combination of human nature and being able to play the system, partly due to laxity of regulation I will agree, however that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Quite honestly, I can't see why anyone would want what should be competitive services to be nationalised! Nationalisation inevitably removes the competitive element leading to mediocre services, high levels of inefficiency and a general couldn't care less attitude to the financing of the organisation. It also removes the element of freedom of choice; take what's on offer irrespective of how bad it is or do without! There are also absolutely no guarantees that a nationalised service will be any cheaper than the private equivalent, particularly when the total tax contribution is taken into account. Just look at the NHS as a good example; a poorer overall service at a cost per patient treatment that's actually higher than in the private sector.

I can see that there's a case to be made for ensuring a far greater degree of coordination between transport services to end some of the glaring duplications and omissions in services in some parts of the country, but again that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

If you look back through history, not only in the UK but worldwide, the number of nationalised organisations that have either perform better or more efficiently than their private sector equivalents are exceedingly rare. Trying to bring this back is tantamount to trying to step back into the bad old days of uncompetitive and mediocre socialism, which will do absolutely nothing for anyone other than those left wing politicians who will feel they've won, but at what a huge national cost!

Every good reason not to do that.

The point is most things such as the NHS and trains are natural monopolies so it simply is wasteful to privatise them (according to classical economic theory which you seem to often subscribe to). The end result is a more expensive system per unit cost for the consumer and subsidization by the tax payer as with train services. So essentially the consumer pays for it twice - no wonder they perform better, just the consumer gets screwed as does the tax payer. Once again business is the only winner!

Also things like public safety and common good go by the wayside in favour of profit maximization (again trains are the obvious example)

[13th November 1002]

Ok, Midas.

I really was not interested or ignorant of why Satander is expanding so quickly.

There are many exceedingly good financial and management reasons to have a totally independent banking system. Anyone who understands economics and the part that the the independent banking sector has to play would be able to tell you that. Greed has nothing to do with it; that's a combination of human nature and being able to play the system, partly due to laxity of regulation I will agree, however that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Not much being said here. I could say this, (and likewise hope to sound rather more astute than I might be) :-

There are not many exceedingly good financial and management reasons to have a totally independent banking system. Anyone who understands economics and the part that the the independent banking sector has to play would be able to tell you that. Greed has everything to do with it; that's a combination of human nature and being able to play the system, partly due to laxity of regulation I will agree, however that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Just changed two words.

Quite honestly, I can't see why anyone would want what should be competitive services to be nationalised! Nationalisation inevitably removes the competitive element leading to mediocre services, high levels of inefficiency and a general couldn't care less attitude to the financing of the organisation. It also removes the element of freedom of choice; take what's on offer irrespective of how bad it is or do without! There are also absolutely no guarantees that a nationalised service will be any cheaper than the private equivalent, particularly when the total tax contribution is taken into account. Just look at the NHS as a good example; a poorer overall service at a cost per patient treatment that's actually higher than in the private sector.

The first line is opinion. The efficiency is a matter of control, it cannot be said that is impossible to instil efficiency in a nationalised banking system, with the right management. As for could not care less attitudes, I think you will find little of that as far as banks are concerned with the majority, (i.e. the less wealthy), of their customers.

Freedom of choice? What about the freedom of ordinary people having to finance shareholders and huge fat cat salaries? A nationalised system would benefit the vast majority of people in this land by not penalising them at the very time that they are most financially vulnerable. Excessive charges and final demands swiftly handed out at every opportunity to fatten greedy wallets.

The nationalised system would most certainly be 'cheaper' [sic], (economics?), and it would pass on interest rate cuts immediately, not hang on for a month or three to cadge a few more quid off of the poor buggers trying to pay their mortgage.

The NHS has absolutely no parallel with banking. But as you mention it, it is nothing short of a boon as far as ordinary people are concerned. If you doubt this, just ask people around you about private dentistry that has been fuelled by greed and the effects of the nations dental health and the 'costs per patient'.

I can see that there's a case to be made for ensuring a far greater degree of coordination between transport services to end some of the glaring duplications and omissions in services in some parts of the country, but again that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Agree with your sentiment, but coordination is never, ever, ever, going to happen whilst public transport is in private hands. Don't die thinking it ever will, life's way too short.

If you look back through history, not only in the UK but worldwide, the number of nationalised organisations that have either perform better or more efficiently than their private sector equivalents are exceedingly rare. Trying to bring this back is tantamount to trying to step back into the bad old days of uncompetitive and mediocre socialism, which will do absolutely nothing for anyone other than those left wing politicians who will feel they've won, but at what a huge national cost!

Always looking back through history. History should never be ignored. However many people would disagree with most of the points here, which are little more than pure opinion. My opinion is that the privatisations of the Thatcher era were little more than an Avaricefest for the sheer Greedy that have resulted in overpriced train fares, electricity, gas, water etc., whilst lining rich pockets at ordinary folk's expense.

[Midas]

There are not many exceedingly good financial and management reasons to have a totally independent banking system. Anyone who understands economics and the part that the the independent banking sector has to play would be able to tell you that. Greed has everything to do with it; that's a combination of human nature and being able to play the system, partly due to laxity of regulation I will agree, however that's a totally separate issue to nationalisation.

Just changed two words.

OK, your opinion, but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about large-scale finance and economics. I will agree however that part of the problems within the banking system have been down to greed, but to a large part that greed has itself stemmed from the inefficiencies in government oversight and the almost complete lack of regulation on bonuses and commissions. Not that they shouldn't be paid, but the fact that they were paid out way before any actual profits were returned, mainly on financial products which were themselves unsustainable, such as the sub-prime mortgages in the US. Greed is a fundamental part of human nature though and you'll never change that; if 90% plus of the population were in a situation where they could better themselves, even though it might mean less for others, I'd bet they'd take advantage of it. In hindsight, the very fact that government didn't understand the implications of much of what was going on in the financial world speaks volumes about the competency and capability of 'those in charge' at government level!

Freedom of choice? What about the freedom of ordinary people having to finance shareholders and huge fat cat salaries? A nationalised system would benefit the vast majority of people in this land by not penalising them at the very time that they are most financially vulnerable. Excessive charges and final demands swiftly handed out at every opportunity to fatten greedy wallets.

The nationalised system would most certainly be 'cheaper' [sic], (economics?), and it would pass on interest rate cuts immediately, not hang on for a month or three to cadge a few more quid off of the poor buggers trying to pay their mortgage.

Again, your comments reflect a lack of understanding about finance and economics. The shareholders of any company partly own it; are you implying that they shouldn't benefit financially from that investment? I don't know what you personally define as a "huge fat cat salary" but if you look at the accounts of the most profitable companies, those where the senior executives tend to get paid very high salaries, you'll very quickly see that in general they're the most profitable and are those which produce a good return for their shareholders. Don't forget that if shareholders aren't happy with the performance of any of those "fat cats", they can vote them out of office. Your comments seem to be driven far more by emotions than by facts.

In every instance that I can think of, and I'm certain that a trawl through references will support what I say, a nationalised banking system has ultimately proved to be a failure irrespective of what country it's been tried in. A nationalised system is not cheaper, and as for passing on interest rate cuts immediately, just take a look at the way that the nationalised Northern Rock immediately increased many of it's rates, as well as it's repossessions, after the government bailout, leaving many thousands of its mortgage holders far worse off.

The NHS has absolutely no parallel with banking. But as you mention it, it is nothing short of a boon as far as ordinary people are concerned. If you doubt this, just ask people around you about private dentistry that has been fuelled by greed and the effects of the nations dental health and the 'costs per patient'.

It has parallels in the way that it demonstrates how a centrally controlled and nationalised system is far less efficient than its private equivalent. Talking specifically about private dentistry, supply has to come after demand; why do you think it was that the sector grew so fast? If everyone was satisfied with the service they could get at an NHS dentist, private dentistry would be limited to offering those services which are unobtainable on the NHS. The very fact it's not shows huge public discontent in the system, despite the fact that everyone who uses a private dentist is effectively paying twice, once for the NHS system out of their NI contributions, then again for the private service. The very fact that even with the reduced demand on NHS services because of all the private users, it still can't offer anywhere near the same level of service.

Agree with your sentiment, but coordination is never, ever, ever, going to happen whilst public transport is in private hands. Don't die thinking it ever will, life's way too short.

That really depends on effective regulation on who does what, where and how, and that's down to government, plain and simple. Much as I dislike government interference in private business, there are cases such as this where it can be beneficial to all. But the very fact that during all these years following the deregulation of this sector nothing effective has been done, again speaks volumes about the competencies of the government regulators.

Always looking back through history. History should never be ignored. However many people would disagree with most of the points here, which are little more than pure opinion. My opinion is that the privatisations of the Thatcher era were little more than an Avaricefest for the sheer Greedy that have resulted in overpriced train fares, electricity, gas, water etc., whilst lining rich pockets at ordinary folk's expense.

Just check your facts and figures. History has shown that a capitalist system invariably works better than a nationalised system. The repeated failure of socialism round the world, leading to countries which are run down and burdened with debt, must surely tell you something!

[13th November 1002]

You can write well, I concede. Little content again, so let me go through what you have written.

...it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about large-scale finance and economics.

Assumption and incorrect. As we are being assumptious I shall declare that your knowledge of economics is poor.

I will agree however that part of the problems within the banking system have been down to greed, but to a large part that greed has itself stemmed from the inefficiencies in government oversight and the almost complete lack of regulation on bonuses and commissions. Not that they shouldn't be paid, but the fact that they were paid out way before any actual profits were returned, mainly on financial products which were themselves unsustainable, such as the sub-prime mortgages in the US.

I cannot disagree with much of what has been written here and can only remark that it is a slightly different stance to an earlier post that you made. I would have hoped you realised that the U.S. mortgage debacle was merely the catalyst of the present economic climate that was predicted by many, to arrive at this time, as long as two years ago. However that and excessive lending has quite rightly, as you say, brought problems to the banking system.

But here is some flawed economic reasoning: The payment of bonuses and commisions are negligible and have no true effect upon the health of the banking system. It would not occur, of course, under a regulated nationalised system, so I wonder why you mention it.

It also is rather unsound economic reasoning to argue, to someone who wishes banks to be nationalised, that the Government oversight is a factor. (?)

Greed is a fundamental part of human nature though and you'll never change that; if 90% plus of the population were in a situation where they could better themselves, even though it might mean less for others, I'd bet they'd take advantage of it. In hindsight, the very fact that government didn't understand the implications of much of what was going on in the financial world speaks volumes about the competency and capability of 'those in charge' at government level!

Greed is not endemic in the human race and again you are making assumptions. Where are the facts about your 90% of greedy people? Again you mention the Governments inabilty to control banks. I will not be repeating myself. For the answer, read the above reply to the duplicated statement you have made.

Again, your comments reflect a lack of understanding about finance and economics.

This is rather childish and tedious. My turn...........your comments reflect a lack of understanding about finance and economics.

The shareholders of any company partly own it; are you implying that they shouldn't benefit financially from that investment? I don't know what you personally define as a "huge fat cat salary" but if you look at the accounts of the most profitable companies, those where the senior executives tend to get paid very high salaries, you'll very quickly see that in general they're the most profitable and are those which produce a good return for their shareholders. Don't forget that if shareholders aren't happy with the performance of any of those "fat cats", they can vote them out of office.

Exactly, you have made the best point yet. You list all the very reasons why banks are not putting customers first. Your basic statements of the rudiments of company ownership are breathtakingly naive and add little to your flawed argument. Rather like saying Cricket is played with a bat and ball.

Your comments seem to be driven far more by emotions than by facts.

My turn, I believe. Your comments seem to be driven far more by emotions than by facts.

In every instance that I can think of, and I'm certain that a trawl through references will support what I say, a nationalised banking system has ultimately proved to be a failure irrespective of what country it's been tried in. A nationalised system is not cheaper, and as for passing on interest rate cuts immediately, just take a look at the way that the nationalised Northern Rock immediately increased many of it's rates, as well as it's repossessions, after the government bailout, leaving many thousands of its mortgage holders far worse off.

A nationalised system has never been tried in the modern day in a capitalist country, so how on earth do you make that assumption? As for Northern Rock, it does not envelop the entire UK banking system, so why are you imagining that it is an example of entirely nationalised banking? Can you not understand or unravel such a basic economic factor as that?

It has parallels in the way that it demonstrates how a centrally controlled and nationalised system is far less efficient than its private equivalent.

Just been covered, I never repeat myself.

Talking specifically about private dentistry, supply has to come after demand; why do you think it was that the sector grew so fast? If everyone was satisfied with the service they could get at an NHS dentist, private dentistry would be limited to offering those services which are unobtainable on the NHS. The very fact it's not shows huge public discontent in the system, despite the fact that everyone who uses a private dentist is effectively paying twice, once for the NHS system out of their NI contributions, then again for the private service. The very fact that even with the reduced demand on NHS services because of all the private users, it still can't offer anywhere near the same level of service.

The demand was fulfilled until recent times when dentists were given more freedom to go private. It is only since privatisation that charges have skyrocketed and the nation's dental health has suffered. Many go to private dentists as they cannot get NHS care, NOT through dissatisfaction. I've yet to see queues a half-mile long with people waiting to sign up for private dentistry. You are clearly out of touch with reality here. Anyhow, I will have repeat myself, the NHS has no comparison with the banking system.

That really depends on effective regulation on who does what, where and how, and that's down to government, plain and simple. Much as I dislike government interference in private business, there are cases such as this where it can be beneficial to all. But the very fact that during all these years following the deregulation of this sector nothing effective has been done, again speaks volumes about the competencies of the government regulators.

Covered twice before. Total regulation under nationalisation. You do like to leave your goalmouth open, I shall not take such an easy shot.

Just check your facts and figures.

Here we go again, why do it? It means nothing to intelligent people :-
Just check your facts and figures.

History has shown that a capitalist system invariably works better than a nationalised system. The repeated failure of socialism round the world, leading to countries which are run down and burdened with debt, must surely tell you something!

I agree with most of the rest, I believe in free enterprise and am not a Socialist. However, I do believe the banks should be controlled without the private sector as should all utilities.

Please try to put more content in your posts and do not insult other posters' intelligence.