What have you done now, Darling?

Is it just me or does anyone else thing that the Chancellor's decision to gurantee all deposits in the Northern Rock is just wrong?

I say this for two reasons. Firstly, it sets a precedent. Any other bank with a flawed financial model now doesn't really have to worry too much. The Bank of England has already said that it was a bit concerned about the dangers of moral hazard when it made the loan available in the first place. Now any other bank and their customers will expect the same treatment.

However, the main argument is that this decision seems to be based on class. The FSA already has a scheme that covers in full the first £2,000 and then 90% of further deposits up to something over £30,000. I guess that covers the majority of savers, certainly the majority of working class savers. The govenment stepping in to guarantee everything is essentially underwriting with public funds the considerable wealth of a few.

But it gets worse. Remember the Park hamper scheme that went bust? Did the government step in to help those people? No. Why not? Could it be because they were poor?

And what about the thousands of pensioners who had their pensions stolen as companies took 'pension holidays' and didn't pay in what they should have done? Have those people been fully compensated? Again, no. Nor have any of the directors who were responsible ever been charged with any offences. The law needs to change so that the pension scheme becomes a first charge on a company's assets if it goes bust, not its debts to other companies and shareholders.

So in the Northern Rock case the government has stepped in to help people who haven't actually lost anything yet while allowing real suffering to occur to people who have lost what for them was a considerable sum of money or their pension. Isn't Labour government great?



Display: Sort:

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#1)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your comparison to Farepak. The government ultimately believe Northern Rock to be solvent and with assets that meet it's debt obligations.

In the case of Farepak, the money was gone, in the case Northern Rock, the money is secured and all the Chancellor has done is slightly extend whatever payment it would have to have made anyway. The intetion as far as I can see is to restore confidence in Northern Rock and avert the more real danger that could be caused by the continuing withdrawal of savings.

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#2)

I agree with citizenandreas. I understand why you might want to make the point you do Radford but I think the parallel is wrong. There are a number of reasons why this action by Alistair Darling was right:-


1. There was a serious danger that without this action the panic of Monday would have extended to other banks.


2. this would not only have risked the collapse of a number of smaller banks and the loss of individual savings, but would have a significant knock on effect on the economy as a whole.


3. Black Wednesday demonstrated that events in the financial markets lead to real problems in the real economy.


4. History and experience shows that when the economy suffers, it is poor and working people who are hit the worst.


5. Perversely, acting now to guarantee deposits almost certainly will not cost the Government anything as the likelihood is that without continued panic withdrawals, Northern Rock is actually a viable business in the short- and medium-term.

One correction to the second paragraph; let's be clear that the Government has guaranteed the deposits in the event of the bank failing. This is some way short of rescuing NR from the consequences of their business model. Time will tell whether NR can recover and continue to trade as an independent bank or whether a takeover will follow.

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#3)

Nonsense Radford. All the Govt has done is act as a guarantor for Northern Rock. Confidence has returned and the panic is over, for the time being.

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#4)

While I don’t fully agree with Radcliff argument there is a valid point that the government has not stepped in to save other investors (not just Farepak) who have suffered due to fraud or negligence (Equitable life?). Northern Rock may be on paper financially secure but it has exposed itself by relying on money markets rather than savers to provide funds.  Which (with the benefit of hindsight?) would mean that their business plan was obviously vulnerable to any credit crunch?

 

It’s ironic that this could mean the end of a private company that is obliged to give 5% of its profits to charities and good causes.

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#6)

Just an after thought! - imagine what our society could be like if all companies had to give 5% of their profits to "good causes"?

 

Re: What have you done now, Darling? (#5)

Darling acted correctly. Allowing a major mortgage-lender to collapse would be catastrophic in terms of knock-on effects on an economy like ours which is so dependent on the financial services sector.