That's what the cost is to each taxpayer for the gov's bail out of Northern Rock according to the Telegraph! And, as ever, the inimitable Matt manages to say it in spades.
I just hope that:-
1) they've taken it out of existing revenue, and
2) aren't planning additional taxation somewhere to make up the shortfall
What's the betting that I'm wrong on 2)?
2 comments:
Mr. Precedent,
I thought we were meant to get gifts at Xmas?
Not sure about No. 1 either; it's still 'our' money they are playing with, surely?
I was headed back from Coventry earlier and caught the 'debate' (well, the half dozen extremes his producers allowed airtime) on the J. Vine show, which followed a predictable path.
One did give me pause for thought, and that was a plea to see the bigger picture, and what governments might need to do to avoid a knock on. Is it possible this might explain and/or excuse these actions?
I fear that the bailing out of the shareholders lessened my softening to this option. And I am unsure as to the extent of financial pain being borne by many complicit at high level in all this.
I can see a case for protection of savers. Mind you, I am sure a few pension no-funders might feel the same.
It all comes across as a bit... inconsistent... a bit... political... a bit hypocritical. And as trust in authority is now zero and already headed to negative figures, I guess they figure they have nowt else to lose.
As an Indy letter writer today put it pithily: 'Sir: If the banks have so little confidence in each other that they will not lend to each other, why should the public lend to the banks?' Quiet, though I think it might serve better preceded by '...be made to lend..'
But then, as this blog has too often had cause to ponder, these days why should the public end up with the short straw on just about everything? Which is bad enough, but is all the more galling when so many, so well connected by our now venal political, corporate and media systems, continue to draw the long, gold-plated ones even when plainly inept and/or corrupt?
'Money folk are different to you and I; they have more 'friends' in their pockets'.
Ok, so I have had better days.
Oh dear, You really sound well down in the grumpy old dumps today.
Of course the public will end up paying - that's the unbreakable rule of large scale government of any type under any political system.
The Indy letter you quote made me smile though - it puts me in mind of a now deceased friend from years back. He once pointed out to me the power of money in large amounts - "Look Dave, if you owe the bank a few hundred or a couple of thousand quid, and you can't pay it back, you've got a problem; if you owe the bank several million quid and you can't pay it back, then they've got a problem!"
I may have not worded it entirely correctly but it does make the point - the bigger the sum, the better the system looks after you; and hence, I guess, the more potential 'friends' you have in your pocket.
But the fact that we, as the taxpaying public, may actually have to fund a £58 Billion (I think that was the last amount I heard) cock-up [I find it difficult to use the term bail-out any more] - well, that's just unbelievable!!
Just imagine what could be done in terms of reducing carbon emissions, implementing proper flood defences etc. with a pot that size!
Post a Comment