Northern Rock sale

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Actually Star, Virgin Money have bought what currently is the LOSS making part of NR, although it has been forecast to start making money again next year. Of course they hope to make money out of the acquisition, that is the whole point.
The Government have said this is the best offer on the table. My belief is that Osborne and co believe that the economic situaion is going to get much worse and a year down the line the offer may well not be there, so are taking what they can get now.

which is why it makes good business sense to sell it now :thumbup:
i can almost hear the cheers from some against it on the forum if brownie had been the one who sold it and not osborne loon

19 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
now take on board those facts and see what kind of great things could have been achieved with 600 MILLION pounds that we have lost from nr.

It's £600M/year star, year on year. So far about - the amount of the so called 'discount'. Further time in public ownership and it would be even more loss to the taxpayer.
But, in reality, how much money has each taxpayer actually lost from their own pocket as opposed to the alternative that was available at the time - to let the bank fail?
In such a case, that would have been far more catastrophic for individuals than the public purse at large.
Its a good deal at the right time. The UK Taxpayer should now be concentrating on asking HMG (through their MP) how they intend to spend the money raised.
Keeping the Harrier Squadron flying perhaps....

19 Nov 2011

thanks all for putting me right.
i still say it is an awful lot of money we are losing and the peeple in charge who are responsible for the money lost, should be held accountable by law.
i am not that bothered about politics as i know they are all pretty much the same in reality, but how can someone in charge for so long fail to spot the things that nhave happened? how can a country sustane those kinds of year on year losses and get away with it? i know that not all of these things are because of the financial situation now, but of poor and downright bad decisions made by peeple who should have known better.
i am at leest glad the media are keeping us informed of a lot of this as go back a few yeers ago and this would never have come to light just like the expense issue.
i still think of what that money they lost could buy children i saw on the telly last night. do they reely care?

19 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i still say it is an awful lot of money we are losing and the peeple in charge who are responsible for the money lost, should be held accountable by law.

They are star. In Parliament and at the ballot box. The real work of Parliament is in Committee. Probably the most notable is that led by Keith Vaz (Home Affairs) who seems to be making up for lost time since he (had to) resigned as a Minister of State in the Blair administration.

Quote by star
i am not that bothered about politics as i know they are all pretty much the same in reality, but how can someone in charge for so long fail to spot the things that nhave happened? how can a country sustane those kinds of year on year losses and get away with it? i know that not all of these things are because of the financial situation now, but of poor and downright bad decisions made by peeple who should have known better.

Politicians, when they achieve high office, begin to loose all sense of reality - indeed, they are shielded from it by the 'machinery of Government' and their advisers. Imagine the conversation in 10 Downing Street at breakfast. GB is being briefed by a flunky on the days events and yesterdays news. "so tell me Ed (Balls), how are the markets responding to me selling off all the gold?" "Ah, ggggreat (he stammers) Gordon. They ttthink you are the best thing for the economy since sliced bread". And so it goes. They are fed what they want to hear and totally disregard the rest. Their press conferences and 'chance' meetings in the street with ordinary people are contrived.
I read once that President Reagan (long may he rest in peace) not long after he left office was travelling in his supplied limo through NY and it stopped at a set of traffic lights near 5th Avenue. He immediately made to get out of the car. His armed guard immediately pushed him back in his seat telling him that they were not at their destination yet. This happened because in all the time he was President (two terms) the car never ever stopped except at its destination. He just assumed because the car had stopped that he was where he was intended to be.
Such is the level of molly-coddling they get in Office. They lose all sense of reality and are shielded from the truth by those with other agenda.
Cameron started off well; he would walk to the Palace of Westminster and engage with 'real' people. I think that has now ceased under the tag of 'security'. The reality is, they couldn't possibly let him be briefed by people who really know what's going on and would be regarded as 'loose cannon'. They might tell the truth!!

Quote by star
i am at leest glad the media are keeping us informed of a lot of this as go back a few yeers ago and this would never have come to light just like the expense issue.

And just how many of these journalists end up with their snouts in the same trough?

Quote by star
i still think of what that money they lost could buy children i saw on the telly last night. do they reely care?

It's a bottomless pit. Throw as much money at it as you can find and there will always be calls for more.