ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Straight out of the Conservative Party's media briefing paper, one must try harder Mr Robinson

I was disappointed by the poor questioning of Humphreys this morning who spent too much time on the nuance of the Hansard quote and not enough time on the future. Humphries missed the opportunity to get Darling to explain how he would get the right balance between peoples jobs in the North East and the general taxpayer, how he (Darling) would restore the reputation of the British banking system and how he would ensure fair competition with other banks and building societies. If we had had answers to these questions we could make a better judgment as to whether the Conservative plan is better.

It is all about politics, not jobs or shareholders or savers. NuLabour do not want the old-style nationalisation, but it has been forced upon them. The fact that several billions (Β£55?) of taxpayers money is at risk, forces them into this position.

What is worrying, is that they are taking this option. Branson is a favourite of Labour, but there must be something hiding in the background that makes the Government avoid as much risk as possible.

But why was the news announced on a Sunday, and not in Parliament?

So John Humphrey's was resorting to spin then? Surely not! Firstly indicating that these were the words used by the Chancellor himself, which they were not, and secondly not owning up to the fact that the Chancellor had ruled nothing out. You guys should really go into politics!

Whatever Labour's failings are with the NR issue, and there are many, the extraordinary thing is that Vince Cable has managed to make the Liberal Democrats look consistent and George Osborne has managed to make the Tories look like Lib Dems!

Thank you for making the picture much clearer. Mr Humphreys did not tell us that he was quoting a questioner and not Mr Darling, and he didn't give the full response, stopping after 'I agree'.
It seems to me that the Chancellor is in a classic 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' position. Presumably had the Chancellor announced a sale instead, it would have been portrayed as bad value for the taxpayer, and that temporary public ownership would have been preferable. Personnaly, I don't think it should be trading for new business - that's just throwing good (public) money after bad.

Not being one to usually defend the chancellor but ... you know ... it strikes me that this is a matter of punctuation. If the passage had read "I agree with my hon. friend, it is regrettable and surprising that the Liberal Democrats ..." (note the comma) you'd assume that he wasn't agreeing with the statement about "slow lingering death" but about the "10 private faces" of the Lib Dems. However, if I'm right then clearly it was a mistake on Darling's part to use the word "agree" if he only agreed with part of it without carefully qualifying.

Like many a bounced cheque I suspect the delayed descision to nationalise will rebound on Brown and Darling. IMO they should have nationalised straight away, then found and deal to have it taken back into the public with Branson etc. Osbourne (Private Frazer) should not be playing this issue both ways. His opportunism is only matched by the scale of the Northern Rock crisis. The way his is now talking, "we're doomed!" will only make any recession deeper and more painful.

Don't forget that this PM already has 'form' re: Nationalistaion - that's exactly what he did to Railtrack

This time he doesn't even have the excuse that it's to save a 'Public' Utility

This is Labour's 'Black Sunday', with a libaility of Β£100bn+, it's four or five times more damaging to the UK economy than the ERM crisis ever was

But of course Gutless Gordon and Dithering Darling don't actually careabout the UK economy per se. This will have no effect on their constituents or their powerbases, as, like 60% of the cabinet, they represent Scottish constituencies...

Nick
How long do you think it will be before Gordon Brown dumps Darling and installs Ed Balls as Chancellor?

Is it not the case that part of Northern Rocks problems are due to the fact that the government loans are at a punative rate.

And as long as the loans are payed back, the government is making a large profit.

Surely the excess rate compensates the government for the exta exposure risk.

So in a sense, the government is not bailing out Northern Rock, but making a very sensible investment decision.

I would be interested in knowning how much the government has made so far.

A viscious swipe from a dying duck

Once again we see Nick Robinson and his bossom buddie John Humphreys mis-using a quotation (provided to Robinson by a Tory?) to attack the government and score points against it rather than shed genuine light on it for the listener. Was this because of the weak response of Osbourne earlier in the programme?

Darling did not 'accept' what Cousins said about the consequencies of nationalisation but agreed with Cousins that it was regretable that the Lib-Dems did not support earlier Government proposals to keep Northern Rock open.

Sandler to manage nationalised Rock, bank 'open as usual'

The Treasury and their military wing the FSA, having failed to regulate Northern Rock must be delighted with the Appointment of Ron (Stakeholder) Sandler.

Part of Ron’s brief will be to apply the concept of Stakeholder to deposit taking and lending. The objective being the removal of distribution costs from Northern Rock together with any future distribution just as was achieved with Rons Stakeholder Pensions!

This will ensure no further profits are made. Stakeholder Pensions have moved 39%* of potential regular pension saver back onto State dependency when retired.

The appointment of Ron is therefore to be welcomed by the British taxpayer!

*Association of British Insurers statistics report that the number of new regular premium contracts has fallen by 61% since 1998: section 2.12

β€œSomething is rotten in the state of Denmark”

Nick, do you think a Blair led government would have handled this differently? He was after all a North East MP as were a good proportion of his inner circle. Do you think having a scottish Chancellor and PM have made the political decisions that little bit easier?

What ever happened to Gordon's promise to make all anouncements to Parliament first, Press second?

It seems like all his promises, that terms and conditions apply...

ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ coverage of this issue is a disgrace. We have public ownership of most of the health care industry (anybody want tax dodging hedge fund managers running mental health?) and much else. We only have an aircraft engine industry because the Tories rightly took Rolls Royce into a period of public ownership. Privatisation makes sense sometimes, but the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ shouldn't propagate the idea that it's automatically right. Railtrack?

Peston ought to be writing for the Daily Mail with Melanie Phillips. "Public bad - private good" (except for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ of course)

As for the nonsense about Govt "competing with commercial banks for the first time", if Peston et al wander into a post office they can learn about national savings products. Not as much fun as exotic financial futures linked to US mortgages I grant you, but the public sector isn't as clever and dynamic as Northern Rock managers.

So now Darling has more than doubled income tax

This from the ONS website
"The figure is the equivalent of Β£3,000 for every family in Britain, or an increase in the base rate of income tax of 28 pence in the Β£"

And the Telegraph
"The cost of this support increased the National Debt from Β£537 billion, or 37.7% of GDP to around 45% [40], breaking the so-called Golden Rule which sets the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement threshold at below 40%."

The real question for the Gov. is what other public companies will they "support" with nationalisation.
In pursuit of equity other companies experiencing credit crunch problems should now expect Gov. assistance.
Buy to Let Landlords ?

Give me a break. That whole quote is the biggest fairytale I've ever read... sorry, too much American politics.

I think Alastair Darling was right to weigh his options before nationalising the Rock. I think it would have been reckless if the government followed the "advice" of the Tories or the Lib Dems and just rushed into nationalisation or a private sector solution without first investigating the viable options.

Well done to Labour for not submitting to pressure from their pathetic political opponents.

I'm sure that the details will come clearer eventually but the ones we have now are a little daunting.
Liabilities of Β£110bn, a bank paying 90k a month to a CEO to try and help it survive, jobs about to be shed anyway and lets not forget Rolls Royce was nationalised on a temp. basis - for 16 years
The damage may be to the finacial industry but that will be short term I think - the real damage is that Labour have had their reputation as 'competent' damaged by this - not Black Wednesday maybe but Very Dark Sunday.. and one more mistake on GB's watch ..

I have just listened again to the interview and John Humphries did NOT at any time accuse Darling of having uttered these words. His opening words on the matter 4 mins into the discussion were "You accepted that....". He went on to quote what a Labout MP had said and reminded Darling that he had agreed with it. So let's have no more talk of spin from desperate Labour supporters.

The Lib Dems have been both consistent and right. Chairman Brown's fear of nationalisation and his consequent seeking any alternative solution bar that one has only helped to make a bad situation worse. His reputation for financial prudence is in tatters, his days as Prime Minister surely numbered.

Antony J wrote: "Straight out of the Conservative Party's media briefing paper"

So? That does not make the accusation any less true.

I suspect that the real story will start to play out in the next few months with the anticipated increase in mortgage arrears.

In those circumstances, will the nationalised NR be prepared to fore-close on mortgaged properties, crystalising a book loss for the bank and forcing householders out of their homes - presumably then to be supported by state aid. I am not sure it will only be the Dailies Mail and Express that will be having a field day.

Richard Branson should now sit on his hands - in 12 months time, the Govt will be desperate to do a deal, any deal, to get them out of this hole.

I had to laugh at George Osborne skittering all over the news last night claiming the NR sale is a return to the bad old 70's.

In the face of privatised utilities like British Gas making record profits, perhaps George might want to be a little more temperate in his language. If not, lots of us might think that he is in favour of such companies enjoying the fruits of their privatisation in this way, instead of showing due levels of concern for those vulnerable people who will have trouble heating their homes in the current cold weather, for example.

I thought the tone and manner of H's questioning of Darling was really substandard and worth contrasting with the more intelligent interview with Geoffrey Robinson at the end of the programme. It also turns out from reading your blog about the parliamentary exchange that H was so keen to bash on about that he was actually engaging in the journalism of distortion and arguably duplicity which is clearly unacceptable for Public Broadcasting. On the real issue of whether the nationalisation policy is rubbish, a disaster, calamity, humiliation the answer as a Chinese Comrade might say is 'It's too early to say.'But please tell H and others that it would be helpful to our understanding of what is going on if he/they could bring himself/themselves to diminish, if only a little

I have just heard Nick Robinson still attacking on his and John Humphrey's single issue and not asking real questions that might inform the public better. I thought John Humphreys was childish and arrogant and simply out to maintain his "hard man" approach to interviewing politicians that has become more about entertainment than informative journalism and Nick Robinson seems desperate to get the same kind of media profile. I really worry about the way journalists interview politicians, they treat them with no respect and make it a sport to catch them out. Alistair Darling had a difficult decision, was it the right one or not? That's what I want to know, not keep harping about some comment some one else made that he may or may not have agreed with. Please give me intelligence, not rhetoric, Nick.

Ha! One nationalised company criticising the enactment of another nationalisation.

As for Mr. Darling, never a truer case of being promoted far beyond his capabilities. Not a single qualification suitable to running a major economy. He was rightly monstered by Mr. Humphreys this morning for clearly not being clear or consistent regarding the government's action (or inaction) over Northern Rock.

As for nationalisation, Rolls Royce was government as shareholder, not as executive.

I hope that Labour remembers it's failures with nationalisation (British Rail, British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland, British Telecom, British Gas etc, etc, etc..) none of them a paragon for success under state ownership, remembers it's Clause 4 moment and remembers the mistakes it's made with Northern Rock.

I will not hold my breath.

Lastly, remember this Black Wednesday (or White) cost the UK Β£10bn, Northern Rock is going to cost Β£110bn.

Labour's economic reputation is in tatters.

It looks very much like a planted question as well!

Darling did not appear to know what he had said anymore than he appeared to know what he had done. More stutterings about having done the greatest and good with only our poor interests at heart.

Surely it is immoral to show preferential treatment to a flagging company just because it is a bank? It seems that they acted in haste and are now desperate to try and make it look like a planned move. I hope the government prop up my business when it shows signs of flagging!

Nick, as usual you have upset a lot of NuLabour supporters (and this time a lot of NR employees too).
Nationalising Rolls Royce or British Leyland as well as saving thousands of jobs it meant saving British reputation worldwide and highly skilled engineering reputation. Could someone explain to me what do we gain by "saving" NR considering that even their sponsorship of Newcastle United has turned out to be a disastrous investment?

I listened amazed to the interview on the Today programme. Had Darling really said that nationalization would be "slow lingering death" etc? Then it turned out that Darling had only accepted that description from someone else - but even that seemed unlikely, when I so clearly remembered his endless repeating of the mantra of keeping all options open. Was John Humphreys plain wrong? I'm no fan of his style, which I find discourteous, but I do always assume he's well briefed.

So I looked up the passage on the Hansard site (and you've clearly done the same). And we see that Cousins in fact made two points (indeed the Speaker told him off for that), the first criticizing the LibDems, the second describing nationalization as a "slow lingering death". Darling accepted the former and rejected the latter, repeating his usual mantra.

Humphreys, it seems to me, was up to his usual tricks, trying to portray all politicians as a bunch of lying, crooked incompetents. But this time he was caught out. The politician was giving a straight answer, and he, the journalist, was spinning, and in a very dishonest way. I really think he owes the Chancellor and his audience an apology.

Re Post 40.

C'mon Tom, get real. Try reading again the Hansard entry.

Jim Cousins kicked off by saying "The whole house will have noted - - " and went on to say his piece about the Lib Dems.

He then said "Does my right hon. friend accept that the policy of nationalisation would lead - - - "

So not only did Cousins pose only one question (on nationalisation rather than the LIb Dems position) but it was the last thing he said before Darling replied. To remind you his reply was "I agree with my right hon, friend."

The only reasonable interpretation of that exchange could be that Darling accepted the point re nationalisation.

As for Humphreys, at no time did he misquote. He reminded Darling that he had accepted what Cousin said then reminded him what that was.

Instead of facing up to the issue, Brown and Darling seek to create a smokescreen by refuting a charge which was never brought - ie that Darling has said the words himself.

Assuming Darling does not agree with the view expressed by Cousins on nationalisation, and has never done so, why did not he simply accept that his reply in the House wrongly gave the impression that did ?

Darling got himself into a corner on this point by giving a careless answer to what was probably a planted question. Trying to rewrite history isn't the answer,thought not exactly an unusual ploy from politicians in general and this lot in particular.

No point either in blaming people like Nick and Humphreys for doing their jobs. They simply pointed to the elephant in the room. They didn't invent it.

Funnily enough, the only politician clearly to emerge with any credit on this isssue is Vince Cable - the very man Cousins and Darling were so keen to rubbish in the course of their careless exchange.

@38

giannir, you sound like you're stuck in a time warp. take a look around and you'll see that whether you like it or not, the UK economy in the 21st century is much more closely associated with financial services. how on earth could any government have ignored a run on a bank (inflamed by incredible media hyperbole) that might well have pulled in other high street institutions in with it?

as for humphreys and robinson. i am sick to the back teeth of journalists trying to become the story instead of reporting the facts and perhaps offering some rational comment. and dont get me started on the breathless moronic ramblings served up by peston!

Tom said:

"And we see that Cousins in fact made two points (indeed the Speaker told him off for that)"

That's a nicely clinical piece of spin: argue that Cousins made two points and that Darling agreed with only one.

There's just one problem with that: it's not true. The Speaker didn't tell Cousins off for making two points, he told him off for failing to be brief.

More importantly, Cousins didn't make two separate points anyway. True, he said that (a) the Lib Dems had no regard for Rock jobs because (b) nationalisation was a terrible idea, but those aren't separate points: one depends on the other.

The fact is that Darling's answer didn't make much sense: he said he agreed with Cousins and then went on to say something that contradicted that. Indeed, it's not at all clear what he was actually agreeing with, given his response.

But all this is perfectly understandable in an off the cuff response. It was a badly expressed answer, which is no great sin. If he'd simply admitted that rather than engaging in the nonsense of a defence he used (and falsely claiming that Humphrys had tried to claim the words were Darling's own), he'd have been far more convincing.

So what is the political fallout for all this entire palava, Nick?
It showed us yet again that the Tories are still null and void. Opportunistic politicians who, given half the chance would yet again take control of the BOE for political exploitation and manipulation. This is what the Tories meant when Cameron & Co. suggested for NR to be run by the BOE. It would still be nationalisation!
So what did the Tories wanted the Govt. to do with NR Nick?
Let us know Nick, cause one cannot comprehend and understand what they would have done in the situation, which contrary to Black Wednesday of 1992, was not made to happen due to the gross incompetence of someone with a PR qualification like Dave Cameron (the then adviser to Lamont)! NR difficulties are a GLOBAL financial problem, not specific to the UK!

@giannir wrote:

"Could someone explain to me what do we gain by "saving" NR considering that even their sponsorship of Newcastle United has turned out to be a disastrous investment?"

OK. NR is a major investor and employer in the North East. The loss of over 5000 jobs in an economy that is fragile in the current conditions would be a disaster; usually an overstatement, but not this time. How many of those people have mortgages (how many with NR itself)?
How much would you fancy paying in benefits to support these people, especially if they lose their homes? How much money would be lost from the regional economy. In the end, better this way than the others. Just think, if Virgin had been able to buy NR, the govt would have been accused of letting a crony pick up the pieces. As is is, this has faintly annoyed Branson. And though I have nothing against RB personally, this is not entirely a bad thing, is it?

The point is that NR was partly dragged down by the credit crunch, but also partly by the media hysteria that was generated. As a result the government have to act in a way that pleases no one but which causes the least damage. I don't care about the games of semantic tennis being played over what was said in the Commons. Everyone knows that it doesn't count in the end anyway, as so little in the Commons does anymore.

(written by someone who is a northerner and who most definitely is not an apologist for the worst excesses of New Labour)

For the last decade, debt has become the fiscal drug, propping up the economic addiction of the UK ... touted by … Incapability Brown.

Northern Rock is the first major 'debt dealer' of Browns 'economic' miracle, who needs a major fix.

Look out when the UK economy does collective 'cold turkey'.

vikingar

Nick,

Northern Rock fiasco just shows that the economy of this country is starting to falter..however whatever the situation just find in coincidental that the Foreign Secretary has sneeked out the Iraq WMD dossier on this very day, and so shows that spin or media manipulation is still very much GB way.

Maybe a comment on the WMD dossier would be welcome Nick.

Re 40: Whatever the context of the Hansard record,the Chancellor came across very badly, the radio picking up clearly when he was reading off his prepared script. Thanking John H 'very much indeed'at the end of the interview made the Chancellor sound like a complete woos. In office...but not in control. Really quite worrying.

Actually, it is not going to cost us (the taxpayer) a penny let alone Β£110Bn.

How come?

Because the BoE has the 'magical' ability to conjure up money out of thin air and that is precisely what I believe they have done here, despite the fig-leaf of a Treasury 'guarantee'.

Of course, you will lsay, surely injecting Β£110Bn 'from nowhere' into the economy must have some adverse effects?

Well yes, perhaps an economist can work out via M4 (not the motorway) or some other indicator what the effect on inflation will be.

But in the meantime, the Taxpayer has exchanged money created from literally nothing for real assets, that is, the properties secured by the NR mortgages and is getting a 'penal' rate of interest to boot!

Crack open the bubbly (unless you're an NR shareholder).

Andy McSMith over on the Independent's Open House blog disagrees with your interpretation, Nick -

Anyone watching or listening to the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ lately would think 'They' are the official opposition,Putting the boot into the Government at every opportunity.

Creating the news rather than just reporting it.A studio, television and photo opportunity on demand for her majesty's opposition with the one time failed tory candidate Nick Robinson leading the way.

Oh dear... someone has to be Chancellor but I doubt if Alister Darling is pulling 'any' strings as chancellor... so who ever says what I'd bet my last dollar it came from Gorden Brown.

You really think Alister Darling is acting like Gorden brown when he was Chancellor... and having run ins with TB then the Prime Minister, OK Alister lets see you start sulking and going away for days on end, thats when I will call you Chancellor.

"Could someone explain to me what do we gain by "saving" NR .. ?"

We secure the savings of those who invested. As for shareholders, they should have been prepared for more of a risk, thus are of lesser importance.

"I really worry about the way journalists interview politicians, they ... make it a sport to catch them out."

It is. They ask for it, and they know it. Politicians engage in that kind of selective reasoning all the time. They can't blame others for making the most of it in retaliation.

"I hope that Labour remembers it's failures with nationalisation (British Rail, British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland, British Telecom, British Gas etc, etc, etc..) none of them a paragon for success under state ownership, remembers it's Clause 4 moment and remembers the mistakes it's made with Northern Rock."

It's not quite as simplistic as that. The record on nationalisation is very patchy, but that does not go to say that it is devoid of strengths, and an idol of inefficiency. Part of the problems caused by nationalisation were political as well as financial.