Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

Nick Clegg's bonkers bank bribe

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 27 June 2011  |  Comments 39 comments

The Deputy PM's idea to hand out free shares in Lloyds and RBS is daft.

Nick Clegg's bonkers bank bribe

One of the joys (and sorrows) of being a government minister is that you have a whole team of people whose job it is to think for you.

Often, these 'policy wonks' are young, highly intelligent special advisers, political activists or civil servants. They spend their time looking to impress their masters --and wow the public -- with big ideas that can be implemented at relatively low cost.

To get an idea of how these policy wonks work, all you have to do is watch the outstanding BBC comedies Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister and, more recently, The Thick of It.

Nick Clegg's big idea

Since forming a coalition government with the Conservatives in May 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP has been under the cosh. Faced with the reality of the nation's shaky public finances, he and his Liberal Democrat party have abandoned several pre-election promises.

What's more, it appears that the Deputy PM has been paying too much attention to his policy wonks, because he outlined a frankly daft proposal last week. During a two-day trade trip to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Clegg put forward an idea for what he called "the people's bank".

Clegg's plan is deceptively simple.

Related blog post

Instead of selling the government's large stakes in bailed-out banks Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, he suggests giving these shares to the public in one huge hand-out. Thus, the British public would become major shareholders in both banks, as a reward for bailing them out during the financial crisis of 2007/09.

(Note that Clegg didn't ask taxpayers to cough up for the vast losses run up by 100% state-owned banks Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock.)

What do we own?

What did we get in return for our multi-billion-pound bailouts of these banks?

Lloyds

We paid £17.4 billion for 27.6 billion shares in Lloyds, at an average price of 63.2p a share. This bought us 41% of the 'black horse' bank.

At the current price of 42.9p, our stake is worth £11.8 billion. In other words, Joe Public is down by £5.6 billion, or £208 per household.

RBS

We paid £45.2 billion for 90.6 billion shares in RBS, at an average price of 49.9p a share. This bought us an 83% share of the Edinburgh-based bank.

At the current price of 35.6p, this stake is worth £32.3 billion. In other words, we've lost out by nearly £13 billion, or £480 per household.

At present, these two bailouts have lost the government (and the public) a total of £18.6 billion, or £688 for each of the UK's 27 million households. Ouch!

Clegg's bank bribe

Nick Clegg's idea is to empower the public -- and put the banks in their place -- by gifting these shareholdings to each of the UK's 46 million over-18s. In other words, he aims to bribe voters with a bung of bank shares.

The idea is that the government sets a 'floor price' for the shares, probably the average prices we paid for our stakes (50p per Lloyds share and 63p per RBS share). When voters sell their free shares, they pocket the gain above these break-even prices.

Suppose both shares eventually reached a third (33%) above these break-even prices: 84p for Lloyds and 66.4p for RBS. This would deliver a capital gain of £20.7 billion to voters, or £766 per household.

Four big snags

On the surface, getting 'something for nothing' or a 'free lunch' is pleasant -- unless it's offered by a politician. Predictably, there are four big problems with Clegg's give-away:

First, Clegg is giving us something we already own. Our stakes in Lloyds and RBS are managed by UK Financial Investments (UKFI) on behalf of the government and, ultimately, the British public.

Second, both stakes are deeply underwater; in other words, we're sitting on a big loss at the moment. Therefore, any mass share-ownership scheme shouldn't take place until both shareholdings are 'above water', that is, back in profit.

Third, divvying up these stakes between the UK's 46 million adults would be a logistical nightmare on a vast scale. Tracking down all UK adults in order to hand over their share certificates would be a Herculean effort. Also, what about non-residents, prisoners, people who die just before the shares are issued, and so on?

Frankly, a successful public share handout would be the Devil's own job. Indeed, building society-turned-bank Halifax demutualised in 1997 and was still trying to track down missing shareholders a decade later. Hence, I reckon the costs of distributing these shares would exceed the cost of the 2011 census (perhaps £500 million).

Fourth, our nation is deeply in debt. Therefore, any ultimate profits from selling Lloyds and RBS should go towards reducing public sector net debt. Last month, this figure hit £921 billion and is growing at over £10 billion a month. Put simply, when a country's broke, there's no room for bribes, no matter how widespread.

Ditch this daft plan

This isn't the first time that this idea has reared its head -- it was also suggested by Lib-Dem Stephen Williams MP in March. Despite being a headline-grabbing crowd-pleaser, it seems to me to consist of 100% political manipulation and 0% financial sense.

If Nick Clegg has any sense, then he must drop this public-relations stunt like a hot potato!

More: Start saving for a brighter future | We all lose from the Rock sale | You can beat professional investors

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (39)

  • teerbigear
    Love rating 1
    teerbigear said

    It doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's like the a reverse poll tax and intrinsically undemocratic. The government has an asset worth billions of pounds and it's just spreading it out amongst everyone, so millionaires (some of them bankers, some of them will even be those who are responsible for those banks collapsing) will receive a tax free windfall the same size as people who need the money in these austere times. Government - Sell the bank in the most efficient way, then spend the money on healthcare and schools.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • sodit
    Love rating 129
    sodit said

    Great idea, having to track every adult in the country justifies the issuance of identity cards, and ditching the shares shifts the paper loss off the governments books. It's an idea worthy of Gordon Brown.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    But is it really so bonkers? And it certainly isn't undemocratic.

    Firstly, although it could be argued that it should be set off against the national debt, that would probably mean foreign buyers would get a large foothold in the bank quite quickly. With all of our energy and manufacturing owned by overseas companies and regimes, is that really that clever? If it is sold now then it would only delay the size of the national debt by 4 months. In other words 4 months after we sold the stake then we would be back at the same debt levels and have no stake in the bank to show for it.

    Secondly, right now the UK taxpayer sees NO benefit from supposedly owning this stake. Giving it to the taxpayer empowers them to choose what to do with their money. It was our taxes that paid for the bailout and we continue to do so. So why not give the benefit to the people who paid for it?

    Next, undemocratic? Really? Everyone (yes even the greedy bankers) are now paying for the situation with their taxes. Sorry if you have a pathological hatred of a particular industry but giving it to everyone on the electoral role who filled in the census seems to be as democratic as you can get. If you didn't complete one or the other then why should you benefit - you are obviously not being open with the country either.

    So, bonkers as it might be made to appear, at least it is democratic. Me? I would hold my stake until it is worth more and sell it when I think it has given me best value. After all, it's my stake supposedly. Why not let me control my little bit?

    That should spark some debate. ;O)

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • andythec
    Love rating 2
    andythec said

    Why on earth are they proposing to use the electoral register to distribute shares in TAX PAYER assets ? Allocate the shares proportionally back to tax PAYERS according to their tax contribution ....... or perhaps Clegg and Co are creating this headline to buy electoral support ..... or am I just as cynical as the Government ?

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 77
    eLJay said

    Just sheer mismanagement, appalling.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • ocelot
    Love rating 6
    ocelot said

    It's a blatant attempt to buy votes. Return it to the taxpayer. The costs would be enormeous,

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    andythec - I just used the electoral role as an example. I don't think it is their idea, I just threw it out there. Not sure why a taxpayer wouldn't be on the electoral role though. Surely they live somewhere and pay local council taxes like the rest of us?

    'proportionally back to the taxpayers'? So you want to give the rich who pay taxes more shares than the poorer who are hardest hit and most likely to have lost their jobs? Really. Can't see that being a vote winner as there are many more of the latter and one vote each. You are suggesting giving people like the bankers a greater share of the bank they bankrupted!! Nope, I wouldn't vote for that.

    The lower paid need the money more and are hardest hit. If they then sell to the richer then at least they have some of their losses back. Unlike now where they only have tax rises and less work.

    It probably isn't manageable to do it anyway. What would you all rather see happen to it? The government could sit on it whilst the debt continues to grow. But that too is a gamble on increasing share prices bought with debt.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    Would it be more bonkers to wait until the banks are profitable and sell the shares at a profit to pay off government debt? The government at least has an asset to partly cover the massive money printing operation it undertook. It doesn't seem very prudent to give that asset away, even to us. Maybe the great British public could register an interest to buy these shares and my guess is they would go up in price the minute we began to register an option or interest to buy. I read an interview with Joanna Lumley today in which she said we have lost our zing in the UK and are content to just watch. No one really has any enthusiasm any more. Reuters reports that the over 50's are joining Facebook and Twitter. Companies may be looking at the wrong generation to get us out of a recession and return banks and other enterprises to profit. Too many people after the age of 50 are thought to be only good for minimum wage work at B&Q.

    My blogs if anyone is interested - http://wp.me/194MF I shall rant about something else today!

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marrich
    Love rating 0
    marrich said

    This proposal is a logistical nightmare and, even if possible, which I doubt, is likely to cost far too much to be a sensible use of public money. Clegg just wanted some p r headlines which highlights his caring qualities .However, he's been discovered as having more form than substance. He should be wheeled out only to endorse measures which have been properly debated and scrutinised by the more able members of the coalition.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mbhknight
    Love rating 3
    mbhknight said

    How "intelligent" to see yet more Clegg bashing. Would it not have been a bit better to research your article first. The idea was put forward by the think tank research paper published earlier this year but before that it was first mooted by Lord Saatchi past chairman of the Conservative party. If your article is symptomatic of intelligent debate then god help us.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Alex Collins
    Love rating 0
    Alex Collins said

    Good article and a terrible idea indeed! Why spend such a vast sum to administer a give-away versus reducing national debt, or maintaining valuable public services. Whoever dreamt it up aside, it is the deputy PM championing it and is demonstrating appalling judgement by doing so in my opinion.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    'Appalling judgement' (with nothing to substantiate why, and Clegg bashing with no reasoned debate in this forum at all. Very disappointing.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ticktock
    Love rating 34
    ticktock said

    Help! I presume your figures are correct about the our debt. What should happen is that the size of debt AND the increase per month should be made public in very large letters and in every newspaper.

    Then, and then only, the whole population would then understand we as a country can't afford to bail out any more banks and, spending has to be reduced/cut very quickly.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • buywhenhigh
    Love rating 51
    buywhenhigh said

    I actually think its quite a good idea really.

    It may help restore a bit of good will towards the banking sector, which although needed a substantial bailout, is not the root cause of the huge deficit we have.

    It might actually encourage a few more people to save, or start investing in shares.

    And as "we" collectively bailed out the banks, it seems fair that we should gain if "we" make a profit on them eventually.

    It wouldnt be that hard to manage, just let one of the big registrars handle it, i mean they handle millions of transactions every day already.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • silkycat
    Love rating 38
    silkycat said

    Nothing wrong with a good idea no matter who's it is Clegg or Saatchi or whoever. I don't see anything wrong with individual tax payers having control of a bit of "their own money". Isn't that better than letting government decide for you?

    You might even get some control over who buys when you decide to sell ( rich banker, pension fund, fellow small stake shareholder, Chinese government! etc.). We keep being told that the small person needs a bigger say in shareholders meetings - here's our chance.

    How difficult can it be to track us all down? Anyone over the age of 16 who should be in the UK has a National Insurance number. Government seem to be able to track us down quickly enough by that route when they want money out of us.

    I made small amounts out of British Gas and Halifax at a time when I was very short of cash and was very grateful for it. There must be plenty of people in the same position now, why not give them a chance before it all goes back to the fat cats. George Osborne and his mates don't need it.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jonnie2thumbs
    Love rating 95
    jonnie2thumbs said

    Surely the real problem is the £34,000 each household owes (rising at £100 per week) - the few hundred quid each for the banks is PEANUTS.

    This is a totally unsustainable situation

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Terence1
    Love rating 0
    Terence1 said

    The interesting issue regarding Mr Clegg and Mr Cables idea to give away national funds, is there none accounting for the millions of the now famous TAX PAYERS who have benefited a great deal by the crises actually forcing down interest rates. The main benefit although there are many others is mortgage. It would be interesting to see how many gain as to how many lose. I presume though Clegg and Cable would be looking for votes and therefore everybody would get shares. I think Mr Cameron needs to get a grip.

    Terence

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gez
    Love rating 8
    gez said

    As stated it was the UK taxpayers that bailed out the banks, so why give shares to all adults? This will include non taxpayers (low earners, no earners, those living solely on benefits) that made no contribution.

    If the mad scheme should float the shares must ONLY be given to tax payers at the time of the bail out and a higher proportion must go to higher rate tax payers.

    Surely we can all agree that this would be fairer?

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    Hi jonnie2thumbs.

    The £34,000 is just a calculation of debt/number of households. I don't owe this, neither do you. We didn't run up the debt, did we. Selling it (overseas for example) to pay off the debt doesn't work either. At current prices it works out at about 4 months worth of average increases on the debt now. So it would be a waste.

    Whilst I would happily have my share, thanks. Do we hold an asset which could decrease further (depending upon exposure to other countries defaults) on the chance that it increases? Or do we cut and run as a country?

    I would say hold. But then, I always think about the long game and think selling at this stage of a monetary cycle would be a bad move. Hold.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    gez,

    we are ALL taxpayers. If we drive, buy anything from the shops (VAT), live in a house/flat (council tax) whatever. Income tax is only a part of the real taxes that we all pay. The rich are fewer and don't need relatively small handouts. So giving them greater proportions wouldn't win votes either.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jonnie2thumbs
    Love rating 95
    jonnie2thumbs said

    @Spikus

    I was just using the same calculation as Cliff did to show us how much of the banks each of us 'owns'

    I know I don't owe the 34k - it would take me 4 years of Tax credits to pay that much back :P

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 83
    tuttogallo said

    When the Russian government handed out shares to the public at the end of the Soviet era most of them sold immediately in order to buy basic items like food. The oligarchs, who had strong nerves and deep pockets bought up these shares and ended up in control of vast swathes of the Russian economy. It would be no different here.

    The fact that the money which would be raised by selling the shares would only be equivalent to 4 months’ worth of growth of the national debt, only highlights the fact that the present expenditure cuts are wholly inadequate, because they only slow the rate of increase of the debt, they do nothing about the real problem which is how to pay it off and rid ourselves of crippling interest payments.

    If and when these shares are sold, the proceeds should be used to reduce the national debt. You don’t hand out money to friends when your credit card is maxed out.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 44
    hopefultom said

    Hello Cliff

    must take you up on your statement"when a country's broke,theres no room for bribes,no matter how widespread"

    sorry,but this is just wishful thinking & out of touch with today's political reality.

    Do you really think there will be no tax cuts in the run-up to the next General Election( a lot sooner than 2015 IMHO ) ?

    This point aside,I agree the basic idea is typical LibDem Poppycock.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    hopefultom - As usual, LibDem poppycock when it's bad. Tory success when it's good.

    Man the Conservatives have you completely blindfolded and compliant don't they. DO you really think that Nick Clegg didn't agree this with the rest of the Government before being allowed to talk about it?

    tuttogallo - 'You don’t hand out money to friends when your credit card is maxed out'. Bad example. We aren't 'friends' of the government, we are lenders to the government. It is our money anyway. They just choose to keep it to pay a tiny bit of the countries debts or give it back to us.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 274
    oldhenry said

    Plenty of bribes to Tory mates. Why cut corporation tax then? To give companies room to have bigger directors' bonuses of course!

    Vodafone? pay tax? no need sir just carry on as you were. etc etc.

    There ar eplenty of bribes if you look for them but not to the ordinary mortal or to pensioners . The latter are rubbish to the Tories and are just in the way of giving more cash tax incentives to their mates

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Luniversal
    Love rating 47
    Luniversal said

    OK, let's do it the "sensible" way the City would like. A silly Tell-Sid type ad campaign. Loads of fees to middlemen (banksters, PR, lawyers, brokers). A rigged market so the minority who apply can flog their allotments on almost at once for a titchy profit. The wonderful word of Maggie Thatcher-style pseudo-capitalism, where the people are induced to believe that they should buy something they already own.

    Or let's forget the casino boys and their stupid, frenzied antics just this once and make every taxpayer a bank shareholder-- permanently. No selling on,no second-guessing what others think the banks are worth; just ownership for ever with all its rights and duties, dividends and the right to bequeath your certificate . Business for grown-ups, not gamblers.

    Do it now. It doesn't matter if the market price is 'underwater' or not. They broke it, we bailed it, we own it. Give us what's ours and don't pretend a roomful of Treasury mandarins dickering with the City means we control what is ours.

    No 'logistical nightmare' either-- just a distribution in specie to everyone who filed a tax return or got deducted by PAYE in, say, at least two of the last three tax years. HMRC can do it.

    (As if a few missing Halifax shareholders was any argument against denying 40m of us our birthright-- really, Cliff!)

    The ordinary Brit would have a settled interest in cutting these ravenous parasites and economy-destroyers down to size. AGMs would be riotous with the complaints of the swindled-- and a damn good thing too. The flimflam about how essential usury is to our prosperity would finally be exposed. Banks would be reduced to lenders and borrowers of savings and money transmission services.

    But no, that would deprive the mergers and acquisitions racket of its little bit of bunce, wouldn't it? The hedge fund traders would have two fewer playthings. The employees of banks would be paid like public servants and expected to prioritise the needs of their customers and stakeholders, who'd be largely the same people. The mutual principle would be reasserted. Horror of horrors!

    Sorry to see Cliff falling feebly in with the conventional wisdom of the shysters and disparaging an excellent opportunity not to let a crisis go to waste. He reads as if Angela Knight was whispering in his ear.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • rioandthelma
    Love rating 29
    rioandthelma said

    If anybody thinks the bank shares are at a low now is the time to buy on the stock market they are now in the reach of the "penny share investor". There is little point in selling the "publicly owed shares" while they are still showing a lose and certainly no point in giving them away is some undefined manner.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    Why not just sell them to the voters at the bottom share value?

    The government would get some cash back & it would be far better than the big institutions grabbing them all if they were sold off & making vast profits when their value goes up again.

    It would save the government having to find people as they could apply for shares.

    I know it means for the tax payers that they are buying what they technically own already but if looked at a long term investment I reckon that it could be a nice little earner.

    I would also like to walk into my local Lloyds, bang the counter as a shareholder & demand to see the Manager who has been invisible for the last ten years.

    Also if the banks finished up half owned by their customers could we start voting & blocking the bonuses?

    It could all make banking quite interesting.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Yorkstyke
    Love rating 89
    Yorkstyke said

    Agreed that Clegg, like all his party with the exception of Danny Alexander, is bonkers but why shouldn't the taxpayer have a share?

    We've bailed out the banks, subsidised another round of obscene bonuses and got nothing in return.

    All the objections are merely bullsh8t from vested interests.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • hughwalk
    Love rating 1
    hughwalk said

    Yes, but how much would it cost to privatise RBS & Lloyds when the time comes? How much will be spent on some "daft" PR campaign à la "If you see Sid" from the good ol' days of British Gas?? I agree it's probably a simplistic notion, but it deserves consideration.

    Report on 27 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • billmill
    Love rating 0
    billmill said

    One group which does not get a mention is the original shareholders of these banks. The correct way for this to be handled is for the banks to repurchase their shares from the Government and cancel them. There must come a time when these banks are making money, including from the sale of assets. My wife spent the last 20 years of her working life employed in a clerical position in a prestigious and profit-making bank which was owned by NatWest, which unfortunately was taken over by RBS. She purchased NatWest shares at every opportunity, through SAYE share purchase schemes and took any bonuses and profit-share in shares instead of cash. She accumulated what was to be her retirement nest-egg. When RBS took over, her NatWest shares were converted into RBS shares (worth about £70K at that time). Then Freddie Badlose and his cronies embarked on their mad spree and, just before my better half retired, her £70K nest-egg had shrunk to about £3K. Nice reward for 20 years' hard work.

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • The Bank Manager
    Love rating 74
    The Bank Manager said

    Er...One thing nobody appears to recognise, is that if the shares are handed out and then everyone sells theirs in the same way as the privatisations or as 'tuttogallo' said,

    happened in Russia, then with that number or even 50% flooding the market, the remaining share's value, will plummet.

    What needs to be done, is for the Bank's to return to profit and pay back what they owe, by buying the shares back in stages.

    That will reduce the number of shares in circulation, increase the share price for those remaining (owned by the Tax Payer/existing shareholders) and then once they've all been bought back, the share price will stabilise and the Government can reinvest the 'profits' in the Country.

    Perhaps then, interest rates can start to stabilise as investors will have more faith in the economy, the public will spend and the whole cycle can start again over the next 10-20 years, so we can regurgitate the same blogs once more!!

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Cliff D'Arcy
    Love rating 26
    Cliff D'Arcy said

    Those who accuse me of bashing Nick Clegg and the LibDems are barking up the wrong tree.

    For the record, I am a LibDem supporter and, indeed, Dr Vince Cable was my MP from 1997 to 2008.

    I have no political axe to grind here. My sole concern here is the weakening state of our nation's finances!

    Cliff

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Cliff D'Arcy
    Love rating 26
    Cliff D'Arcy said

    Luniversal, "Sorry to see Cliff falling feebly in with the conventional wisdom of the shysters and disparaging an excellent opportunity not to let a crisis go to waste. He reads as if Angela Knight was whispering in his ear."

    Oh dear, you're talking utter tosh here, Luni!

    For the record, I've been a harshly outspoken critic of British banks since my earliest days as a financial journalist in January 2003. Google my writing history here and at TMF for a mountain of proof.

    As for Dame Angela, I gave her a proper roasting at a financial party one Xmas a few years ago, accusing her of being an apologist for a bunch of bonus-grabbing wide boys and PPI-flogging conmen. Look what happened next... ;0)

    Cliff

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 44
    hopefultom said

    SPIKUS

    You are misreading my motives.As far as I am concerned David Cameron is one coat of paint better than Tony Blair,which is saying very little,indeed!

    None of the parties have me fooled;I'm too long in the tooth to fall for any of their BS.

    However,much as I dislike,and despise their rhetoric,the Tories put forward workable ideas(they may not be right!),whereas the LibDems seem to be in control of the wrecking ball.

    They never expected to be in government,and,like the proverbial rabbit in the headlight,they have to "make a move",not always in the right direction.

    As far as I am concerned the LibDem influence in this government is working against the interests of this country,Vis immigration,human rights,EU relations etc

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickpike
    Love rating 277
    nickpike said

    All LibDems are nuts. Who ever voted for these idiots?

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BillBoy5
    Love rating 0
    BillBoy5 said

    The typical antics of a public school product. I would never trust any politician, monarchy, clergy, or any other civil service. They appear to forget that we fund not only their extremely extortionate salaries & howlers, but also their fat-cat expenses & pensions, which would make us their employers, not their sub-servient curs!

    .

    How dare they treat us as imbeciles?

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • killick_becki
    Love rating 61
    killick_becki said

    Aside from the political undertones of some of the comments above, i actually have something apolitical to say.

    Akin to "The Bank Manager"'s comments, if the government keep hold of the shares there is always the premise in the market that they will want to sell them all at some point. The share price is thus artifically low at the moment in anticipation of this. They know they are waiting for the all important "break even" share price to be reached.

    By giving away the shares to the public, the idea is that this becomes more uncertain as to when the share will be sold. Thus aliveating the "predictable" flood of the market that is expected.

    a) Not everyone will get to hear about the break even price being reached (even with agressive advertising).

    b) Not everyone will want to sell

    The question as to how the shares are split up into smaller packets of owners is a completely different matter.

    Now a slightly political point: Atleast the current government is getting wise and trying to play the market rather than the previous that sold off (the potentially profitable part of) Northern Rock at the first chance.

    Report on 28 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tallen1950
    Love rating 1
    tallen1950 said

    I take your criticism of tracking down all the residents, (although why not just use the 2011 census results?) but surely haven't you missed the point Cliff? If an institution like UK plc has a large shareholding which it wants to sell off what will the market think? Clearly the share price would drop like a stone and it would be nigh on impossible to recoup "our" losses. This way, I think, is quite clever. With the shares distributed over such a large number of people and none of them about to sell unless they get above the "break even price" would mean that they would sell in dribs and drabs and the market would be none the wiser. I am guessing that one of the main reasons for the low value of these shares is due to the fact that they are in the hands of one big institution. Once they were split into millions of small holdings they could drift on up to their "real value". So not so daft after all I guess. Basically the comment above this is fine by me.

    Report on 17 July 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse