Bank Bailout Referendum poll results/discussion

Poll between 13-20 Oct 2008:

Bank Bailout Referendum

The government is to invest £37billion in a part nationalisation of RBS/Natwest and the to-be-merged Lloyds/HBOS. Plus it's going to guarantee interbank loans with a potential exposure of £100s billions.

If there were a referendum on this issue would you support it?

A. Yes (in favour of the bailout). 56% (3893 votes)
B. No (against the bailout). 39% (2721 votes)
C. Wouldn't Vote/Abstain. 5% (383 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks :)
«134

Replies

  • I haven't voted because I don't think the question is quite right.

    I support a bailout to prevent/minimise global financial meltdown, but any bailout should be on strictly regulated conditions. Why should I, as a taxpayer, underpin the massive salaries of the fat cats?

    Bail out the banks by all means, but make them accountable. One extreme (which I would personally support) would be to make them non-profit making organisations, with salaries of top officials strictly regulated. A new form of 'charity', perhaps.
    I was a board guide here for many years, but have now resigned. Amicably, but I think it reflects very poorly on MSE that I have not even received an acknowledgement of my resignation! Poor show, MSE.

    This signature was changed on 6.4.22. This is an experiment to see if anyone from MSE picks up on this comment.
  • I support the bail out but I'd like to see them dropping "Scotland" from the banks titles. Make them more neutral to the UK :)

  • Bail out the banks by all means, but make them accountable. One extreme (which I would personally support) would be to make them non-profit making organisations, with salaries of top officials strictly regulated. A new form of 'charity', perhaps.

    Non-Profiting, would result in a massive loss in taxes. You might as well nationalise the entire thing if you want to go down that route, as at least the government would generate smaller profits, but profits none the less.

    Although, I think "non-profit" banks would in the end just collapse. The best managers wouldn't stick around, they'd simple move to oil companies and other places that do pay well and have bonuses. You'd be left with managment like they have in government who really would drive it down to the ground.

    Besides, the government wouldn't be allowed to do such conditions as "non-profit" as they'd obviusly have lower charges which would mean they'd have an increased advantage. A big no no from the EU for that under unfair competition.
  • teddycoteddyco Forumite
    397 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Bail out the banks, pay the man, or the fall out will be more expensive in the long run for the economy.
  • Just to remind you all that building societies are non-profit making organisations. (I fully acknowledge that this fact does not stop them employing overpaid staff at the top).

    I believe that if organisations are funded by public money, they have a responsibility to be transparent and not to encourage the fat cat culture so rife in the financial sector (at least until about a month ago......)
    I was a board guide here for many years, but have now resigned. Amicably, but I think it reflects very poorly on MSE that I have not even received an acknowledgement of my resignation! Poor show, MSE.

    This signature was changed on 6.4.22. This is an experiment to see if anyone from MSE picks up on this comment.
  • I support the bail out but I'd like to see them dropping "Scotland" from the banks titles. Make them more neutral to the UK :)
    So would that also mean dropping "England" from Bank of England??
  • I don't like the bail-out one bit, but we're in a situation where we have little choice.

    I do, however, hope that the fact we all now own at least 4 of the big banks, means that they will start concentrating on some of their new shareholders concerns - namely unfair bank charges, offshoring and the fact that they work for us now, not the other way round !
  • MSE_MartinMSE_Martin MoneySaving Expert
    8.3K Posts
    Forumite
    I haven't voted because I don't think the question is quite right.

    I support a bailout to prevent/minimise global financial meltdown, but any bailout should be on strictly regulated conditions. Why should I, as a taxpayer, underpin the massive salaries of the fat cats?

    Bail out the banks by all means, but make them accountable. One extreme (which I would personally support) would be to make them non-profit making organisations, with salaries of top officials strictly regulated. A new form of 'charity', perhaps.


    Hi, the question is deliberatley simple. Do you support the governements action. If it were a referendum, it would generally be a simple question of approval or not :)
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.
    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.
    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
  • i half agree with the bailout, but not entirely. i think there should have been tighter restrictions on them. one in particular i feel extremley strongly about is that a condition of this bailout should have been no job losses for the bog standard everyday bank workers who now stand to loose thier jobs, ( no before you ask i do not work at a bank or any financial company) but my question is who will bail out these poor people when they have no job, most main wage earners and a vast majority with a subsidised mortgage through thier employment, if they go under financially and have the threst of loosing thier homes will the government bail them out! simple answer to that is NO. get shut of the big boys who pretty much caused this in the first place. lets face it i would only need to work as the chief exec of any bank for a week and i prob would be set for the rest of my life financially!!
    self confessed 80's throwback:D
    sealed pot challenge 2009 #488 (couldnt tell you how much so far as i cant open it to count it!!:mad: )
  • The first question which we must ask ourselves is: how did the banks get into this mess in the first place?

    The answer to the question (I believe) has been the widespread availability of very cheap credit due to irresponsible Government lending and interest rate policies and the lack of a gold standard enabling money to be generated out of thin air.

    In my opinion, if we'd never had a policy of bailing out failed businesses, perhaps the banks would have been a lot more careful in the first place? I mean, you wouldn't see Smith's hardware borrowing enormous multiples of their annual turnover to invest in broken hammers because they know that when the buck stops, it stops with them. Why should this be any different for the banks?

    I concede that in the short term, this may be detrimental to our economy but the most important lesson that the free market has to teach is one of person responsibility. At the moment, the clearest lesson that we have is that under a socialist Government (Labour) the most irresponsible people out there simply cannot lose - during the times of cheap money, they had bonuses flowing out of their ear holes. And now that the times are bad what happens? Well, the Government comes along and gives them tax payers’ money!
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Iceland now offers interest-free loans

But be careful - they'll impact your credit score

MSE News

Vanilla, veg & vexatious neighbours

This week's MSE Forum highlights

MSE Forum

Up to 10% off Macs and iPads

For students, teachers & parents of students

MSE Deals