Bank Bailout Referendum poll results/discussion

StuBoy_2

There was no real option for the Government.

If the banks weren't bailed out everyones Savings VERY unsafe. So if you have or intend to save it's a good thing.

I realise that the Banks have caused this entire problem and don't like the bonueses that were paid to people that made short term gambles on behalf of the bank to make a quick buck. In the end the Government is supporting the Banks and in which have already paid massive bonuses out. Don't like it ... the Tax Payer is effectively covering these Bonus Payments and Gambles the Banks took.

However there was no option ... everyone in the UK would have been a whole lot worse off if the Government hadn't stepped in. It's still going to be a tough year, and I'm sure lots of job losses and reposessions ... but it would have been a lot worse without this bailout.

Just my two pence worth

jobbingmusician

MSE_Martin wrote: »

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

If it were a referendum, and I had the energy I would campaign about the accountability of public bodies.

It does [strike]p*ss me off[/strike] annoy me that the fat cats are cosily cushioned from the ways that their irresponsible investments have affected so many people.......:mad:

Anyway, as it's a question of coming down on one side or the other, I have supported the motion - bailout is essential.

mal79

Colin_Behr wrote: »

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!

I completely agree.

The lack of bailout would have likely resulted in some dark days for the economy, but we have been there before AND recovered. For the past few years the housing market has been out of control and unsustainable, so the current circumstance was always going to come about, just a matter of when and how hard.

I believe that the interventions we have seen are politically motivated. In the USA a change of administration is not far away so do the incumbents really care about future budgetary matters? At home the Brown Government is experiencing somewhat of a renaissance due to this issue, especially now the UK solution is being adopted on a seemingly global scale.

The alternative solution would have been greater transparency in the financial sector (debt liability, solvency, liquidity etc.) so interbank lending could happen. There would have been some causulties, however the "better" end of the market who were able to trade normally would have pickked over the carcuses, as was the case after Lehman Bros.

The bailout sets a dangerous precident for corporate responsibilty and makes this situation more likely to happen again. But by trying to shield the public from the recession inturn seeks to vindicate past economic policy as normal and correct.

Rant over!

ailuro2

I would vote against the bailout.

I'd split the money up and give it to the NHS, to Education, to pay off student loans,to heat old people's homes, to build decent houses for everyone and give every schoolkid in the UK a good free school lunch every day they are there. Make sports centres free to attend. Build community centres and give kids and teens something to do with their spare time. In other words, do what everyone would like of the country had the money.




and I'd let people who have oversold while still reaping huge bonuses work out for themseves how to bring their bank back to an even keel - or is that not their job - are they only there for the good times?

Marisan

I'm not happy about the Government using our money to bail out the Banks,but I do think there was little else they could have done in the circumstances.To have allowed the Banks to go to the wall would have had serious repercussions for all of us.

However,the fatcat executives must wave goodbye to their outrageous salaries,bonuses,golden handshakes etc. and come into the real world with the rest of us.And those who mismanaged business so badly that this was the result must either go willingly or be sent packing.

sdooley

ailuro2 wrote: »

I'd split the money up and give it to the NHS, to Education, to pay off student loans,to heat old people's homes, to build decent houses for everyone and give every schoolkid in the UK a good free school lunch every day they are there. Make sports centres free to attend. Build community centres and give kids and teens something to do with their spare time. In other words, do what everyone would like of the country had the money.

That's fine but how would the teachers or nurses feel when their salary payments are frozen because the school or hospital's bank goes under and can't make payroll? How much use is paying off student loans when the graduates are all unable to find work (so wouldn't have to pay them back anyway)?

The banks have us over a barrel. People vote yes, out of fear, because it's blackmail, but it's effective.

Ben1982

I voted no.

I wonder whether there's a cycle of things here, you have councils that had ~£1bn in banks in Iceland, which now looks lost, had the UK banks had these deposits, would there have been this urgency of a bailout? I guess we'll never know, but surely £1bn extra in UK banks would have helped.
I'm not against using the foreign banks, but I think the councils should have had at least half of that cash in UK banks.

matt24_2

I don't support the bail out and for plenty of reasons. To me it seems like a band aid However, no one has mentioned one of the underlying causes of this credit crunch or whatever term you want to give it...

Fractional Reserve Banking - go google it!

To start with, in my opinion we should consider the following:

1) Remove all central banks and private institutions owning countries currencies
2) Dissolve IMF,WTO and World Bank
3)Stop Fractional Reserve Banking

Then we could try to build an economic system that has good foundations - perhaps using a gold standard.

Rolandtheroadie

There should be no bailout.

The situation the banks find themselves in is down to greed pure and simple. Not happy with profiteering from us all in the UK, they decided to try and profiteer in the sub prime lending markets in the USA as well.

We've poured billions into the economy trying to stop a recession that will happen anyway and now we're paying billions into the banking system.

Leave it to survival of the fittest. It's just using the working class pound to save the middle/upper class their lifestyles (no, it isnt a classless society).

Once the banks are in (semi) public control (laughable as they will never really be public) lets get the utilities back into public ownership and get them run not for profit. Then the railways/busses.

As a final note, anyone getting an increased number of calls from their bank trying to sell you things? Theyre no better that telesales nowadays. In branch is no better, "Like a review of your accounts sir?" "Like a credit card?" "Haven't you got a bit too much money in that account?".
They'd still give anything to anyone that hasn't shown signs of being unable to pay it back yet.

Rolandtheroadie

There should be no bailout.

The situation the banks find themselves in is down to greed pure and simple. Not happy with profiteering from us all in the UK, they decided to try and profiteer in the sub prime lending markets in the USA as well.

We've poured billions into the economy trying to stop a recession that will happen anyway and now we're paying billions into the banking system.

Leave it to survival of the fittest. It's just using the working class pound to save the middle/upper class their lifestyles (no, it isnt a classless society).

Once the banks are in (semi) public control (laughable as they will never really be public) lets get the utilities back into public ownership and get them run not for profit. Then the railways/busses.

As a final note, anyone getting an increased number of calls from their bank trying to sell you things? Theyre no better that telesales nowadays. In branch is no better, "Like a review of your accounts sir?" "Like a credit card?" "Haven't you got a bit too much money in that account?".
They'd still give anything to anyone that hasn't shown signs of being unable to pay it back yet.