Bring back a National Bank like Giro Bank?

socrates

ninky wrote: »

You buy your business from Mr A. You know all along that Mr A has the option to start up again in business with advantages (whether they are unfair depends on your point of view) but you are willing to risk it because Mr A is currently influenced by Mrs A who is good mates with you and tells her husband starting up again is not a good idea. Plus you think you'll make loads of money.

Mr A gets divorced and marries Mrs B. Mrs B isn't friends with you and infact doesn't like you very much as over the last few years you've overcharged her, been generally irresponsible and more than a little bit greedy. Mrs B tells her husband he was a fool to sell the business and perhaps it might be a good idea to start up again.

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me?

Have you thought of applying for the job of running this bank?

No-one agrees with you - give it up!

Rochdale_Pioneers

socrates wrote: »

Have you thought of applying for the job of running this bank?

No-one agrees with you - give it up!

I think quite a lot of people agree with him. Who are you to make sweeping statements? YOU disagree - are YOU arrogant enough to think you represent everyone?

baileysbattlebus

ninky wrote: »

Girobank must have been run well otherwise A&L wouldn't have been so keen to snap it up. And at least you can vote for your government - you can't vote for your bank manager.

Fred the Shred for PM anyone?

Girobank was started because most of the clearing banks weren't interested in working class people - they were usually paid weekly and in cash and viewed even then as non profitable. Banking wasn't free then. And banks didn't display their tariffs. Banks wanted middle class customers.

Girobank was the first "free" bank in that it didn't charge for transactions.

It was designed to be computerised. It was the first bank to have telephone banking - regardless of what First Direct might say.


It was sold to A&L by the conservative government of the day.

But unlike the other privatisations there were no options for the public to buy shares.

ninky_2

socrates wrote: »

Have you thought of applying for the job of running this bank?

No-one agrees with you - give it up!

I came here looking for some intelligent arguments as to why a nationalized national bank is a bad idea.

No I wouldn't apply to run it. Have you thought of running for Prime Minister. With lines of argument like this I dont' supposed you'd last long...

As I was saying, my mum and dad got on the property ladder through the Greater London Authority mortgage that was offered through the govt owned Giro band in the early 1970s. This stopped them requiring council housing. It was a much better idea than selling off the social housing stock which is what the conservatives did - what a disasterous idea that was.

I'm all for more government intervention. The problems in this country have been caused by not having enough. I'd like to see a cap on property prices. And before you start moaning about stifling wealth creation, wealth CREATION is not the problem. We have plenty of wealth. It's wealth DISTRIBUTION that is the real problem.

Pennywise

Just look at everything else that is nationalised and you'll see the problem. Inflexibility, incompetence, outdated working practices, wasteful, etc., are just some of the words you can apply to almost everything within the public sector.

I'd be all for lots more to be nationalised if only the Govt could run them properly. I'm not against nationalisation on political grounds, I'm against it because is almost every case, they couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery.

Look at BT - when it was nationalised, you had to wait weeks for something simple like a new phone line. I know it's far from perfect now, but it is a lot more responsive to customer demand and a lot more efficient.

Look at the railways, they were still building new steam locomotives when they knew they'd be scrapped almost as soon as they came off the production line, and at the same time, they were building diesel locomotives to replace them, also at the same time, investing in new road networks and in the knowledge that rail transport was declining. So new steamies, at the same time as new diesels to replace the steamies, at the same time as knowing that probably neither would be used for more than a few years.

Also, don't forget national greed. There was no shortage of people wanting shares in the denationalisations when they thought they could get something for nothing. What about the building societies - as soon as the members thought that they could get something for nothing by voting for demutualisation, they went at it in droves.

What went wrong with the banks was a complete absence of regulation and supervision. The Govt knew it but didn't do anything because they believed the boom/bubble could continue forever (or at least until after the next election). There's nothing wrong with Govt intervention, but they just aren't up to the job of getting the balance right. How can it be right that banks can be allowed to lose billions when at the same time, a micro one-man business is hounded by regulations and red tape and can face prison for as little as not filling in the right form at the right time!

ninky_2

Thanks Pennywise, at least you make your point in the context of intelligent debate.

I don't remember my family waiting weeks for BT to fix a line (but I guess I was quite young). Anyone else remember this?

I also don't remember the railways being as expensive or badly run as they are now.

The problem with the private banks now is we've basically sent out a message that you can run your business to the ground and the government will ALWAYS bail you out.

Any specific arguments against Giro Bank? Anything I have heard or can find about them suggests it was a very successful national institution?

Guy_Montag

I had to wait 2 months for my phone to be connected when I last moved (in 2006).

Lifeisbutadream

ninky wrote: »

Thanks Pennywise, at least you make your point in the context of intelligent debate.

I don't remember my family waiting weeks for BT to fix a line (but I guess I was quite young). Anyone else remember this?

I also don't remember the railways being as expensive or badly run as they are now.

The problem with the private banks now is we've basically sent out a message that you can run your business to the ground and the government will ALWAYS bail you out.

Any specific arguments against Giro Bank? Anything I have heard or can find about them suggests it was a very successful national institution?

I am maybe being niave, but I remember things fondy from when they were nationalised. BT 192 was free for a start (I got charged £1.90 for a call to 118 118 the other day!) you had to pass all sorts of tests and it was a really good job to be a telephone operator. The buses, although werent always on time, were regular and they didnt just change at the drop of a hat (I live in a village 7 miles out of town and First York have just stopped our bus service after 7.30pm BECAUSE THEY CAN)

ETA my Dad worked for British Rail and they actually built trains IN THIS COUNTRY too!

socrates

So from what I can see only 1 (the OP) perhaps 2 (Rochdale Pioneers - who has not said if he is for or against) agrees with this idea - so where are these lots of people.

Creating a government bank is a bad idea for all the reasons already mentioned.

ninky_2

The point of this thread was not to hold some meaningless "straw poll" of a random selection of forum viewers but rather to debate the issue. Popularity is no indicaton of correctness - especially when the views for and against have not actually been aired.