Taffy
New Member
Whilst I'm glad that Northern Rock still keeps people in employment, I am absolutely furious that it has been nationalised. Why is Northern Rock seen as such a cornerstone of our fledgling economy? What do you think should have been done about it?
My initial thoughts: Northern Rock was nationalised not because it is a key part of our economy (it was a poorly-managed high street bank, much smaller than RBS, HSBC, NatWest etc.), but because it was Northern Rock. Out of all the constituencies in North-East England, Labour holds all but two of them. This is their heartland. I believe that the sole reason for the nationalisation of Northern Rock is to keep their voters. Essentially, they are playing politics with at least £20 billion of Taxpayer's money, in a time of economic recession, with other areas of the national budget screaming for much-needed money (Defence springs to mind in particular).
Let's weigh up the positives and negatives of the nationalisation: On the plus side, lots of people in Newcastle still have a job, a large part of the north-eastern economy is kept (for now) intact, and... um... there must be something else... no, nothing I can think of. On the negative side, every taxpayer in the country has been forced to buy a piece of poorly-run, poorly-financed, doomed company that they just didn't want. The State now has the costly burden of trying to turn it into a profitable company. If they manage to do that, they then have to find a mug willing enough to buy it. Not only this, but they have to make it a profitable venture.
The thing is, we all know how badly British Government is at running business. Take British Coal, British Steel and British Leyland. I remember reading somewhere that, at one point, Leyland was running at a £1,000,000 loss a day. I dread to think how those at 'The Rock' are going to cope. But more importantly, I dread to think what else Mr Darling is planning to do with my taxes (I'm pretending I pay taxes for the purpose of this debate
)
Personally, I think 'The Rock' should have been left to sink. We are meant to be a free-market economy. Surely failing businesses should be left to go down, then new business can move into the gap in the market.
However, I think this shows a general trend. One where Labour constantly pays out money to areas that vote Labour. Scotland and Wales, both Labour strongholds, now have their own Parliament, and every area of England, bar the South (and the South-East in particular) sees increased Government investment. This North-South divide is worrying. For the North, it is worrying because as the economy continues to slow, the South will have less money to pay out, thus making the North poorer. For the South, it is worrying because they have the burden of effectively propping up the rest of the nation.
What if the area of England stretching from Kent to Cornwall and north to, say Cambridge, were to follow the trend set by Kosovo and become independent? This new nation would be one of the richest in the world, and the rest of Britain would completely collapse.
My initial thoughts: Northern Rock was nationalised not because it is a key part of our economy (it was a poorly-managed high street bank, much smaller than RBS, HSBC, NatWest etc.), but because it was Northern Rock. Out of all the constituencies in North-East England, Labour holds all but two of them. This is their heartland. I believe that the sole reason for the nationalisation of Northern Rock is to keep their voters. Essentially, they are playing politics with at least £20 billion of Taxpayer's money, in a time of economic recession, with other areas of the national budget screaming for much-needed money (Defence springs to mind in particular).
Let's weigh up the positives and negatives of the nationalisation: On the plus side, lots of people in Newcastle still have a job, a large part of the north-eastern economy is kept (for now) intact, and... um... there must be something else... no, nothing I can think of. On the negative side, every taxpayer in the country has been forced to buy a piece of poorly-run, poorly-financed, doomed company that they just didn't want. The State now has the costly burden of trying to turn it into a profitable company. If they manage to do that, they then have to find a mug willing enough to buy it. Not only this, but they have to make it a profitable venture.
The thing is, we all know how badly British Government is at running business. Take British Coal, British Steel and British Leyland. I remember reading somewhere that, at one point, Leyland was running at a £1,000,000 loss a day. I dread to think how those at 'The Rock' are going to cope. But more importantly, I dread to think what else Mr Darling is planning to do with my taxes (I'm pretending I pay taxes for the purpose of this debate
)Personally, I think 'The Rock' should have been left to sink. We are meant to be a free-market economy. Surely failing businesses should be left to go down, then new business can move into the gap in the market.
However, I think this shows a general trend. One where Labour constantly pays out money to areas that vote Labour. Scotland and Wales, both Labour strongholds, now have their own Parliament, and every area of England, bar the South (and the South-East in particular) sees increased Government investment. This North-South divide is worrying. For the North, it is worrying because as the economy continues to slow, the South will have less money to pay out, thus making the North poorer. For the South, it is worrying because they have the burden of effectively propping up the rest of the nation.
What if the area of England stretching from Kent to Cornwall and north to, say Cambridge, were to follow the trend set by Kosovo and become independent? This new nation would be one of the richest in the world, and the rest of Britain would completely collapse.
