Nick Clegg sets out his answers over on Comment is Free.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
A roadmap to Queer Equality (Tara Foster)
-
A strange but welcome feeling (Jennie Rigg)
-
Fifteen years ago today…… (Caron Lindsay)
-
Mathew on Monday: Pluralism Means More Than a Slogan (Mathew Hulbert)
-
Urgent Call to Action by Lib Dem MPs on Palestine (John Kelly)
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Recent Comments
AM
It's been slightly odd & nostalgic - this sense of pride and belonging. Very grateful to all those MPs, and to Ed & Josh for leading from the [united] f...- AM
Wholeheartedly agree. It has been refreshing to hear Liberal Democrat leadership and parliamentarians taking a strong and unapologetic stand that is unequivocal... 
Ben Wood
It is such sad news. I was lucky to get to know Micheal over the last few years (working on a book project for the John Stuart Mill Institute). He reaffirmed fo...
Ed Sanderson
Very sad news. I remember many a lively evening of erudite discussion in Leeds - Michael was a true intellect - and a genuinely warm soul. My condolences to his...
Jack
This is bang on. What is the point of a liberal party that won't stand up for rights, especially when both government and opposition want to make hay out of div...
3 Comments
It’s an OK article, but the language is a bit stale. For example, the opening sentence (‘These are dark days for the economy’) is doom-laden, but doesn’t tell us anything that isn’t implied by the second sentence.
I remember when Francois Mitterand nationalised the French banks in the 1980s. The policy was a disaster and the conclusion was obvious; socialism doesn’t work. I for one believed that argument and I have not felt the need to change my views a great deal since, whilst many socialists and ex-socialists have.
What I find curious today is how the argument is turned on it’s head. The social impact of a large high street bank going out of business is simply too much to contemplate. So our policy is to nationalise Northern Rock. And now I notice Nick Clegg believes that politicians should have more of a say in how banks conduct their affairs.
I agree with him, given what he is suggesting.
But what we now have is a set of private institutions operating in the private sector but without the insecurity normally demanded from market forces that they could go out of business if they are not competitive.
It seems that policy makers are dammed either way; we do not want to nationalise them, but we do not want them to go out of business either.
In addition there is another point we need to address; the short-termism that seems to be one of the fundamental weaknesses, not only of banking but of markets in general.
Banks invested in the sub-prime markets, not because it made economic sense, but because that was where the short term profits were, and if you do not do what the others are doing, you are losing to the competition. And you are missing out on your bonusses as well.
It was a blow that the government had to nationalise Northern Rock, but imagine the impact if several banks had to be nationalised, the costs would have spiralled out of control.
We need a new economic model for banks. It is easy to say what it shouldn’t be; state control or pure private sector. But what should it be? Can the Lib Dems come up with something?
As the first commenter on CiF says, it is not the responsibility of government to mop up after people who have borrowed irresponsibly, surely, just as it is not our responsibility to mop up after banks who have borrowed irresponsibly.