Yeah, making the Gov't look good so that they had a chance of getting voted back in. Politicians playing with our money for their benefit so that we can keep paying them for the job they do - you couldn't make it up.

But hasn't the policy been adopted across the majority of the G8 countries?

The government has certain responsibilities and saving the UK from certain economic and social chaos is one of them, they had no option but to bail out the banks.

What I don't understand about the classic free marketeers is that they detest government intervention and state power because they say it means the market is commanded by one big entity. Well yes, but its at least accountable to its elected representatives.

The free market is no different, its commanded by one or two big entities who have just over time dominated the market share. Thats no more free than state dominance but the state is at least accountable.

What would have happened if HSBC had gone to the wall.....society would have been knackered....thats an unhealthy state of affairs. Certain malfunctioning big players at the top have seriously ruined our market system which has for me destroyed the credibility of the free-market-runs-things-best theory.

Wires71 what I said about the freemarketeers favouring government intervention when its middle class professionals homes and savings on the line wasnt aimed at you personally it was aimed at the pro free market movement in general. They will say that its not fair for people to lose their homes and savings because of errors that weren't to do with them, they were the errors of people at the top of the banks, which is all very true.

But a lot of these same people would have taken the opposite line when the mines and manufacturing industry were falling down and working class people lost their jobs: "the industry was unprofitable so tough". In most cases it was the fault of either management or just the conditions of the market, that workers were made redundant, not the fault of the workers themselves, but where was the call for government intervention to prop them up then?

You can't have it both ways....if we take the line that the government has responsibility to stop people losing their homes and savings, then it has to count for everybody.

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it - Why? Please, can you help me out on this, I really am struggling to get it.

I'm lead to believe....

1) Zero interbank lending, no liquidity in the market, decent businesses going bust due to lack of working capital/overdrafts etc. Huge unemployment.

2) Zero overseas investment through lack of confidence in UK finances.

3) Huge amount of housing repossessions and collapse of the housing sector.

4) Reduced availability for personal loans/finance severely damaging the retail economy.

5) Spiralling deflation.


I know the classic argument is that the stronger banks would pick up the pieces of the failed banks, cherry picking the loan book etc. But this would leave the most vunerable people repossessed and staring at bankruptcy.

Primrose is the official flower of the Tory party as well. Both our colours represent the Conservatives.

That has made my day, well that and Ponting's gob.

Superb. Can still see Ponting with a big double hundred in 2nd innings :-S

I think even the Aussies at their best, or Indias batting line up, would have struggled in this situation. Batting out two and a bit days on a crumbling dusty pitch.....not going to happen.

Best the Aussies can hope for is a fine rearguard action to make 380 and take the game to the fifth day.

80 for 0. Making a fist of it in true Aussie backs to the wall style. They are playing attacking and I think its fair to say there will be a result one way or another.

Only 4 months and three days 'til Christmas, kids!