Perhaps my point is that nationalising banks is the same as getting rid of them and returning to a barter system. Banks are not national institutions, they are international, so you would be just saying "Screw us to make sure no other country claiming to be a Western democracy interferes with the system."

That is not agreeing with, liking or condoning banks with the morals of a dog on heat, it is just stating a fact.

Anyway, as a retired CEO in the private sector, chairing one of these quangos that are being abolished and now interfering in a quango that is not being abolished, I reckon I have seen enough to at least say this;

if you say nationalise banks, you clearly want banks to exist. So as well as owning them, (as has been the case,) you want banks to be RUN by the government? If you just want them to own them, then it is in the taxpayers' interest for banks to amass huge profits through the means they know best ie the stunts they are accused of pulling. If however you want them to be RUN by civil servants...

Let me tell you something. the quango I am doing work for started 18 months ago, bringing together three commissions into one. You can imagine the workload, new instructions via new legislation, harmonising pay / conditions etc etc, reducing headcount whilst keeping the shop open. What a lot of work eh? By six months in, the website proudly announced the following;

1. All equality schemes had been approved.
2. Lesbian, gay transsexual group had been set up and had their first meeting.
3. A poster was in the London canteen celebrating black history month.
4. the Chairman had left and all the top posts announced last month are now being reviewed.
5. the BBC stops seeing us as the oracle, and starts questioning us instead.

Now.. I would expect the above to be in there somewhere, but at that point, it was all the new glorious leaders had managed to announce. No working policies adopted, no assimilation of workforce, no harmonisation of practice, nothing. Everybody on legacy contracts and hoping for the best.

Is this how a bank would be run?



Oh, regarding loopholes. Tax is an arbitrary system and what is taxed at what rate is set out in law. This is revised annually as some things are not happening as intended. The intention of ministers is not always what is written into law and what we call loopholes is a media term for legal minimising payment. Moral choice? Doesn't come into it.

I have always used tax accountancy firms to ensure I pay what I am legally required to but no more, not a penny more.

I am therefore in the same position as somebody who collects child benefit but if they thought about it, could live without it. I am the same as somebody who lives in South Yorkshire and gets subsidised public transport. The same position as somebody who visits the Science Museum but doesn't make the voluntary donation.