(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com at 10:18am on 16/01/2008
Could be that the government just subsidises (i). I think that could be more likely than (iii).
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
ext_27570: Richard in tricorn hat (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] sigisgrim.livejournal.com at 10:32am on 16/01/2008
I think that is doubtful, they are likely to cop a lot of flack if they do that.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com at 10:38am on 16/01/2008
mm, but it'll be one-off, rather than having their prowess as bank-managers under scrutiny from now until they sell the thing off for a fraction of what it's worth, at which point they get it all over again.
[link] [parent] [reply]
ext_27570: Richard in tricorn hat (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] sigisgrim.livejournal.com at 10:43am on 16/01/2008
That's true, but it would be more likely to be sold off under a Tory government, than a Labour one, so I can't see this government being that bothered.

Also I would expect the Treasury to appoint some notable money managers to run it and step back. After all they seporated themselves from the decisions on interest rates that the Bank of England now makes.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] parrot-knight.livejournal.com at 10:53am on 16/01/2008
Indeed - the process has been dragged out so long that the public is now aware that any 'private sector' option involves a heavy degree of subsidy by the taxpayer, both in the cases of Virgin and Olivant.
[link] [parent] [reply]

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
1
26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31