The situation with Northern Rock is this, the government is rushing the nationalization through in a matter of days, after dithering for months.

They have deliberately attempted to restrict information about the true financial situation of Northern rock, and one result, in my opinion, is they have created a false market in shares of Northern Rock.

Northern Rock is known to have been a lender that was prepared to offer over 100% of the value of the property (someone I know has just such a mortguage), in a situation where property prices were continiously going upward that was not a problem. But now the housing market is looking decidedly ‘iffy’, there is a very good chance that much of Northern Rocks mortguage book is already below the surface.

To support that, Northern Rock is one of the lenders that stars prominently in the repossessions statistics.

I have no problem with Granite, if it is what it purports to be, however in a situation where Northern Rock is about to be thrown up to £100 billion of public funds, we ought to know a little more about what we are buying.

The suspicion is that most of the so called ‘high quality’ loans, that the Chancellor tells us belong to Northern Rock are actually in Granite, and outside the reach of the Nationalization of Northern Rock. That means the investors in Granite will be serviced from the ‘high quality’ loan portfolio in Granite before the public funds are repaid.

If the Chancellor knows that but is withholding that information, then that is something Parliament should find out.

I don’t understand.

From you article I gather you, with your business acumen and assuming you had the money, wouldn’t enter into this agreement given the paucity of information.

I certainly wouldn’t (even if I had the money).

Why then, would MP’s vote to enter such a disadvantageous agreement without insisting on disclosure?

Do we still have an elected house of representatives?

If not, why are they still there?

This makes salutory reading about Northern Rock.

When Alastair Darling says there are high quality assets in Northern Rocks portfolio, does he tell us that in fact the high quality assets are off balance sheets and off shore in the Granite vehicle?

(I have cut out a couple of sentences with accusations about the Chancellor)
The government admits that Granite exists and has good mortgages in it. They also tell us the mortgages not in Granite are good as well.

Cameron’s position in the polls (presently at about 9 points ahead) is extraordinary, because this means that around 30 percent of those polled are still telling the pollsters they support the discredited Labour Government. How can they? Presumably they are die-hards who out of principle will always favour the party, even when they are clearly damaged below the waterline.

But on the other hand, my view is that the reason Cameron is not moving to the 15 – 20 percent lead in the polls which he needs if he is to present a clear future Government, is because nobody knows what he and his party really stand for.

There are two views – one is that oppositions don’t win elections, but Governments lose them. In the present circumstances that view is clearly deficient. Labour has a rock-solid minimum level of support below which we can assume it will not fall (the high 20’s percent). But without a commanding lead, we are looking at a hung Parliament. In order to win, I believe that the Conservatives have everything to play for, but (and this is the point) they MUST tell the public CLEARLY what they would DO, and they are not doing this in any area at present. All we are seeing is style over content.

In the dark, ‘lost’ days of the Tory party, orators and intellectuals such as Hague and Redwood were painted as somehow undesirable and ‘wierd’ by Blair’s propoganda machine. This method of warfare unfortunately seems to have shaped the Cameron response, which is to be the opposite. That was the only response the cornered Tory Party could make to Blair, but he went six months ago. We are in different times. A combination of Cameron’s public – friendly approach and some genuine intellectual power is badly needed if the Tories are to be an effective opposition, let alone a Party seen as a credible alternative Government.

Thank you Mr Redwood for giving us some basis for optimism.

Let’s understand that right at the outset the Government was faced with a simple choice of allowing market forces to prevail or of full State involvement. Never mind all of this persiflage about seeking a ‘commercial solution’ – that was never a runner, given the suitors and given the immediate response by the Government to the original offer from a proper bank. The single driver in all of this has been the political implication – tomorrow’s headlines. And now the Government has even managed to mishandle that. Utter incompetence.

However, did you notice that the Conservative leader and shadow chancellor did their announcement to a news conference, not to parliament last evening? So much for “In sum, Parliament will have none of the usual information directors would require as matter of course from acquiring management and their advisers before consenting to an acquisition.”
Kossovo seems to me to be very like the start of the First World War with the West and Russia at loggerheads. The Russians, however, have an army…. And was this debated at all in Parliament?
It seems that our national legislature is getting more and more irrelevant.
I am thinking of doing a bumper sticker with
“ENGLAND – micromanaged by lawyers.”
Do you know what? I still give this lot until Ester.

Reply: This is very unlike the conditions in 1945.

Rather like the situation with going into the 1st World War .
A one-day debate too!

It will become a public body and subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

National Rock, as a public body is going to find it difficult to defend itself when individuals make claims against them for repossessions, especially if they use Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998 all courts are required to make their decisions in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the usual procedures apply for appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. Courts have to interpret legislation in a way, which makes it compatible with the European Convention, and they can invalidate secondary legislation if it is not compatible with the Convention.

It is not only Darling who is politically a dead man walking; all of Bean’s men are has-beens.