It appears that in all the hilarity and derision following Mr Twit's announcement that he'd 'Saved The World', we may have missed a far more serious act by the Rt. (dis)Hon Gentleman.
Iain Dale has been reviewing PMQs and noticed a subsequent comment, barely heard above the hubbub of Parliamentarians pissing themselves.
Iain Dale has been reviewing PMQs and noticed a subsequent comment, barely heard above the hubbub of Parliamentarians pissing themselves.
Did you hear it? Play it again, and listen carefully.
"Not a single depositor actually lost any money in Britain." (link is to the Hansard record of this comment).
Mr Dale thinks this is a lie - a 'Whopping Brownie', to be exact. I agree - at the very least, I think it was an (inadvertent?*) attempt to mislead the House.
For example, it does not take into consideration any depositors with investments in excess of £50,000 (with the exception of London Scottish investors, which could set a precedent. Even IF you were eligible to get all your money back, the Government itself have to stump up the cash - which is unlikely when they're skint. So they'll just give you your tax money back, then take it away in terms of higher taxes. And, of course, if you've got money in a failed business, you're likely to have no access to it until the administration process is over, and because only the capital sum is covered, if that takes six months you've lost the interest while you wait.
And what about those who have 'deposited' in a pension fund? The catastrophic drop in the FTSE 100, plummeting some 2000 points since this time last year? Change the term 'depositor' to 'investor'. It's merely a matter of semantics. The people who cannot take their retirement this year because they can't get a decent annuity or their pension fund has plummeted - haven't THEY lost out?
And let's not forget business depositors, who aren't really covered at all. Or don't they count in his weasel words?
So, I believe that Mr Twit should be called to account, and asked to explain his comment to the House and the Electorate. I'm therefore going to ask you all for a favour.
If you're reading this, please post the above clip on your own Blog, along with the following request to Downing Street:
"We call on the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying his words in Prime Ministers' Questions, and to answer IN DETAIL how he can state that 'not a single depositor has lost money in Britain'."
PMQ's is a time for the Prime Minister to be held to account for his actions. He also needs to be held accountable for his words. Thanks for reading.
* Inadvertent. Yeah, right.
For example, it does not take into consideration any depositors with investments in excess of £50,000 (with the exception of London Scottish investors, which could set a precedent. Even IF you were eligible to get all your money back, the Government itself have to stump up the cash - which is unlikely when they're skint. So they'll just give you your tax money back, then take it away in terms of higher taxes. And, of course, if you've got money in a failed business, you're likely to have no access to it until the administration process is over, and because only the capital sum is covered, if that takes six months you've lost the interest while you wait.
And what about those who have 'deposited' in a pension fund? The catastrophic drop in the FTSE 100, plummeting some 2000 points since this time last year? Change the term 'depositor' to 'investor'. It's merely a matter of semantics. The people who cannot take their retirement this year because they can't get a decent annuity or their pension fund has plummeted - haven't THEY lost out?
And let's not forget business depositors, who aren't really covered at all. Or don't they count in his weasel words?
So, I believe that Mr Twit should be called to account, and asked to explain his comment to the House and the Electorate. I'm therefore going to ask you all for a favour.
If you're reading this, please post the above clip on your own Blog, along with the following request to Downing Street:
"We call on the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying his words in Prime Ministers' Questions, and to answer IN DETAIL how he can state that 'not a single depositor has lost money in Britain'."
PMQ's is a time for the Prime Minister to be held to account for his actions. He also needs to be held accountable for his words. Thanks for reading.
* Inadvertent. Yeah, right.
3 comments:
Just asking ...
which depositors lost money out of which banks / building societies?
Takes longer, but might be easier to make the point if petition were extended to
We call on the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying his words in Prime Ministers' Questions, and to answer IN DETAIL how he can state that 'not a single depositor has lost money in Britain', given that x lost y from bank z.
I don't quite see what Brown was supposed to do about the FTSE. Share trading is gambling. You win, you lose. Investments go down as well as up. No one has a right to make money. That's capitalism. As for the banks, so far what you say doesn't really add up. If banks collapse at least in part as a result of their own behaviour and depositor's money is put at risk, how else is the government supposed to help? The only other answer surely would be just to let them go, and everyone's money with them...
Thanks for the comment, Danny.
I'm not attacking the Government's *actions* in this instance - but the Prime Minister's words.
You can't legislate against losing money on the stock market, but it's disingenuous and wrong to say that 'no depositor has lost money in Britain'.
The simple reason is that this statement relies on so many variables (as I've hopefully shown) as to make it nonsensical. It requires careful definition of almost EVERY word.
Which is why I'm challenging the PM actually to explain how he can say that. I want to see his struggles as he justifies the precise spin behind every weasel word of that misleading comment.
Thanks for reading.
D
Post a Comment