Reply to: Mandelson attacks Barclays chief

[Green Mango]

Mango - that isn't an NHS hospital its owned by Skanska & others when we fall behind on the payments the repo man will be round.

http://www.skanska.com/en/Projects/D...oject/?pid=114

Oh and I have heard some PFI providers can charge what they like for changing a light bulb - Kerching.

Vetran,

I appreciate what you say. These PFI schemes are supposedly too expensive and the danger is that central government will have to bail them out.

[TykeMerc]

Mandelson, moral high ground

Fair point.

It was him that got sacked twice (at least) from the cabinet for dodgy dealings then returned to politics as an unelected appointee to the House of Lords wasn't it?

[vetran]

Mandelson, moral high ground

[vetran]

Bought on the never never

Mango - that isn't an NHS hospital its owned by Skanska & others when we fall behind on the payments the repo man will be round.

http://www.skanska.com/en/Projects/D...oject/?pid=114

Oh and I have heard some PFI providers can charge what they like for changing a light bulb - Kerching.

[fullyautomatix]

Apart from anything else, he risks having this tactic rebound on Labour.

All the Tories need do is point out how much Tony Blair has made (£20 million plus?) swanning around the lecture circuit, doing little substantial (so it appears to Joe Public) since leaving office.

Good point about Blair. Why isnt anybody questioning his shameless money making exercises? I have never seen a former head of state acting so greedy and try and make money in the way he has been.

[fullyautomatix]

None of the banks would have survived fully intact had it not been for government intervention.

Barclay's was just further down the chain of dominoes (with NR, B&B, RBS, HBOS at the front).

In fact Barclays did get bailed out - just not by taxpayers, but by foreign investors who now own a substantial chunk.

That said - Barclays were clearly more prudent than most, so I agree that Mandleson's attack is unjustified. But then, it's all just electioneering.

Barclarys did not get bailed out, they just managed to get extra investment by selling a stake in the company. It seems to have helped them tide over any crisis they had. Are you saying any kind of rights issue is a sign of getting bailed out ?

[Green Mango]

Electoral gain is why.

I say this as a concerned citizen who really, really wants to be a Labour supporter

Well for me the plus side of Labour is some of the money they have spent hasn't all been wasted. I spent 2 days in the Royal Derby hospital emergency ward being dosed up with antibiotics. I have to say that the hospital was basicly new and most of the time I had the two bed ward to myself apart from when the alcoholics were in.

Unfortunately I believe the NHS will not escape the cuts after the election.

The downside is basicly everything else. They have made a real mess of the economy and will take years/decades to sort out and as Gordon Brown is so fond of saying he will have his wasted generation.

[OwlHoot]

Surely those two notions are mutually exclusive?

Baffles the hell out of me too, but each to their own I suppose.

[shaunbhoy]

I say this as a concerned citizen who really, really wants to be a Labour supporter

Surely those two notions are mutually exclusive?

[centurian]

Quite why Mandelson has to target Barclays, I do not understand. He didn't seem to attack Fred The Shred's pension, did not attack RBS's billion quid bonus despite making a loss, did not attack adam applegarth etc. But he chooses to attack a company which rejected govt help and managed to survive on their own. So what's up ?

None of the banks would have survived fully intact had it not been for government intervention.

Barclay's was just further down the chain of dominoes (with NR, B&B, RBS, HBOS at the front).

In fact Barclays did get bailed out - just not by taxpayers, but by foreign investors who now own a substantial chunk.

That said - Barclays were clearly more prudent than most, so I agree that Mandleson's attack is unjustified. But then, it's all just electioneering.

[Doggy Styles]

"If you look at Bob Diamond, who took 63 million pounds in pay; that to me is the unacceptable face of banking," he said.

"He hasn't earned that money, he's taken 63 million pounds not by building business or adding value or creating long-term economic strength, he has done so by deal-making and shuffling paper around.

"If anyone could justify that I'd like to see them do so. Just because somebody is very rich, it doesn't mean to say different standards of morality apply to them."

That's a bit rich (no pun intended).

Mandelson himself is very wealthy, from doing what exactly?

[Paddy]

Quite why Mandelson has to target Barclays, I do not understand. He didn't seem to attack Fred The Shred's pension, did not attack RBS's billion quid bonus despite making a loss, did not attack adam applegarth etc. But he chooses to attack a company which rejected govt help and managed to survive on their own. So what's up ?

RBS gives promise of non-exec directorship when Mandelson retires.
Mandelson gives taxpayers money to RBS
Madelson happy.

Barclays tells Madelson to FO
Madelson not happy.

[OwlHoot]

Quite why Mandelson has to target Barclays, I do not understand.

Apart from anything else, he risks having this tactic rebound on Labour.

All the Tories need do is point out how much Tony Blair has made (£20 million plus?) swanning around the lecture circuit, doing little substantial (so it appears to Joe Public) since leaving office.

[Sysman]

But he chooses to attack a company which rejected govt help and managed to survive on their own. So what's up ?

The bold bit is your answer.

[Gonzo]

We are at the business end in the run up to the election and we are beginning to see how the campaigns are going to be fought.

If the poll is going to be on 6th May as everyone suspects then Gordon Brown must ask the Queen for a dissolution of parliament by next Monday at the latest.

It looks like Mandelson is stoking up the class-war angle. Persuade Labour's traditional voters that might be tempted to vote for change that the Conservatives really do not give a toss about them.

Whether he is doing this for the election campaign, or to position himself for the internal battle that is going to happen in the Labour party after the election whether they win or lose, I am not sure.

EDIT: I love the way that Reuters have reported this and used a really creepy photo of him.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTR...dChannel=11700

There's a Full Size control beneath the photo - you just can't bring yourself to click it can you?