Do you have a question you would like to ask Chancellor Alistair Darling? Now is your chance.
At 1:30pm British time on Wednesday, October 21, Reuters is hosting an exclusive Web 2.0 interview with Darling and we want you to send us your questions to put to the top man from the Treasury.
From the crippling global recession to the debate over bankers’ bonuses, it has been a tumultuous year at Number 11 Downing Street. You may want to quiz the Chancellor on one of these topics, ask him about the government’s plans to prevent another downturn or how Labour plan to defy the polls and win the upcoming general election.
During the interview we will put as many of your questions as possible to the Chancellor and will be running a liveblog of the event, much like we did during this social media interview with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.
Leave your question in the comments box below or via Twitter (using #askdarling) and join us on Wednesday for our Web 2.0 interview with the Chancellor.
What was the purpose of the 'Golden Rule' to not borrow more than 40% of the national GDP? It now stands at 59%. Gordon Brown would often broadcast his Golden Rule, but as soon as the target was reached, the rule was conveniently and immediately scrapped. Was it just more Labour smoke and mirrors, to kid the British public that the finances were in the hands of professionals. There was no attempt whatever to keep to this guideline.
Trackback
35 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
After 10 years of of expanding goverment beaucracy advisors, FSA, and BoE policies we have arrived at an incomprehensible economic position due to a lack of common sense. Do you think the security of the pensions that the encumbents will recieve detract from their performance and their inability to apply common sense?
Savers have been punished to rescue the reckless. How fair is this ? Aren’t you ashamed that you have been incapable of finding a better solution to this crisis.
Taking care of ‘overall interest’, have you not motivated and encouraged the reckless to further their activities? This is a closed question, please spare me from an essay response.
The 50% rate of tax and other taxes will raise £6 Billion a year.
Could you tell us how you intend to bridge the remaining £160 Billion deficit you have created. People and businesses need to know, in order to be able to plan in advance.
If large amounts of personal debt are bad (which they probably are) why do you think it is acceptable to have such a massive national debt? Do you not think that the government should accept some culpability for running up the debt to such large amounts?
We have seen the world stock markets arguably have their worst decade in history. Since the majority of private pension and stakeholder pension funds are invested in these markets, comfortable retirement for the average person is somewhat of a gamble - unless of course you are in the public sector or in the financial fraternity! What actions are the government proposing to take which will reduce the uncertainty of this lottery and make saving for retirement worthwhile?
Mr Darling,
My question is regarding Lloyds Banking Group and the current Government position. From everything that I have read and heard, it seems like the government is giving a real hard time to LBG with regards to standing up for them in Brussels as well as the negotiations around the APS scheme. Please stop turning the screw on the bank.
Surely it is in all our interest to see this organization back on it’s own feet as quickly and safely as possible. Whilst I appreciate that the government effectively bailed out this organization, we all know how it came about. If Lloyds had not taken over HBOS the recession may have been worse in the U.K. Halifax was the biggest share held before the takeover with an estimated 2-3 million shareholders. These shareholders have seen much of the value destroyed, not to mention what the Lloyds shareholders have had to go through.
Is it too much to accept that although Lloyds saw the takeover of HBOS as an opportunity, it also significantly helped the government by aiding confidence and bringing back some stability into the system. Surely you must realize this. Had it not been for Lloyds the government would have had to fully nationalise HBOS. A decision that would have caused untold damage. Is it asking too much to take this into account?
I quote an article that I read recently which seems to sum up the governemnt position quite well. I would like to hear your opinion. “Lloyds also made another terrible mistake: it trusted the government, which is now backtracking on all aspects of the deal and has singularly failed to standd up for the firm in Brussels”
Mr Darling for the sake of the shareholders including many pension funds as well as the taxpayer please succeed in doing the right thing.
Av Singh
The top down approach of QE, using tax payers money to prop up the Too Big to Fail Banks, justified to protect us all - is this Democracy or larceny?
Will the UK Government be able to pay down its debt without debacing the Currency?
How much is being spent on interest payments per year due to QE policy?
Why should the Middle Class (fixed income) be slaughtered for YEARS to come to pay for repeated Government overspending?
A Child with basic arithmetic can work out this isnt going to succeed. But if it does it will prove that water can run up hill, a drunk can drink himself sober, and we will all NEVER EVER have to do a days work again, instead we will go to the ATM machine in the Kitchen and print off what we wish !
From the subprime to the ridiculous…
Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, fulminating on the need to restructure the banking sector last night - Bloomberg reports:
Bank of England Governor Mervyn King stepped up his call for governments to tackle the dangers posed by banks tha…
The one action that the government could take that could rapidly restore faith in the labour leadership is to hold a snap referendum on our signing the Lisbon treaty and then abiding by the result. You have no idea how many labour voters feel badly betrayed by the governement reneging on it’s promise. Why can this not now be done?
Does the Chancellor agree that going after the bankers cash bonus culture is simply headline grabbing low hanging fruit to appease a disgruntled public? Both Bear Stearns and Lehmans had a core culture of employee ownership, with staff owning a third and a quarter of the stock respectively, which didnt prevent the firms imploding. Wouldnt it be more useful to go after the root of the banking crisis, which is an inherently unstable fractional reserve banking system that feeds a culture of housing booms and a myopic central bank that ignores asset bubbles to focus solely on inflation?
question for alistair darling:
leading up to the credit crisis many institutions bought up debts (mortgages and loans)from others, to what extent does delayed payment for these purchases cause confusion and problems now?
How much NET revenue has treasury raised from empty rates - given demolition of buildings (future ability to earn tax revenues) offset of rates against corporation tax, adjustment in corporate pension contributions to plug the gap (netted out of tax) loss of SDLT and other income as a result of lower transaction values (present market conditions aside) and the need to pump cash into troubled areas to encourage development which due to Empty Rates is no longer viable? If, as I suspect the figure is nil or negative, is it not time to at least increase the relief period to 18/24 months or preferably to reverse the legislation?
When will you raise rates to let the markets correct them selves proparly and stop helping the country go broke with this short term fix of quantative easing which will not work, as we all can see?
Or are you aiming for vote winning policys at the moment and worry about the conseqences later!!
Despite record low interest rates, banks have continued to lend at rates which create record margins in all areas of credit issuance (notwithstanding defaults). I understand that this has, along with direct Government support, saved the banks - fine. However, should we now stand idly by when banks issue huge bonuses to staff? My main question - is Government complicit in these actions (record margins)?
Why does the UK appear to have a policy for a weak pound Sterling on the basis that it is assisting the economy out of recession and yet the United States appears to have the opposite belief in that a Strong Dollar assists their economy out of recession. Which is the correct policy and why?