Don’t turn back into Stalin, Gordon

October 14, 2008

brown1.jpgThe system was bust, something had to be done and what Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did on Monday with their bank rescue package was a bold and sound move, newspapers agreed.

But many worried about how the government will now use its huge stakes in the banks and several had words of warning.

“Gone is Mr Bean but don’t turn into Stalin,” said the Daily Mail, noting how the financial crisis has transformed Brown’s political fortunes from the days when Lib Dem Deputy Leader Vince Cable launched his infamous jibe in the Commons.

“It is imperative that ministers keep well out of the day-to-day running of the banks they now control,” the paper said. “But can they be trusted?”

“Will they find it impossible to resist forcing banks to lend unwisely — for example to ailing industries in Labour marginals?”

Some papers noted that Brown has already talked of making banks restore their mortgage lending to 2007 levels, a rate of lending, some suggested, that might reinflate the housing bubble.

“The prime Minister is now the ultimate paymaster of institutions that are responsible for a substantial share of British mortgages and deposits,” said The Times.  “The measure of the rescue will not just be a short-term restoration of confidence but evidence that the banks’ behaviour is not perverted or politicised in years to come.”

The Sun added its own warning, saying: “The banks cannot power the economy back to life with the dead hand of governmental red tape bogging them down.”

Yet change there must be. The papers were united in their applause for the conditions attached to the package that aim to bring to an end the era of fat-cattery, such as no cash bonuses for two years and a return to more prudent lending.

Several asked why the bank directors who had let the crisis build up for so long were getting off so relatively lightly and some demanded reforms to the system of bank regulation itself.

The Financial Services Authority has been found wanting, said the Daily Telegraph. “As was the case before 1997, the Bank of England should be re-established as the banking regulator,” it added. “The Bank of England, too, should seek to boost its expertise at the top: it needs a governor with hands-on experience of banking.”

The Guardian borrowed a title from Tom Wolfe when it called the banking meltdown “Bonfire of the Certainties.” It said what needed to be changed was not any particular type of financial instrument but the behaviour of bankers themselves.

“Now that the British public has an interest in the banking industry, it has a right to define how banks can best serve its interest,” it said.

A lone voice in the debate over whether government should interfere in the running of banks, the left-leaning paper added: “Ministers should direct banks to lend on preferential terms to projects of vital public interest, such as energy infrastructure.”



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

“Some papers noted that Brown has already talked of making banks restore their mortgage lending to 2007 levels”

This surely cannot be true? To return to the very thing that got us all into this mess? I am crossing my fingers that this is the most egregious misrepresentation, nay libel, ever to be published in a British newspaper. If it is not, we could all be going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

Posted by Matthew | Report as abusive

“Now that the British public has an interest in the banking industry…..”

What’s this nonsense – some kind of sick joke?

Posted by Peter | Report as abusive

Labour’s “Project” remains on course and has had an unexpected boost.

Getting control of the banks is beyond even Tony Benn’s wildest dreams. A bad day for freedom.

Posted by Andy | Report as abusive