• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Labour and Anglo


adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
I saw Quinn on RTE a few mins ago, re-iterating Labour wanted AIB and BOI temporarily nationalised. What was their position on PTSB, Nationwide and most critically Anglo.

Anglo after all was nationalised, turning private debt into state debt. This was a disaster. So can someone explain exactly what Labour had in mind for the non big 2 banks???
 

jane5

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
138
I don't know about the others, but Permanent TSB is solvent, and has not needed or taken any State money, nor is their property portfolio impaired in any way. Hence it would not need to be nationalised as they are operating as a normal bank should.
 

Nipper

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,550
I saw Quinn on RTE a few mins ago, re-iterating Labour wanted AIB and BOI temporarily nationalised. What was their position on PTSB, Nationwide and most critically Anglo.

Anglo after all was nationalised, turning private debt into state debt. This was a disaster. So can someone explain exactly what Labour had in mind for the non big 2 banks???

Natinalisation does not turn private debt into state debts.

Banks still have limited liability even if the state is a shareholder.

It is the bank Garauntee that put us on the hook. This could have been let expire as originally planned per legislation .

Banks that were insolvent could then the put into liquidation.

This is what used to be known of as capitalism.
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
Thanks, but doesnt really answer my question, what was Labours position on what to do with Anglo and NIB???
 

PetevonPete

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
177
I think the policy on Anglo was let it and its parasites go to the wall - the correct opition for the people but not the gombeens - no polices that will be the two Tory parties my limp wristed friends
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,490
Natinalisation does not turn private debt into state debts.

Banks still have limited liability even if the state is a shareholder.

It is the bank Garauntee that put us on the hook. This could have been let expire as originally planned per legislation .

Banks that were insolvent could then the put into liquidation. ...
And there's also the issue of the banks' assets.

The securities that they were holding against unpaid debts. Those assets which have gone to NAMA, or have otherwise disposed off since October 2008 when the banks became insolvent, are now not available to the the banks' bondholders and other creditors.

The state has incurred a liability on that account.
 
Last edited:

Reality bites

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
199
Thanks, but doesnt really answer my question, what was Labours position on what to do with Anglo and NIB???
It would have been to put them into receivership with an orderly winddown or liquidation but the bank guarantee ended any chance of that once senior debt, and dated and undated subordianted debt was blanket guaranteed. No explanation for this decision has ever been given. Once that was done it would be impossible to wind down Anglo without massive exposure to taxpayer. labour was only party to vote against Bank guarantee and to question these issues properly
For evidence see
Press releases » Media centre » The Labour Party
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

Further it has proven very difficult for TDs and opposition spokespersons to get proper information on what was going on with anglo, eg
Press releases » Media centre » The Labour Party

See below a quote from labour's policy document 'A Clean break from Business as Usual' published in February 2009.

Labour opposed the legislation enacting the Bank Guarantee, because we were not prepared to support the commitment of enormous sums of taxpayers money, without adequate information or fundamental reform, including regime change in the Banks. Subsequent revelations about the affairs at Anglo Irish Bank have justified this position.

Labour also questioned the inclusion of ‘dated subordinated debt’ in the bank guarantee, a form of near-equity capital which has not been included in guarantees in other countries. Labour voted against the Bill nationalising Anglo Irish Bank, noting in particular the refusal of the Government to appoint a High Court Inspector to the Bank.
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
It would have been to put them into receivership with an orderly winddown or liquidation but the bank guarantee ended any chance of that once senior debt, and dated and undated subordianted debt was blanket guaranteed. No explanation for this decision has ever been given. Once that was done it would be impossible to wind down Anglo without massive exposure to taxpayer. labour was only party to vote against Bank guarantee and to question these issues properly
For evidence see
Press releases » Media centre » The Labour Party
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

Further it has proven very difficult for TDs and opposition spokespersons to get proper information on what was going on with anglo, eg
Press releases » Media centre » The Labour Party

See below a quote from labour's policy document 'A Clean break from Business as Usual' published in February 2009.
Thanks Reality, but I'm not sure thats clear.
I just read both oct 2008 press release and what they say is Cowen hasnt answered questions, Labour doesn't agree etc. It doesn't set out what Labour actually proposed to do, merely asks, correctly btw, serious questions.

Once the guarantee was given, FF/Greens took one approach, which we all know.
FG took another approach, basically let the banks sort their ow issues out/fail and set up a new 4bn bank.
I haven't seen what Labour proposed to do with Anglo and NIB explicity said. I'm happy enough they said nationalise AIB, BOI and PTSB.. but what of the others.

In other words, where do I find Labours position spelt out from Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 on what to do with the Anglo and NIB???
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
And I'm asking this because I don't see how nationalsing would have improved the situation. Why do i say that? we nationalised Anglo in Jan 2009, and only now are we getting a (probably) final picture. Nationalising Anglo didn't help us one jot.
 

fool

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
150
Labour's position was to let them fail, as they weren't of systemic importance.

If you're looking for old policy statements from any party your best bet is to contact the press office of the party in question. Though be patient as your request won't exactly be top of their urgent tasks list.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,322
Labours policy on the banking crisis was and is to deliver as many indignant sounding soundbites to the media to capture the mood of public anger and hence raise their profile in the hope of capturing as many seats as possible. Thats Labour 'policy'.
 

Reality bites

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
199
And I'm asking this because I don't see how nationalsing would have improved the situation. Why do i say that? we nationalised Anglo in Jan 2009, and only now are we getting a (probably) final picture. Nationalising Anglo didn't help us one jot.
yeah, once the guarantee was given it created downstream problems. nationalisation was inevitable then, because we were on the hook for all their liabilities no matter what.

Thats why we were against the blanket nature of guarantee in first place. It tied our hands with regards to dealing with Anglo and NIB without affecting taxpayers at a later date.

AIB & BOI should have been blanketed, with Anglo put into receivership with guarantee on depositors. Anglo was never systemic.

Once certain decisions were taken it meant it would be impossible to do anything else with anglo but accept the liabilities.

FG have been making up for their initial mistake in backing guarantee but the genesis of the problem began in Sept 2008.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,322
yeah, once the guarantee was given it created downstream problems. nationalisation was inevitable then, because we were on the hook for all their liabilities no matter what.

Thats why we were against the blanket nature of guarantee in first place. It tied our hands with regards to dealing with Anglo and NIB without affecting taxpayers at a later date.

AIB & BOI should have been blanketed, with Anglo put into receivership with guarantee on depositors. Anglo was never systemic.

Once certain decisions were taken it meant it would be impossible to do anything else with anglo but accept the liabilities.

FG have been making up for their initial mistake in backing guarantee but the genesis of the problem began in Sept 2008.
Like Labour had a plan of any kind.
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,678
Labours policy on the banking crisis was and is to deliver as many indignant sounding soundbites to the media to capture the mood of public anger and hence raise their profile in the hope of capturing as many seats as possible. Thats Labour 'policy'.
What does shjt coming out your own mouth taste like?
 

Larkinite

Active member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
227
Twitter
@d24socialist
The Communist Manifesto.
How I wish that was genuinely true. But alas I know that when Labour get into power there skulduggery willknow no bounds, and what the Greens are currently doing will be but a mere blip compared to the treachery Labour will unleash on the Working people of Ireland!
 

civilservant

Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
70
How I wish that was genuinely true. But alas I know that when Labour get into power there skulduggery willknow no bounds, and what the Greens are currently doing will be but a mere blip compared to the treachery Labour will unleash on the Working people of Ireland!
Well I for one would rather look at and listen to Eamonn Gilmore than John Gormley any day
 

deedee

Member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
75
How I wish that was genuinely true. But alas I know that when Labour get into power there skulduggery willknow no bounds, and what the Greens are currently doing will be but a mere blip compared to the treachery Labour will unleash on the Working people of Ireland!
I have respect for the left view in general and a lot of respect for Larkin's courage and his achievements. I don't like your post because you assume a lot, why should the Labour party renege on their history and turn into skullduggerers. treachery.... abit dramatic, against the working people of Ireland; you mean the management consultants, doctors, nurses, bus drivers, taxi drivers, prison officers, bankers indeed?

I don't think so, be fair please.
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
AIB & BOI should have been blanketed, with Anglo put into receivership with guarantee on depositors. Anglo was never systemic.

Once certain decisions were taken it meant it would be impossible to do anything else with anglo but accept the liabilities.

FG have been making up for their initial mistake in backing guarantee but the genesis of the problem began in Sept 2008.
So basically the diff with what FG and Lab proposed, after the initial shock day of sept 29th 2008 was FG wanted all the banks to stand or fall alone, with deposits secured & a new bank and Lab wanted to temp nationalise AIB/BOI/PTSB and let the rest fail.

FF wanted to save the all.
 
Top