Well, the key point is that it was LABOUR who put him in place, principally it seems because he was a crony and would lend them loads of someone else’s money. It can’t have been because he had any experience or managing a bank, only having worked in one as a lowly clerk many years ago.
As for why the Coalition didn’t get rid of him, a question in itself designed only to deflect attention from the original venality, …
A) …. the Coalition has had enough on its plate trying to prevent economic meltdown after the boom part of Brown’s efforts was so magnificently followed by the bust – you can’t expect it to vet the CV of every appointee made by its predecessors and …
B) …. it would be quite easy to kick out and replace with one’s own cronies every appointee of the other load of fatuous dinosaurs immediately on coming into office, thus rapidly leading to the massive politicization and thus degradation of all national institutions. The Coalition has avoided this temptation, but would not of course get any thanks for it, or indeed for anything else, least of all for having avoided economic collapse as predicted by Balls, whom I do not advise to take up fortune-telling.
Returning to the original subject – and leaving aside Mrs Thatcher’s obviously-massive part in all this – the quoted article is magnificent. I give you the link, but a few comments and quotes cannot be avoided.
Minibrother has been squawking like a headless chicken about Tory “smears”. In the first place, his party is World Smear Champion of the millenium, having Alistair Campbell and more recently Damian McBride on their payroll. Secondly, the smears are TRUE. Actually, can the TRUTH even BE a “smear”? Does Minibrother even speak proper English? Or perhaps he thinks we are all as moronic as many of the usual suspects and will automatically believe everything he says, whatever its intellectual content? I think that must be it; nobody treats the public with more utter contempt than Labour.
“….. the Co-op, the organisation Milliband singled out as a model of “ethical” conduct in a speech to the bank in July 2012.” That really is a hoot, no!!!
“And what were his credentials for being the chairman of the Co-op, this model of good practice in the banking industry? Er, he once worked at Nat West. No wonder he underestimated the assets of the Co-op to the tune of £44 billion.”
AS I have already made clear, his main – and indeed for Labour his ONLY important – credential was a willingness to fork out loads of someone else’s dosh in gifts and soft loans. WHAT A SOCIALIST HERO!! Yet another specialist misuser of someone else’s money!!