I have tried to work out why 'Dopey Ed' and 'Nasty Ed' are insisting that the latest bank scandal should be subject to a judicial enquiry given that it will take a year to set up and a year to run which will take it up to just before the next election. The scandal of fiddled figures went on when both Eds were in government and when 'Nasty Ed' was City Minister. Already the prints are hinting that Labour ministers were, so to speak, setting the scene for the bankers to cut inter-bank lending rates to help ease the situation - oh, nothing criminal, dear boy, all we said was that it would be jolly nice if the rates came down, if you get my drift, old chap. Do both Eds want this all dragged out just before an election? Do they not realise that under oath before a judge there will be very little wriggle room? They are quite mistaken if they think that blackening the name of bankers will somehow whiten theirs! In my view the public rate politicians and bankers somewhere down there alongside kiddie-fiddlers and Mad Mullahs. In fact, for once in my life I am not too shy of admitting that 'back in the day' I was once a second-hand car dealer. Almost respectable by today's standards!
ADDITIONAL: Now that Barclay's 'bouncer-in-chief', Bob 'diamond-geezer' Diamond, has resigned he will face tomorrow's parliamentary committee with very little to lose. If blood sports are your thing it will be worth watching particularly if some gobby Labour oik tries to throw his prejudices around.
And now, apparently, the Bank of England is implicated. I would have thought that Ed is keen on a judicial enquiry either because he was so naive and junior that Balls and Gordon did all the fixing without telling him; or because he doesn't know what one is.
As you say, it could all turn very nasty tomorrow, especially as Diamond is making it plain that he didn't go willingly.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Tuesday, 03 July 2012 at 22:06
Yes, I can hardly wait for tomorrow - I have told the 'Memsahib' that I am not to be disturbed for anything less than a lottery win - and I don't mean the wretched tenners she (very) occasionally brings home!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 03 July 2012 at 22:11
"Do they not realise that under oath before a judge there will be very little wriggle room?"
Well yes Lord Copper, up to a point.
I believe all witnesses called before My Lord Leveson were under oath. However that did not prevent some enormous porkies being told, with apparently no comeback.
And the point of "judicial enquiries" is ?
Kind regards
Posted by: david morris | Tuesday, 03 July 2012 at 22:42
"And the point of "judicial enquiries" is ?"
Fees, dear boy, fees! And that's why they last so long.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 04 July 2012 at 08:32