It’s a real toughie for them, isn’t it? I mean the BBC seemed so delighted, ecstatic even,  that Bob Diamond has gone but now..gulp… Labour have been dragged into the whole “Who fixed Libor” scandal. And with Brown and Balls in the frame, along with other luminaries such as Darling, damage control has to be exercised.

Anyone catch Lord Myners on Today this morning being given a gentle canter around the topic. His line is that no one in Government would have been talking to the BOE about the need to lower LIBOR and that this is just a Tory wind up to distract from their own problems.  Thing is – I am sure that you, dear reader, like me, well remember the BBC droning on and on about the fact that the evil banks were NOT lowering LIBOR back in 2008. This was presented as a major impediment to economic recovery back then yet now,  as scandal threatens Labour, the memory banks are erased. It wasn’t a big issue it seems; no one in Government talked about it; wheat production was at record levels. HOW can the BBC let Labour get away with this outrageous revisionism? How can we let the BBC away with their duplicitous role in this? The FACT is that the BBC raised LIBOR lending as a massive issue, I can remember discussions on Today and elsewhere, but now it accepts the sanguine line spun by Liebor that it wasn’t an issue for discussion. That would have been inappropriate, it seems!! This is damage control being facilitated by the State Broadcaster.

Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to THE LIEBOR PARTY

  1. Deborah says:

    I noticed that Lord Myners said nobody from the Treasury instructed Barclays to lower LIBOR – Humphries did not follow this up by asking whether anyone in the Prime Minister’s office or the Department of Curtains and Soft Furnishings DCSF – ie Ed Balls) could have put pressure on Barclays.


    • Framer says:

      Yes Humphries when he takes his hand off the throttle (in Labour interviews) frequently misses evasions like that.
      Presumably the noble Baroness Vadera who saw off the Railtrack granny shareholders was up to her old tricks at Brown’s behest.


      • The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

        Does he miss them or does he let them passed unmolested?


  2. Betty Swollocks says:

    Lets hope Ed Testicles and Gordon Clown are guilty, if so lets see how Paxman, Humpries etc deal with that.


    • geyza says:

      Paxman will ask, “As some people are alleging that you may have had some discussions related to this, ………. are you guilty?” they will respond, “No” Paxman will then turn to whichever tory/coalition pleb has been put up and lay into them with, “Well there you have it. How can you try to lay this onto a previous government, you are in power now, it’s your fault isn’t it?”


    • Reed says:

      Ed Balls revealed to anyone who was paying attention to ITV news yesterday that he knows damn well that Labour had their grubby hands all over this. They played a quick soundbite of him saying that when all this occurred he was the Minister for Children and that nobody from the Bank of England would have been talking to his department. Had he been able to, he would have just denied that such communications over LIBOR ever took place at all, but he couldn’t – he knows they did, and he knows that it will come out – so he decided to ditch loyalty (surprised?) and save his own backside. This might fool some, but we know just how closely involved Ed Balls was with Gordon Brown and the treasury throughout New Labour’s period. If some in the media can attempt to link David Cameron to Black Wednesday, which occurred twenty years ago, because he was Norman Lamont’s adviser, Ed Balls ought to be made to feel the heat for being a member of the financial advice team for an administration that has only been out of office for a couple of years.


      • Reed says:

        Over at Guido’s…

        “Darling details the total breakdown in trust between the prime minister and chancellor. He singles out Ed Balls and Shriti Vadhera as key Brown lieutenants running what amounted to a shadow treasury operation within government.”

        This is the most enjoyable part – after all the nasty, vindictive little tribal wars between the various factions of New Labour whilst in government – their cowardliness in waiting to exact revenge in memoirs once out of office is one of the few things that is holding them to account. They are finding themselves desparately trying to navigate through minefields laid by their own colleagues. We certainly can’t rely on the BBC to do the work for us.


  3. will says:

    Para 17 before the word “Labour” sneaks into use
    “Bob Diamond is due to be grilled by MPs a day after resigning as Barclays chief executive in the wake of the inter-bank interest rate-fixing scandal.

    His appearance was arranged before the latest furore, but he is likely to be quizzed about who knew what and when.

    MPs are also likely to ask about the role of the Bank of England and the previous government in the rate-fixing.

    There have been suggestions the BoE’s deputy governor and senior Whitehall officials knew rates were manipulated


  4. Umbongo says:

    I think the comment below is more appropriate on this thread. BTW, as I heard it, it wasn’t Myners who had a go at the Conservatives, it was Robinson.

    It took Labour ex-minister Lord Myners to inject some balance into the Today coverage of the Barclays/LIBOR drama. Robinson warned us all – and thus framed the discussion accordingly – that this whole hoohah about possible BoE and Labour ministerial interference in the LIBOR-setting process is a product of the Conservatives seeking to damage Labour (“make no mistake about this” in Robinson’s words).
    Myners meanwhile remarked that there was no point in speculating about what Diamond would say later today about BoE/government interference since all we had to do was wait a couple of hours (which is as good a damning of the BBC “news in the future” habit as I’ve heard). He also stated – contrary to the steering of the interview by Humphrys – that there should not be an attempt to conflate (at least) three issues: the rigging of LIBOR on behalf of some Barclays traders, the possible involvement of the BoE’s Tucker in the general matter of the LIBOR setting and the efforts by Barclays to save itself in 2008. He also stressed that, whatever the reason, there was no excuse for lies and deceit in this or anything else – even to save Barclays.
    Robinson also endeavoured to get Balls off the hook of involvement by telling us that Balls was not at the Treasury in 2008 (although he was there and throwing his considerable weight about until mid-2007 – a point not stressed by Robinson). Blimey, Robinson was being more Labour than Milliband – certainly more Labour than Myners. Thank God there was somebody in the studio (Myners) who was willing to take a slightly less partisan view of the situation than the Today team.


    • David Vance says:

      Yes, Robinson did have a go. Couldn’t help himself, obviously.


      • Backwoodsman says:

        Could you just clarify which Robinson ? The bbc ‘reporter’ known as ‘ toenails’, that being the only part of him visible from gordon brown’s rectum, or the former supporting actor from Blackadder, who’s views on bankers the bbc seem to think are terribly important ?


  5. uncle bup says:

    On Chuckle With Nikki this morning our eponymous fearless interrogator led with,

    ‘Labour have been linked to the Libor scandal by *certain papers with certain agendas* so lesger tha one out of the way first.’

    As easy as that eh. Nothing to see here move on. Conveniently forgetting of course that the Guardian/ the Independent/ the British Palacebuilding Corporation axis of feeble themselves have *certain agendas*.

    Pleased as punch with this, Gameshow then led his corps of Sony Award losing corpsers in a conga round the studio shrieking in unison,

    ‘ Buwarraboudavicameron, buwarrabougeorgeosborne buwarraboudavicameron’

    while Myners poured petrol over himself and tried to strike a match and my young Mohandas filled his nappy.


  6. Dave s says:

    I think I did predict this last week on another thread. The whole thing stinks. So politicians and the banks will now fall even lower in public esteem. So they should. The labour party and it’s tame media will live to regret the day they started down this road. Unless of course they can hush it up/buy off/ silence those who know what went on.
    It is a very bad thing for this country and it’s reputation.


  7. Guest Who says:
    Of course, the provenance of YouGov in polling in light of who heads it up, is without question.
    No wonder the Uk punterhood is erring in the way favoured by Labour… it can’t hurt that the £4Bpa national disgrace is airbrushing their complicity in Libor out or sidelining it at every and any turn…
    ‘‘Labour have been linked to the Libor scandal by *certain papers with certain agendas* so let’s get that one out of the way first.’”
    Er… no… let’s not.
    In fact let’s get back in why the BBC is running interference on matters of fact, and public interest, in such a way first, please.
    Or are the only powers the BBC holds to account the ones that don’t serve their every whim?


    • London Calling says:

      Today, the Daily Mirror, the Independent (of reality) its stupid 20p summary sheet “i” and Guardian were in full throat – ignoring any suggestion of culpability pointing back to New Liebor on rate fixing. Never happened. Its all the fault of Bob Diamond. No-one spoke to any one about anything, its all the fault of errr the coalition.


  8. George R says:

    “The picture Ed Balls may want to forget: Shadow Chancellor under fresh scrutiny as snap emerges of him opening Barclays bank”

    Read more:


  9. Dave s says:

    The whole lot remind me of the French elite before 1789. Oblivious to reality and so isolated they really believe that they are “entitled” to endless riches and can do what they wish with a country and it’s people. No true conservative can possibly defend them . Diamond’s rewards defy rationality. As do the rewards given to themselves by the other bankers, senior industrialists and ,dare I mention it, the executives at the BBC.
    It is a destabilisng force on society. It is nothing to do with a free capitalist system but rather with a hijacking of the free market by those who just can.
    It is always at the expense of the middle class who provide the money that is hijacked in this way.
    A middle class conservative has nothing in common with these people as they ultimately threaten his modest properity and more importantly the proper regulation of civil society.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘…rewards given to themselves … and, dare I mention it, the executives at the BBC.’
      I was pondering these rewards as a read this:

      ‘Mr Entwistle would be paid an annual salary of £450,000.

      It is a smaller figure than the £671,000 earned by Mr Thompson…

      In his current role as director of BBC Vision – where his annual salary is £285,000’
      Not the amounts themselves so much (and the difference between being ‘paid’ and ‘earning’ which George might like to ask the sub about) , though eye-watering enough for public sector remuneration, but how this ‘market rate’ lark works for the ‘talent’ needed, sought and then compensated.
      Especially as the job itself hasn’t changed, yet a guy who was doing it was getting over £200k more (plus pro-rated pension) to do it than his successor, which rather suggests he was rather over-paid.
      Meanwhile the new guy coming in isn’t magically going to acquire new skills, or needing luring with a matched package, yet in one fell swoop seems to be seeing his pay packet near double.
      All seems very unique to me.
      Especially for the head of an outfit that makes it its business to meddle in everybody else’s pay, especially in the private sector… alllll the time.


      • London Calling says:

        Perhaps Mark Thompson should be asked to repay the proportion of what is now confirmed as his excessive salary, and his pension reduced pro-rata.? Its what any value for money decision would point to.