David Jones, 37, who works in the Canary Wharf HQ of Barclays - a bank that has so far rejected the Government bail out - said: 'I think Gordon Brown has the experience no other prime minister has and we are quite lucky to have that level of leadership and I am not even a Labour supporter.'
Not everyone was quite so impressed.
A US banker, who gave his name only as Christopher, sniffily walked past, saying: 'What this means is the Government, which is far less capable of running a business than the businessman, is now in charge of the banks.'
which is far less capable of running a business than the businessman"
I think most people with any sense might feel that the government (any government,come to that) isn't likely to make much more of a mess of the banks than the people who have been running them recently.
Banking is all about assessing risks, and if you don't lend any money you don't take any risks. The problem the banks face now - if they take public funding - is that the government will force them into lending money to home-buyers, or at least it will if it has the slightest grain of sense.
Well lets hope they just lend to the home owners that can actually pay back what they need or we will be in the same position 10 years from now and the £65 billion will have dissappeared. Although the thought of civil servants running a bank is a little scarey.... and I am a civil servant.
The house prices need to drop furher in order for first time buyers to realistically afford to buy and run a house. But as house prices fall furher more money is going to be lost by the people who bought the houses at infated prices. Personally I dont see what giving all this money to the banks is actually going to accomplish. People are finding times tough enough with the cost of living alone.