The report also makes mention that Gordon Brown intends 'attacking' the 'irresponsible' lending of British Banks and that Downing Street (presumably that means 'that man again') has been angered by the mounting evidence that there was widespread reckless lending that precipitated the financial crisis.
Now I readily admit to a certain lack of knowledge, expertise and experience when it comes to economics, however like the 'ordinary man in the street', I have to ask:
1. How can Gordon Brown attack 'irresponsible' lending when his own 'irresponsible' borrowing has funded a growing non-productive public-sector payroll? How can an attack be justified on 'irresponsible' lending when his own 'irresponsible' economic policies have created a growing non-productive and benefit-dependent recipient base?
2. How can Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years and subsequently Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, now claim that he did not know about the rising level of bad debt lending by banks? Logic dictates, as the country's 'head of the financial sector', if anyone should have known - he should and to now protest to 'mounting anger' at 'the growing evidence' suggests both incompetence and failure in his past employment and does nothing to enhance his future employment as a world-saving economic guru.
3. Why is it that on every occasion in which the Labour party has been in government, and therefore responsible for the country's economic well being, it has resulted in us being left in a serious economic 'black hole'? Does this not tell us, as a country, that government by a collection of individuals who have no experience of 'wealth-creating employment' in the private sector cannot succeed - and, as history seems to suggest, never will?