The Labour government is attempting to manipulate the housing market for electoral advantage, because they know they have lost. Like Robert Mugabe.

michael clarke, london, uk

Everybody, including the government, needs to suck it up. House prices will fall, banks will continue to make money (for their shareholders, many of whom are "ordinary" folk and probably your pension fund) and some people will get screwed. Lifes like that, always has been and always will be.

Peter, London,

Bradford & Bingleys response from their quarterly update today -

"We have repriced our mortgage products in recent weeks which has widened new business margins considerably, more than compensating for the higher cost of funds on these most recent loans."

ROTFL!

John, London, UK

All the liberal geese bleating on about tougher regulation of the financial markets and the remuneration associated with it should instead be focussing upon the completely unregulated property market.

The vast majority of people in this country will have no dealings whatsoever with a investment bank or a hedge fund, whereas your average joe with a spikey haircut can cold-call your grandmother to convince her that she clearly needs a massive buy-to-let portfolio in "trendy" Ipswich bought off-plan. While she is lead down the path of financial ruin, Young Terrance now has his flash motor to drive around Clapham.

Who does the public need most protection against?

JL, London,

Banks face the possibility that house prices will drop by 20% or more over the next 2 years. You will only get a good rate if you can put down a large deposit minimising their risk of losses where you owe the full value of the house.
Banks will want a higher rate to cover the risk otherwise. Some banks will be risk averse and not lend without a substantial deposit.
The £50 billion does not help these people. They are unlikely to be able to find a large deposit and may struggle to find a new loan at all.

Derek Emery, Bedworth, UK

No buy-to-let mortgages? How would we cope?

mark, kent,

Firstly he should have told Northern Rock to improve mortgage rates

emily, essex, uk

Why didn't Alasdair Darling and The Bank of England have guarantees from the banks that they would provide mortgage and other loan rates commensurate with their favourable rates and ensure that they were passed onto the public PRIOR to handing over taxpayers money.

These seem like knee jerk negotiations that are going hurt many people while leaving the perpetrators of the whole mess standing, laughing.

Gordon Jennings, Glasgow, UK

Have I got this right.....? We pay tax to the government who then lend it to the banks who lend it back to us.......and we pay interest to the bank for the priviledge of borrowing our own money? Hmmmm..........

Rumbold, High Wycombe, Bucks

In Gods Name where are the Political commentators that will show that thIs Crisis is STATE MADE, Caused throughf the need of the State demanding larger interest rates by their Central Banks to Pay for WAR. WHAT SUB PRIME. No one could forcast the METEORIC RISE OF RATES IN THE USA. Tripling mortgages

Mark, Gateshead, uk

Once again, no guarantee of the job required being done by the handing over of this money. No backbone from the government in making one of the conditions being lower mortgage rates, probably a good thing though. Who the hell can afford it as a first time buyer anyway?

And what happened to free market economy? Last time I checked, interference from the government was not quite how free market was defined.

Alistair Kipling, Birmingham,

How can the chancellor and the public harangue the banks for their lax lending policies whilst at the same time request lowered repayment terms and repayment holidays.

Surely whilst the banks are guilty of finding inventive new accountacy measures. They have done so to stoke a housing boom and under a regulatory eye which is the responsibility of Government.

Not only do bankers recieve exorbiatnt salaries which are payments for performances well beyond their capabilities but so do Governments and MP's.

Wisdom requires thought and action before the event what the Government and the media are indulging in now is pure archeology. The Government will find nothing but its own fingerprints.

Geoff Creighton, Royton,

I can't believe the government has got this so wrong. House prices will continue to fall for one undeniable reason. Even with this injection of cash, lenders are not going to return to lending 5+ times income on 100+% mortgages. This means those that can afford to buy are in a really strong position and those selling (whether it be because they want to or because they can't afford not to) will see the offers they get fall.

Anthony, Northampton,

At the very least the Government bonds should be offered to match the sum raised in a rights issue from shareholders who have enjoyed a very good run over recent years.

johnwg, London, UK

Will the RBS, Barclays and other banks' directorate still be paying themselves millions of pounds in bonuses as a reward for their foolish lending practices which have got us into this situation?

Why doesn't Government and the Bank of England insist that the bank directors forgo these bonuses and insist that the banks' present remuneration policies be drastically revised as a condition for availing of this assistance?

David, Poole,

Johnathan D, Herts.: I certainly wouldn't follow the comments of someone who sold their house on the basis of what they read in a web forum!

If you're interested, my uncle is the President of Nigeria and he needs to get money out of the country.....

Matthew, London, UK

Everyone is blaming the banks but surely alot of the blame should be targeted at home buyers chasing the housing market up. Also no one bailed me out in 1990 so why should they bail people out now. UK houses are VASTLY overvalued let the market correct. I would rather have lower house prices than higher inflation the BoE should be lifting rates not lowering them. What they are doing is filling up a leaking bucket, in the end the bottom is going to fall out!

gee, London, London

Does Darling think he's in Soviet Russia all of a sudden? What next? Will he mandate the price of a loaf of bread?

People who borrowed more than they could afford should lose their houses and the banks who lent them the money should take a loss. That's how loan markets work.

JS, London,

It still seems to me that you are underplaying the importance of Average house price compared to average wage . £160, 000 house price average is still 8 times the average wage ... this is the real problem ... just who are you expecting to go with this sort of borrowing level now the dangers have become all too apparent ? Also I think much of the population is fed up with being bled dry by the whole housing/mortgage farce .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

What a disgrace, i work for UBS in london and they have already cut 3000 jobs last year, we have just had another annoucement that 2000 more are to go, majority of them like last time coming from London. So while people are losing their jobs due to reckless greed on the banks part, the very same people who are losing there jobs are having to lend the banks 50bn. Its a joke. Sure UBS has lost 34bn but please bear in mind they made 40bn last year, another 35bn the year before. Its Joe Public thats losing out in every way

chris, london, uk

Chris, cambridge. 'Since when do government has a say over private business'
When the government is bailing them out.
The problem is that in the usual farcical new labour stunt we lend them the money them ask them if they will do something.
Everyone with a brain knows the time to attach conditions is before lending the money.

rob, ashbourne, uk

Maybe (definitely) the banks/BOE/FED should have been more responsible when housng prices were on the way up. It was very clear that housing prices were out of step with reality and were being driven by excessive credit that was approaching its ceiling, yet they again fell into the trap of "it's different this time". An economic model that is built on rising asset prices, negligable saving and ever expanding credit is destined for failure. However, for all the talk of moral hazard all of the policy responses Ive seen to date have sort to continue the exact same flawed model. Again they will reward those who look to take excessive risks an penalise through inflation those who have been prudent. The western world seems to be very happy with a market based/capitalist system on the way up, but not so happy with it on the way down. Can you call that capitalism? If we haven't reached the credit ceiling in this cycle, I do not like to think how the next one will end.

Hamish, London, London

I agree with Chris and also funny enough with Geoff.

British banks are independent from the government and are businesses in their own rights and should remain free from Government interference. Likewise the government should not give the 50 billion or even 100 billion to the banking industry.

Those banks that have a good business model will survive, those that don't should and will go out of business. This is simple economics.

So Mr Darling instead of wasting money why don't you simply give the money to Northern Rock and have them issue mortgages with it at say 6%, after all the british taxpayer also owns that company.

joe, Edinburgh, Scotland

darling told the banks to ease the rates?are you kidding me?who is he to tell the banks what to do!!!the banks own him and his government.he is there because of the banks.oh please stop mocking around mr.darling,you should know better.stop playing these games.you know you're a puppet and have no weight in the financial world.just sit tight and enjoy the ride.

ebbi, barcelona,

£50Billion! £2,500 per household! I don't know who is lending this money but it is not the average UK householder. The fovernment has not got any it is deep in debt.

Of course the BofE is only giving the banks pieces of paper so there is plenty of paper.

Brian Gilbert, HAMPTON, Middx

Is there not a competition issue in this?The government's own bank, Northern Rock, offers the most expensive mortgage rates of all. Is Darling trying to crucify competitors, by forcing them to supply cheap mortgages when they can't get funds.

Where then is the OFT? And why should savers put deposits in the banks to fund cheap mortgages if their after-tax return is less than inflation? What a shambolic mess.

Tony Peterson, Kendal,

Its intersting when you know the facts as they are not as the politicians and the entertainment media are telling it. I sincerely hope the government is right because I dont want top be a part of a depression. However more pragmatic voices like IMF and World Bank and very responsible commentators who have been telling us for ages in special reports and who don't have to mislead the people for electioneering, are saying that the property market is due for a four year shake out that will bring it down massiveley. As I say I hope the politicians are right but I know from long experience they are wrong.

Jas, Alders, UK

I don't know what the problem is - if the Government want cheaper mortgages just get Northern Rock to offer them.

Steve, Hull, GB

Sold my house in London in 2002 hoping to cash in with a crash having taken advice from a certain web forum. My timing may have been somewhat out, but I think the situation swung into my favour and those struggling to get onto the housing ladder.

Nothing they will do can help the market out now. Prices will be at 1970's levels by the end of 2011.

Johnathan D, Hertfordshire,

what's darling talking about when he says that the government cannot force the banks to pass on the benefits of the bailout to consumers!!!!!!????? of course it can!!! it's the bloomin' government! simply make it a condition of the bailout. oh sorry, but that might upset all those rich and "clever" free market bankers who go us into this mess and are now clamouring for a not so free-market bailout.....happy to let the free-market determine their bonuses no doubt...cake and eat it springs to mind....

stephen, china, china

Geoff, I agree that since we have bailed them out then we do have a right to tell them what to do. I'd beg to differ about offering low mortgage rates as that was the very cause of the problem in the first place. They need to increase their level of deposits and hence offer more competitive savings rates. Additionally, as the banks debts have now been socialised onto taxpayers, then so should their profits be. A very large windfall tax is in order.

Paul, Coventry,

Went to the pawnbrokers yesterday with an AAA rated mortgage backed investment and he asked me what it contained. "Not a clue I said, it's too complicated to see". "Oh", he replied. "No way Jose! you could try the government they still seem to think that AAA means something good." "UBS thought that and they lost 40 billion on it." Does AAA not stand for An Absolute Alternative to intelligence? Suits Mr. Darling then.

Frederick, London, UK

Chris,
You'd better let the banks know they are running a business, think it'll be a shock to many of them. They seem to think they are running a Quango. They engineered a collapse based on greed, stupidity, and the view that the tax payer would pick up the bill when it all went wrong. So far, they are right!

However, if they were running a business, they were spectacularly bad at it and should have been allowed to go to the wall for their mistakes. Since "WE" bailed them out, we DO have a right to tell them to behave and cut their rates. While they are at it they can cut salaries and bonuses too. Bankers, collectively, are not nearly as 'bright' as they think they are!

Geoff Rowe, Gilbert, AZ

Banks are running a business and not obliged in anyway to bail out the government over any economic wrong-turns. They have absolutely no need to follow Darling's call. Since when do government has a say over private business.

To think that the banking giants would or should give a rapidly falling government a hand is just naive to say the least.

Chris, Cambridge,