Bradford & Bingley shareholders who lost a fortune when the Government unexpectedly nationalised the bank, "extinguishing" their shares (to use the official terminology), may take some comfort from the knowledge that at least one MP shares their belief that the nationalisation was ill-timed and unnecessary.
Tory John Redwood, writing before the nationalisation happened, posted a particularly prescient observation on his blog, John Redwood's Diary, that questioned why nationalisation should have been contemplated at all.
He points out that just because B&B's share price was falling, that didn't mean it had to be nationalised, and that even a bank could carry on trading despite a low share price if people were happy to leave their deposits in it, as they were with B&B.
His argument is compelling, and supports the views of B&B shareholders who have complained to this column about they way their shares were seized without notice and devalued to zero at a stroke.
This adds to the growing calls for an explanation from Gordon Brown - did he panic and nationalise unnecessarily? - and for full compensation for 940,195 B&B shareholders who were robbed by him that day.
We need an official and independent enquiry into the events leading up to the nationalisation, and I trust Mr Redwood will be among the first to use his considerable Parliamentary clout and call for one.
Jon McKnight
Author of Sort The Bastards
