Facebook has been fined €110m (£94.5m) by EU competition regulators in relation to its takeover of WhatsApp.
Officials said the penalty was being imposed after the social network was found to have given "incorrect or misleading" information in 2014.
The European Commission said Facebook had informed its anti-trust body, in submissions ahead of the $19bn (£15.3bn) buyout, it would be unable to "establish reliable automated matching" between Facebook and WhatsApp user accounts.
But it determined that the mobile messaging service offered updates in 2016, after the deal had been completed, that included the possibility of linking user phone numbers with Facebook user IDs.
Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said: "Today's decision sends a clear signal to companies that they must comply with all aspects of EU merger rules, including the obligation to provide correct information.
"The Commission must be able to take decisions about mergers' effects on competition in full knowledge of accurate facts."
Facebook indicated that it did not intend to fight the penalty.
A spokesperson said: "We've acted in good faith since our very first interactions with the Commission and we've sought to provide accurate information at every turn.
"The errors we made in our 2014 filings were not intentional and the Commission has confirmed that they did not impact the outcome of the merger review.
"Today's announcement brings this matter to a close."
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Dementia and cancer deaths to rocket by 2040, study finds
Dementia and cancer deaths in England and Wales are set to soar by 2040, a study has found.
The researchers estimated that the number of people dying from dementia will almost quadruple: from 59,199 in 2014 to 219,409 in 2040.
The number of deaths from cancer will increase from 143,638 to 208,636 in 23 years, according to the study, published in the journal BMC Medicine.
Overall, the annual number of deaths in England and Wales is expected to rise by 25.4% to 628,659.
The estimated figures add to the pressures on end-of-life care across England and Wales.
Researchers from the Cicely Saunders Institute at King's College London calculated that palliative care needs will rise by 42.4% by 2040 - equal to an additional 160,000 people.
While about three quarters of people are estimated to require some level of palliative care, the figure will rise to 85%.
The study's co-author, professor Irene Higginson, said: "There is an urgent need to act now to transform health, social and palliative care services to meet the projected growth in palliative care need."
Experts said the study was alarming and should lead to a rethink end-of-life care.
Dr Matthew Norton, of Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "We can prevent this becoming the reality if we invest now in pioneering research."
Simon Jones, from the charity Marie Curie, which provides care and support for people with terminal illnesses, said: "We need to radically rethink how we care for people at the end of their lives, to ensure everyone with a terminal illness gets the range of support they need, when they need it.
"We need to start that process now, before we reach crisis point."
The researchers estimated that the number of people dying from dementia will almost quadruple: from 59,199 in 2014 to 219,409 in 2040.
The number of deaths from cancer will increase from 143,638 to 208,636 in 23 years, according to the study, published in the journal BMC Medicine.
Overall, the annual number of deaths in England and Wales is expected to rise by 25.4% to 628,659.
The estimated figures add to the pressures on end-of-life care across England and Wales.
Researchers from the Cicely Saunders Institute at King's College London calculated that palliative care needs will rise by 42.4% by 2040 - equal to an additional 160,000 people.
While about three quarters of people are estimated to require some level of palliative care, the figure will rise to 85%.
The study's co-author, professor Irene Higginson, said: "There is an urgent need to act now to transform health, social and palliative care services to meet the projected growth in palliative care need."
Experts said the study was alarming and should lead to a rethink end-of-life care.
Dr Matthew Norton, of Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "We can prevent this becoming the reality if we invest now in pioneering research."
Simon Jones, from the charity Marie Curie, which provides care and support for people with terminal illnesses, said: "We need to radically rethink how we care for people at the end of their lives, to ensure everyone with a terminal illness gets the range of support they need, when they need it.
"We need to start that process now, before we reach crisis point."
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
President Trump says he is worst-treated politician in history
Donald Trump has claimed that "no politician in history" has been "treated worse or more unfairly" than he has.
The US President was speaking on the day he faced calls to be impeached over his handling of the sacking of former FBI director James Comey and his relationship with Russia.
Offering "advice" to new recruits at a coastguard graduation ceremony in New London, Connecticut, he quickly turned the focus on his recent difficulties.
:: Analysis - Defiant Trump facing a battle for survival
"Over the course of your life you will find that things are not always fair," he said.
"You will find that things happen to you that you do not deserve, and that are not always warranted, but you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight!"
Warming to his theme, Mr Trump added: "Never, ever, ever give up - things will work out just fine.
"Look at the way I've been treated lately - especially by the media.
"No politician in history … has been treated worse or more unfairly.
"You can't let them get you down. You can't let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams.
"I guess that's why we won.
"Adversity makes you stronger - don't give in, don't back down and never stop doing what you know is right.
"Nothing worth doing ever, ever, ever came easy."
:: Could Donald Trump be impeached?
Offering "advice" to new recruits at a coastguard graduation ceremony in New London, Connecticut, he quickly turned the focus on his recent difficulties.
:: Analysis - Defiant Trump facing a battle for survival
"Over the course of your life you will find that things are not always fair," he said.
"You will find that things happen to you that you do not deserve, and that are not always warranted, but you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight!"
Warming to his theme, Mr Trump added: "Never, ever, ever give up - things will work out just fine.
"Look at the way I've been treated lately - especially by the media.
"No politician in history … has been treated worse or more unfairly.
"You can't let them get you down. You can't let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams.
"I guess that's why we won.
"Adversity makes you stronger - don't give in, don't back down and never stop doing what you know is right.
"Nothing worth doing ever, ever, ever came easy."
:: Could Donald Trump be impeached?
Could Donald Trump be impeached?
Democrats have called for Donald Trump to be impeached over claims he asked former FBI director James Comey to drop an investigation into ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties with Russia.
The allegations surfaced just hours after the President said he shared sensitive, possibly classified, national security information about Islamic State with Russian officials.
As Mr Trump's opponents argue the alleged transgressions are grounds for impeachment, Sky News takes a look at the prospect of charges being brought against the President.
How does impeachment work?
The impeachment process is a constitutional method for removing the President or other federal officials from office.
Under Article II of the US Constitution, officials are removed from office "on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours".
Image:Capitol Building houses the US Senate and House of Representatives
Impeachment begins with an independent investigation by a government body, which provides evidence to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
The committee reviews the report and draws up articles of impeachment.
If a majority in the House votes in favour of impeachment after a debate, the case is passed over to the Senate.
It then holds a trial, in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the judge and the Senate acts as the jury.
If a two-thirds majority votes in favour, the President can be removed from office.
The impeachment of US presidents
Three presidents have been the subject of impeachment proceedings by Congress.
In the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, there were insufficient Senate votes for guilty verdicts and they were acquitted.
There was also an impeachment process against Richard Nixon but instead he chose to resign from office at the height of the Watergate scandal in 1974, before a vote could take place.
:: Andrew Johnson - 1868
Just 42 days after becoming Vice President, Andrew Johnson was thrust into the Oval Office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
In what characterised his time in office, he repeatedly clashed with the Republican-controlled Congress over the aftermath of the Civil War.
Image:An engraving showing President Johnson's trial on 13 March, 1868
Mr Johnson opposed political rights for former slaves and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders.
After two unsuccessful attempts to impeach Mr Johnson, he sparked fury by sacking the secretary of war, Edwin M Stanton.
Three days later, the House voted 126 to 47 in favour of impeaching Mr Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanours.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Senate voted 35 to 19 to remove Mr Johnson from office - one vote short of the required two-thirds majority.
:: Bill Clinton - 1998/99
While Andrew Johnson's impeachment was the result of political fractures, Bill Clinton's trial stemmed from personal matters.
In January 1998, he was levelled with claims he had a sexual relationship with 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Image:The US Senate votes in its trial against Mr Clinton on 12 February 1999
In a televised speech he forcefully rejected the allegations, saying: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Just six months later he made a u-turn, admitting he had a relationship with Ms Lewinsky "that was not appropriate".
Throughout that time Mr Clinton was being investigated by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, whose findings formed the basis of four charges considered by the House.
Two charges - one of perjury and another of obstruction of justice - were approved and the case went to trial.
Votes on both charges fell short of the required two-thirds and Mr Clinton remained in office for another three years.
How likely is impeachment for President Trump?
The US constitution sets a high bar for impeachment - opponents would need to make a convincing case that Mr Trump committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes.
Before claims over the President and Mr Comey emerged, Democratic House of Representatives leader Nancy Pelosi said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.
She said: "What are the facts that you would make a case on? What are the rules that he may have violated?"
"If you don't have that case, you're just participating in more hearsay."
Image:Vladimir Putin says the allegations against the President were 'political schizophrenia'
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, agrees that evidence Mr Trump attempted to interfere with a federal investigation is not concrete.
He said: "What we have is a memo of a President asking highly inappropriate questions of an FBI director.
"This would be pretty thin soup for even an impeachment proceeding."
Despite this, some in Mr Trump's own party appear to be turning on him.
Former presidential nominee John McCain said the controversies surrounding the White House are "reaching the point where it's of Watergate size and scale".
If his opponents attempt to push for impeachment, the numbers are in Mr Trump's favour.
Following articles of impeachment being drawn up, 218 of 435 representatives would have to vote against Mr Trump to approve a trial.
Currently, the Democrats have 193 seats and would require a sizeable number of Republicans to cross the floor.
Furthermore, 67 of 100 senators would need to vote in favour of removing Mr Trump from office - the Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 52 seats.
The allegations surfaced just hours after the President said he shared sensitive, possibly classified, national security information about Islamic State with Russian officials.
As Mr Trump's opponents argue the alleged transgressions are grounds for impeachment, Sky News takes a look at the prospect of charges being brought against the President.
How does impeachment work?
The impeachment process is a constitutional method for removing the President or other federal officials from office.
Under Article II of the US Constitution, officials are removed from office "on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours".
Image:Capitol Building houses the US Senate and House of RepresentativesImpeachment begins with an independent investigation by a government body, which provides evidence to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
The committee reviews the report and draws up articles of impeachment.
If a majority in the House votes in favour of impeachment after a debate, the case is passed over to the Senate.
It then holds a trial, in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the judge and the Senate acts as the jury.
If a two-thirds majority votes in favour, the President can be removed from office.
The impeachment of US presidents
Three presidents have been the subject of impeachment proceedings by Congress.
In the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, there were insufficient Senate votes for guilty verdicts and they were acquitted.
There was also an impeachment process against Richard Nixon but instead he chose to resign from office at the height of the Watergate scandal in 1974, before a vote could take place.
:: Andrew Johnson - 1868
Just 42 days after becoming Vice President, Andrew Johnson was thrust into the Oval Office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
In what characterised his time in office, he repeatedly clashed with the Republican-controlled Congress over the aftermath of the Civil War.
Image:An engraving showing President Johnson's trial on 13 March, 1868Mr Johnson opposed political rights for former slaves and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders.
After two unsuccessful attempts to impeach Mr Johnson, he sparked fury by sacking the secretary of war, Edwin M Stanton.
Three days later, the House voted 126 to 47 in favour of impeaching Mr Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanours.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Senate voted 35 to 19 to remove Mr Johnson from office - one vote short of the required two-thirds majority.
:: Bill Clinton - 1998/99
While Andrew Johnson's impeachment was the result of political fractures, Bill Clinton's trial stemmed from personal matters.
In January 1998, he was levelled with claims he had a sexual relationship with 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Image:The US Senate votes in its trial against Mr Clinton on 12 February 1999In a televised speech he forcefully rejected the allegations, saying: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Just six months later he made a u-turn, admitting he had a relationship with Ms Lewinsky "that was not appropriate".
Throughout that time Mr Clinton was being investigated by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, whose findings formed the basis of four charges considered by the House.
Two charges - one of perjury and another of obstruction of justice - were approved and the case went to trial.
Votes on both charges fell short of the required two-thirds and Mr Clinton remained in office for another three years.
How likely is impeachment for President Trump?
The US constitution sets a high bar for impeachment - opponents would need to make a convincing case that Mr Trump committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes.
Before claims over the President and Mr Comey emerged, Democratic House of Representatives leader Nancy Pelosi said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.
She said: "What are the facts that you would make a case on? What are the rules that he may have violated?"
"If you don't have that case, you're just participating in more hearsay."
Image:Vladimir Putin says the allegations against the President were 'political schizophrenia'Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, agrees that evidence Mr Trump attempted to interfere with a federal investigation is not concrete.
He said: "What we have is a memo of a President asking highly inappropriate questions of an FBI director.
"This would be pretty thin soup for even an impeachment proceeding."
Despite this, some in Mr Trump's own party appear to be turning on him.
Former presidential nominee John McCain said the controversies surrounding the White House are "reaching the point where it's of Watergate size and scale".
If his opponents attempt to push for impeachment, the numbers are in Mr Trump's favour.
Following articles of impeachment being drawn up, 218 of 435 representatives would have to vote against Mr Trump to approve a trial.
Currently, the Democrats have 193 seats and would require a sizeable number of Republicans to cross the floor.
Furthermore, 67 of 100 senators would need to vote in favour of removing Mr Trump from office - the Republicans currently hold the Senate majority with 52 seats.
Dutch king reveals double life as an airline pilot for KLM
The king of the Netherlands has revealed he has been living a secret double life as a co-pilot for a commercial airline.
For 21 years, King Willem-Alexander has taken to the skies twice a month to ferry passengers around on short-haul services for the Dutch airline KLM.
Although travellers may have recognised the monarch's voice as he updated them on weather conditions and their time of arrival, the royal's presence was never revealed.
The fleet of smaller Fokker 70 planes flown by the king are now being phased out by KLM, meaning he needs to take time out to retrain and learn to fly Boeing 737s.
The 50-year-old royal described his casual flights as a "hobby" - and said occasionally being able to leave his royal duties behind to concentrate on flying was "relaxing".
The father-of-three says he has no plans to learn how to fly a bigger aircraft, as flights which involve an overnight stop mean he "cannot get back in time to the Netherlands in case of an emergency".
On staying incognito, he told De Telegraaf newspaper: "The advantage is that I can always say I am speaking on behalf of the captain and crew to welcome them on board, so I don't have to say my name.
"But then, most people don't listen anyway."
For 21 years, King Willem-Alexander has taken to the skies twice a month to ferry passengers around on short-haul services for the Dutch airline KLM.
Although travellers may have recognised the monarch's voice as he updated them on weather conditions and their time of arrival, the royal's presence was never revealed.
The fleet of smaller Fokker 70 planes flown by the king are now being phased out by KLM, meaning he needs to take time out to retrain and learn to fly Boeing 737s.
The 50-year-old royal described his casual flights as a "hobby" - and said occasionally being able to leave his royal duties behind to concentrate on flying was "relaxing".
The father-of-three says he has no plans to learn how to fly a bigger aircraft, as flights which involve an overnight stop mean he "cannot get back in time to the Netherlands in case of an emergency".
On staying incognito, he told De Telegraaf newspaper: "The advantage is that I can always say I am speaking on behalf of the captain and crew to welcome them on board, so I don't have to say my name.
"But then, most people don't listen anyway."
New Irish PM in weeks after Enda Kenny retires as Fine Gael leader
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny has confirmed he is going to step down as the leader of Fine Gael from midnight tonight.
His decision paves the way for Ireland to have a new head of government.
Mr Kenny will continue to perform his duties as Fine Gael leader in an acting capacity until a successor is appointed on 2 June.
"I would like to stress the huge honour and privilege that it has been for me to lead our party for the past 15 years, in opposition and into Government on two successive occasions," Mr Kenny said.
The veteran politician's resignation follows more than six years at the head of government.
Mr Kenny initially revealed his plans to stand down last year, when he said he would not lead Fine Gael into the next general election.
Sky's Ireland Correspondent, David Blevins, said: "Real challenges await his successor. Whoever takes over from Enda Kenny will be the person who has to protect Irish interests during the very delicate Brexit negotiations."
Fine Gael's chairman, Martin Heydon, described Mr Kenny as a "compassionate, pragmatic and inclusive" leader.
He added: "Having inherited a country and an economy that was decimated by mismanagement, Enda's strong leadership and ability to make hard decisions was recognised both at home and abroad and saw our international reputation restored and strengthened."
Mr Kenny's legacy includes leading Ireland out of a crippling recession, albeit with an agenda of austerity.
Other achievements during the 66-year-old's time in government include the legalisation of gay marriage.
However, voters have seen painful tax hikes under Mr Kenny's administration - with unprecedented levels of homelessness and a series of crises involving police corruption and negligence.
The Taoiseach delayed the transition to a new leader, allowing him to attend the annual St Patrick's Day celebrations in the US and meet President Donald Trump. He also travelled to Canada for talks with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Front runners to replace Mr Kenny as Fine Gael leader and subsequently become Prime Minister include social protection minister Leo Varadkar and housing minister Simon Coveney.
Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald and education minister Richard Bruton may also run for the leadership.
His decision paves the way for Ireland to have a new head of government.
Mr Kenny will continue to perform his duties as Fine Gael leader in an acting capacity until a successor is appointed on 2 June.
"I would like to stress the huge honour and privilege that it has been for me to lead our party for the past 15 years, in opposition and into Government on two successive occasions," Mr Kenny said.
The veteran politician's resignation follows more than six years at the head of government.
Mr Kenny initially revealed his plans to stand down last year, when he said he would not lead Fine Gael into the next general election.
Sky's Ireland Correspondent, David Blevins, said: "Real challenges await his successor. Whoever takes over from Enda Kenny will be the person who has to protect Irish interests during the very delicate Brexit negotiations."
Fine Gael's chairman, Martin Heydon, described Mr Kenny as a "compassionate, pragmatic and inclusive" leader.
He added: "Having inherited a country and an economy that was decimated by mismanagement, Enda's strong leadership and ability to make hard decisions was recognised both at home and abroad and saw our international reputation restored and strengthened."
Mr Kenny's legacy includes leading Ireland out of a crippling recession, albeit with an agenda of austerity.
Other achievements during the 66-year-old's time in government include the legalisation of gay marriage.
However, voters have seen painful tax hikes under Mr Kenny's administration - with unprecedented levels of homelessness and a series of crises involving police corruption and negligence.
The Taoiseach delayed the transition to a new leader, allowing him to attend the annual St Patrick's Day celebrations in the US and meet President Donald Trump. He also travelled to Canada for talks with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Front runners to replace Mr Kenny as Fine Gael leader and subsequently become Prime Minister include social protection minister Leo Varadkar and housing minister Simon Coveney.
Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald and education minister Richard Bruton may also run for the leadership.
Lloyds confirms final sale of taxpayer stake
The Government has sold its last remaining stake in Lloyds Banking Group, meaning the lender has been returned entirely to private ownership.
In a stock market announcement, both the bank and the Government confirmed that a deal had been done to sell the final 638,437,059 shares that lay on the Treasury's books.
At a price of around 70p per share, that should have raised around £466m.
It comes hours after the stake sale was first reported by Sky News, following the Treasury's disposal of its final shares in Tuesday's trading session.
Lloyds said the gradual sale of the Government's stake had returned £21.2bn to the taxpayer, about £900m more than the initial investment, including more than £400m in dividends.
However, figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in March suggest that, taking account the cost of extra borrowing to pay for the bailout, the balance of profit to the Treasury would be closer to £100m.
The bank's chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio, said his team had inherited the bank "in fragile condition" but added: "We've turned the group around."
Chancellor Philip Hammond said it was a "major achievement" and "another example of the work being undertaken to return Britain's financial sector to normal following the financial crisis and putting Britain on a sound economic footing".
The announcement will not affect the running of this bank, but it does carry a great symbolic importance.
The Government has owned a stake in Lloyds since October 2008 and at its high point held 43% of the lender - which includes Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) as well as Lloyds Bank.
It pumped more than £20bn into the bank as part of an extraordinary rescue package for the banking sector.
The Treasury has been gradually selling down its stake since 2013, with successive Chancellors agreeing that they saw no long-term point in the Government owning banks.
The former Chancellor George Osborne had promised to sell a huge tranche of the Government's Lloyds stake to the public, but that plan changed last year when the proposal was shelved because of turbulent market conditions.
Mr Osborne's successor, Philip Hammond, then decided that a sale to institutional investors would be quicker, easier and more effective.
The bailout of Lloyds, as well as an even more expensive rescue package for RBS, came at a time of turmoil for global business.
Lloyds had recently completed a hastily-constructed takeover of HBOS, a deal that hugely increased the size of the Lloyds Banking Group but also lumbered it with HBOS's debts and complex web of liabilities.
In particular, HBOS had a hefty raft of commercial property loans that were beginning to unravel spectacularly in time with the global financial downturn.
Those issues, combined with the worsening effects of the financial crisis, pushed Lloyds into seeking unprecedented support.
The bailouts were sanctioned after emergency meetings involving the Government, regulators, commercial banks and the Bank of England.
A more extreme option of fully nationalising both Lloyds and RBS was considered, but rejected.
Those bailouts infuriated many, who saw them as a way of getting taxpayers to cover the excesses and mistakes of overpaid bankers.
But most politicians and economists say that the emergency support was necessary to ensure the British economy did not suffer a savage, and potentially catastrophic, collapse.
Mr Horta-Osorio took over as the chief executive of Lloyds in 2011.
He was confronted by such a horrible corporate mess that, six months later, he took time off for fatigue, having admitted that he had, at one point, worked for five days without sleep.
He has overseen a restructuring that has seen the bank become smaller and less exposed to risky investments.
It has not come without pain - some 57,000 jobs have been cut by Lloyds, branches have been shut and the bank has had to deal with a spiralling bill for PPI compensation.
There have also been fines from regulators, and the share price has barely moved for the past four years.
But Lloyds is now paying dividends, and making a profit.
Compared to RBS, it is in rude health.
In a stock market announcement, both the bank and the Government confirmed that a deal had been done to sell the final 638,437,059 shares that lay on the Treasury's books.
At a price of around 70p per share, that should have raised around £466m.
It comes hours after the stake sale was first reported by Sky News, following the Treasury's disposal of its final shares in Tuesday's trading session.
Lloyds said the gradual sale of the Government's stake had returned £21.2bn to the taxpayer, about £900m more than the initial investment, including more than £400m in dividends.
However, figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in March suggest that, taking account the cost of extra borrowing to pay for the bailout, the balance of profit to the Treasury would be closer to £100m.
The bank's chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio, said his team had inherited the bank "in fragile condition" but added: "We've turned the group around."
Chancellor Philip Hammond said it was a "major achievement" and "another example of the work being undertaken to return Britain's financial sector to normal following the financial crisis and putting Britain on a sound economic footing".
The announcement will not affect the running of this bank, but it does carry a great symbolic importance.
The Government has owned a stake in Lloyds since October 2008 and at its high point held 43% of the lender - which includes Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) as well as Lloyds Bank.
It pumped more than £20bn into the bank as part of an extraordinary rescue package for the banking sector.
The Treasury has been gradually selling down its stake since 2013, with successive Chancellors agreeing that they saw no long-term point in the Government owning banks.
The former Chancellor George Osborne had promised to sell a huge tranche of the Government's Lloyds stake to the public, but that plan changed last year when the proposal was shelved because of turbulent market conditions.
Mr Osborne's successor, Philip Hammond, then decided that a sale to institutional investors would be quicker, easier and more effective.
The bailout of Lloyds, as well as an even more expensive rescue package for RBS, came at a time of turmoil for global business.
Lloyds had recently completed a hastily-constructed takeover of HBOS, a deal that hugely increased the size of the Lloyds Banking Group but also lumbered it with HBOS's debts and complex web of liabilities.
In particular, HBOS had a hefty raft of commercial property loans that were beginning to unravel spectacularly in time with the global financial downturn.
Those issues, combined with the worsening effects of the financial crisis, pushed Lloyds into seeking unprecedented support.
The bailouts were sanctioned after emergency meetings involving the Government, regulators, commercial banks and the Bank of England.
A more extreme option of fully nationalising both Lloyds and RBS was considered, but rejected.
Those bailouts infuriated many, who saw them as a way of getting taxpayers to cover the excesses and mistakes of overpaid bankers.
But most politicians and economists say that the emergency support was necessary to ensure the British economy did not suffer a savage, and potentially catastrophic, collapse.
Mr Horta-Osorio took over as the chief executive of Lloyds in 2011.
He was confronted by such a horrible corporate mess that, six months later, he took time off for fatigue, having admitted that he had, at one point, worked for five days without sleep.
He has overseen a restructuring that has seen the bank become smaller and less exposed to risky investments.
It has not come without pain - some 57,000 jobs have been cut by Lloyds, branches have been shut and the bank has had to deal with a spiralling bill for PPI compensation.
There have also been fines from regulators, and the share price has barely moved for the past four years.
But Lloyds is now paying dividends, and making a profit.
Compared to RBS, it is in rude health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)