I'll be honest - If (enough) of that lot come in I'll stick with you otherwise I won't ;p. As I follow Raceclear too
Lol! No prob. I don't get paid for this!
If you are OK following Tipsters, may I recommend Paul Jacobs (aka Farringdon.) He is the regular winner of sporting Life's Naps table. His tips are published daily in The Morning Star, proof that not all aspects of Marxism are incorrect!
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Basically he imposed a massive bunch of regulation that didn't work and introduced a compliance rather than a judgement based approach. He also hamstrung the bits of rehgulation that did work historically.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
Hmmm....so London's popularity as a financial centre grew because it had a highly intrusive and bureaucratic regulatory regime which didn't work, and not because of a genuine loosening of controls? You're sounding as plausible as RichardN!
I like your lunch anecdote though and am inclined to agree with you, not least because of my experience of auditors who spent their days ticking boxes whilst failing to notice the milkman couldn't paid. (That's a real example, in case you were wondering.)
I think you are muddling up intention and effect.
The regulation was not effective (this probably was not a major point in location decisions). This was the result of a badly designed system, not an intentional strategy.
I'll be honest - If (enough) of that lot come in I'll stick with you otherwise I won't ;p. As I follow Raceclear too
Lol! No prob. I don't get paid for this!
If you are OK following Tipsters, may I recommend Paul Jacobs (aka Farringdon.) He is the regular winner of sporting Life's Naps table. His tips are published daily in The Morning Star, proof that not all aspects of Marxism are incorrect!
I don't get any papers - Racelcear is also free (And long term profitable) is why I follow them. Tbh I can't imagine anything worse than paying for a tipster and having a losing streak. Not only are you out of pocket on your bets you're also paying for the privelige !
PtP - have followed you in on the first four, opening an account at Betbright for the occasion (not least because they're inexplicably 13/2 about Seek A Star).
Should I win I'll be withdrawing posthaste as they're not long for this game with that pricing.
I'll be honest - If (enough) of that lot come in I'll stick with you otherwise I won't ;p. As I follow Raceclear too
Lol! No prob. I don't get paid for this!
If you are OK following Tipsters, may I recommend Paul Jacobs (aka Farringdon.) He is the regular winner of sporting Life's Naps table. His tips are published daily in The Morning Star, proof that not all aspects of Marxism are incorrect!
I don't get any papers - Racelcear is also free (And long term profitable) is why I follow them. Tbh I can't imagine anything worse than paying for a tipster and having a losing streak. Not only are you out of pocket on your bets you're also paying for the privelige !
It's harder to find a good tipster than a good horse, Pulpstar but there are some out there.
The idea that Gordon Brown is responsible for any of this is ludicrous, and now the 2010 election is behind us, perhaps we can move on. It is a truism there was regulatory failure, because there really was a financial crisis, but that is not the same as saying that any reasonable alternative regulatory regime could have prevented it.
Your own post disproves your conclusion.
Of course banks will fail or get into trouble from time to time. You rightly point to the fringe banking crisis, Barings, Johnson-Matthey and BCCI - not one of which caused systemic collapse or required the taxpayer to step in and nationalise the losses. Before Gordon Brown started poking around with things he didn't understand, we hadn't had a bank run in this country since 1866.
In other words, a system which survived the financial turmoil of the late nineteenth century, two world wars, the Great Depression and the 1974 oil crisis, suddenly collapsed when changed by Gordon Brown.
In particular, the collapse of Lloyds, Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, and above all RBS were straighforward regulatory failures, which most certainly should have been prevented. The FSA didn't even bother to discuss the prudential implications of the takeover of ABN Amro. Why not? Because under Brown's hare-brained system, no-one was actually responsble for banking supervision (as opposed to micro-regulation).
No. That is not true. Incdentally, on the narrow question of building societies, then perhaps the previous Conservative government is to blame for converting them into banks. The American Savings and Loan scandals pointed the way.
RBS is best described in Iain Martin's book (uncomfortable reading for Scots Nats, one suspects) which also casts an interesting light on Mrs Thatcher's defeat, which I shall post separately for reasons of length). Again, if RBS did not know ABN-Amro was toxic, how would the regulator?
Earlier crises were more easily contained as the complex derivatives of today had not been invented, and trade was far smaller. The crucial point is that even in this gentler world, Bank of England regulation failed, and failed recently and often.
Mike's doing a good job of monitoring the position. Complaints that this consistently shows Labour on track for winning should be addressed to the electorate, not the messenger. However, wary though I am of subsamples, it's fair to note that this is the first YG poll for ages to show the SNP level with Labour in Scotland at 31%, so fitalass and the Mail can be pleased. Conversely the Labour vote in England and Wales is up to 41-42.
Lab + Con's combined share of the vote currently totals 74%. Am I correct in thinking that it's been a very long time since we last saw quite this concentration of support between the two major parties? Even allowing for the undeniably strong imcumbency support within the LibDem strongholds, it's beginning to look very worrying indeed for them and given the strong dislike for them within the ranks of Labour and Tory voters, for very different reasons, it's very difficult to see from where they can gain any further significant support this side of a General Election. In fact they may well find themselves losing further ground as voters' minds are concentrated on the stark choice ahead. I'm starting to wonder whether those 4/1 odds from Ladbrokes against them winning between 21-30 seats, thereby losing around half their representation, might have some merit after all.
I've thought for a long time that the GE will be polarised, with only the possible UKIP 10% preventing it from being the biggest 2-party dominance since the 1950s. I'm not sure about that "strong dislike", though - the LD->Lab switchers that I meet don't especially dislike the LDs, they merely flatly disagree with the Coalition.
I suppose I have good reason to dislike them as their local 17% based on false claims of impending victory probably cost me my seat, but I don't - they still seem to me broadly my sort of people in a way that the Conservatives don't, politically speaking. I'd guess that about half the previous tactical Labour->LD voters will still rally round where they're the incumbents. Not enough to save a lot of their seats but should prevent a massacre.
Conservatives and Labour both won 75% between them in 1997 and 2001. I don't expect to see them match that in 2015. IMO, Lib Dems, UKIP, and Others will win close to 30% between them.
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Basically he imposed a massive bunch of regulation that didn't work and introduced a compliance rather than a judgement based approach. He also hamstrung the bits of rehgulation that did work historically.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
Hmmm....so London's popularity as a financial centre grew because it had a highly intrusive and bureaucratic regulatory regime which didn't work, and not because of a genuine loosening of controls? You're sounding as plausible as RichardN!
I like your lunch anecdote though and am inclined to agree with you, not least because of my experience of auditors who spent their days ticking boxes whilst failing to notice the milkman couldn't paid. (That's a real example, in case you were wondering.)
I think you are muddling up intention and effect.
The regulation was not effective (this probably was not a major point in location decisions). This was the result of a badly designed system, not an intentional strategy.
I don't think I am muddling up anything, Charles. You still haven't explained why London grew so popular as a financial centre in the period. You seem to be implying it was because firms were attracted by the intrusive, bureaucratic and incompetent regulatory regime.
I'll be honest - If (enough) of that lot come in I'll stick with you otherwise I won't ;p. As I follow Raceclear too
Lol! No prob. I don't get paid for this!
If you are OK following Tipsters, may I recommend Paul Jacobs (aka Farringdon.) He is the regular winner of sporting Life's Naps table. His tips are published daily in The Morning Star, proof that not all aspects of Marxism are incorrect!
I don't get any papers - Racelcear is also free (And long term profitable) is why I follow them. Tbh I can't imagine anything worse than paying for a tipster and having a losing streak. Not only are you out of pocket on your bets you're also paying for the privelige !
It's harder to find a good tipster than a good horse, Pulpstar but there are some out there.
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
At the risk of getting all philosophical the banks probably knew, or should have known, that they didn't know what was going on, and the regulators should have known that they didn't know what was going on, of failing that that they didn't know whether they knew what was going on. It's a choice to get involved in something that you can't possibly understand, and making that choice probably points to bad incentives.
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002: http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
The Nelsonian blind eye is usually turned towards those who are generating large profits. And it's usually a mistake.
Emily Thornberry London Labour MP not having a lot of fun on Falkirk....Neil making the point that London Labour are ignoring the Scottish leadership..... 'we've had a scoop today, a major issue on which Labour does not want a public enquiry.....
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
At the risk of getting all philosophical the banks probably knew, or should have known, that they didn't know what was going on, and the regulators should have known that they didn't know what was going on, of failing that that they didn't know whether they knew what was going on. It's a choice to get involved in something that you can't possibly understand, and making that choice probably points to bad incentives.
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002: http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
The Nelsonian blind eye is usually turned towards those who are generating large profits. And it's usually a mistake.
Yes, never seen a trader suspended for generating supernormal profits by acting outside of their reference terms. But logically it must have happened - They only seem to get hauled up when they are acting outside their terms and losing cash.
But operating with too high a risk outside terms of reference is independent (Or at best weakly correlated with) winning or losing cash.
The idea that Gordon Brown is responsible for any of this is ludicrous, and now the 2010 election is behind us, perhaps we can move on. It is a truism there was regulatory failure, because there really was a financial crisis, but that is not the same as saying that any reasonable alternative regulatory regime could have prevented it.
Your own post disproves your conclusion.
Of course banks will fail or get into trouble from time to time. You rightly point to the fringe banking crisis, Barings, Johnson-Matthey and BCCI - not one of which caused systemic collapse or required the taxpayer to step in and nationalise the losses. Before Gordon Brown started poking around with things he didn't understand, we hadn't had a bank run in this country since 1866.
In other words, a system which survived the financial turmoil of the late nineteenth century, two world wars, the Great Depression and the 1974 oil crisis, suddenly collapsed when changed by Gordon Brown.
In particular, the collapse of Lloyds, Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, and above all RBS were straighforward regulatory failures, which most certainly should have been prevented. The FSA didn't even bother to discuss the prudential and systemic implications of the takeover of ABN Amro. Why not? Because under Brown's hare-brained system, no-one was actually responsble for banking supervision (as opposed to micro-regulation).
You are in danger of becoming ridiculous, Richard.
No matter how powerful and incompetent Brown may have been, he could not possibly have engineered a world-wide collapse, even if he had been trying. It is well-documented that the majour source was the Sub-Prime fiasco in the US. It spread from there and was exacerated by a number of factors. Brown's mismanagement may well have contributed but even if that is accepted, you cannot ascribe to him a level of power and influence he simply did not have.
Again, if RBS did not know ABN-Amro was toxic, how would the regulator?
Earlier crises were more easily contained as the complex derivatives of today had not been invented, and trade was far smaller.
But you've put your finger on exactly the point in the combination of those two sentences. The regulator didn't need to know whether ABN Amro was toxic; what they needed to know (or at least ask) was whether RBS were overstretching themselves in a way which created a systemic risk (a risk which, as you rightly point out, was bigger than in the past because of the increased leverage).
The crucial failure was that they didn't even ask the question.
The explanation for that extraordinary failure is that, thanks to Gordon Brown, it was no-one's responsibility to ask the question.
There's no getting away from this - and he was warned. It unfolded exactly as Peter Lilley warned it would.
Why Mrs Thatcher fell, as descibed by Iain Martin in his book on RBS: Making It Happen.
Younger, busy scheming with Mathewson at the Royal Bank, was caught up in the fallout of the Conservatives’ civil war just when he was trying to concentrate on the Royal Bank’s looming, and still secret, internal revolution.
At first he declined the request to manage Thatcher’s leadership campaign, telling his Tory colleagues that he could not spare the time because of his work in Edinburgh. Then loyalty to his old boss meant that unwisely he caved in to pressure and tried to do both, shuttling between Edinburgh and London, with the plodding, shambolic, and frequently drunken Peter Morrison MP as his deputy on the Thatcher campaign.
Earlier in the year Younger had tried to warn the Tory leader just how perilous her position was, asking her to tone down her rhetoric on Europe. Thatcher would not listen. From Thatcher’s point of view Younger’s handling of the second leadership campaign was disastrous. He said later: ‘MPs did what constituents do in by-elections. As we guessed, at least fifteen told us they would vote for Margaret and then did the opposite. This was the simple reason why our forecasts proved to be wrong.’
On Tuesday 20 November Thatcher won, but fell four votes short of the total she needed to avoid a second round. Two days later she would resign. Famously, she was at the British Embassy in Paris when the result came through and went outside to say that she would fight on, delivering a holding statement that her supporters had persuaded her to make. On the night of the vote, Younger, her campaign manager, was not even at the count at the House of Commons in London. Astonishingly, he was in his office at the Royal Bank in St Andrew Square, watching events unfold on television.
Martin, Iain (2013-09-12). Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the men who blew up the British economy.
Note to moderators: the "plodding, shambolic, and frequently drunken Peter Morrison MP" is no longer in a position to sue pb for libel.
You are in danger of becoming ridiculous, Richard.
No matter how powerful and incompetent Brown may have been, he could not possibly have engineered a world-wide collapse, even if he had been trying. It is well-documented that the majour source was the Sub-Prime fiasco in the US. It spread from there and was exacerated by a number of factors. Brown's mismanagement may well have contributed but even if that is accepted, you cannot ascribe to him a level of power and influence he simply did not have.
Are you obsessed with him?!
Of course he wasn't responsible for the world-wide financial crisis. He was responsible for creating the regulatory framework for the UK banks which were hit by that crisis. That regulatory framework was a disaster.
Anyway now you're arguing against yourself. I thought you said over-light regulation was the culprit?
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
At the risk of getting all philosophical the banks probably knew, or should have known, that they didn't know what was going on, and the regulators should have known that they didn't know what was going on, of failing that that they didn't know whether they knew what was going on. It's a choice to get involved in something that you can't possibly understand, and making that choice probably points to bad incentives.
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002: http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
Commentators point at traders with regard to moral hazard but forget this is even larger for the financial institutions themselves -- make a fortune or be rescued.
For individual traders, the problem is more (and I do not have time to source the quote) that there is no difference in outcome between a career-ending loss, and a career-ending loss of twice the size, so the only rational behaviour is to keep doubling the size of your bets.
You are in danger of becoming ridiculous, Richard.
No matter how powerful and incompetent Brown may have been, he could not possibly have engineered a world-wide collapse, even if he had been trying. It is well-documented that the majour source was the Sub-Prime fiasco in the US. It spread from there and was exacerated by a number of factors. Brown's mismanagement may well have contributed but even if that is accepted, you cannot ascribe to him a level of power and influence he simply did not have.
Are you obsessed with him?!
Of course he wasn't responsible for the world-wide financial crisis. He was responsible for creating the regulatory framework for the UK banks which were hit by that crisis. That regulatory framework was a disaster.
Anyway now you're arguing against yourself. I thought you said over-light regulation was the culprit?
No, I said light regulation was an attractive feature for a lot of London institutions at the time and it attracted a lot of business here. My main point however was that this fact is inconsistent with the kind of incompetent intrusive regime on which you place so much blame.
I think your basic point is OK. The regime was incompetent and intrusive, but you carry it too far - hence my question about a possible obsession with Brown.
I didn't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I don't hold him responsible for all the evils of mankind, or even the financial markets.
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
At the risk of getting all philosophical the banks probably knew, or should have known, that they didn't know what was going on, and the regulators should have known that they didn't know what was going on, of failing that that they didn't know whether they knew what was going on. It's a choice to get involved in something that you can't possibly understand, and making that choice probably points to bad incentives.
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002: http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
Commentators point at traders with regard to moral hazard but forget this is even larger for the financial institutions themselves -- make a fortune or be rescued.
For individual traders, the problem is more (and I do not have time to source the quote) that there is no difference in outcome between a career-ending loss, and a career-ending loss of twice the size, so the only rational behaviour is to keep doubling the size of your bets.
I'll have faith the day I see a trader hauled up for acting outside terms and winning - because as I posted earlier winning or losing cash is independent of making bets that are outside terms.
Curious phrasing by David Cameron that he, not Labour, "stands up for the NHS". That reads as if it has been carefully tested with focus groups as a formula.
"Clueless" and "out of touch" from Ed Miliband are obvious hooks for the public, as is "weak" from David Cameron.
I don't think I am muddling up anything, Charles. You still haven't explained why London grew so popular as a financial centre in the period. You seem to be implying it was because firms were attracted by the intrusive, bureaucratic and incompetent regulatory regime.
But that wouldn't make sense, would it?
For many of the reasons RN posted - language, tax, location, critical mass, opportunity to exploit the development of the Euro market, cluster effects in ancillary services, quality of life for employees, etc. These meant London captured a disproportionate share of the global sector growth. Regulation was a factor in the sense it was predictable. No one cared about the lightness of touch - it was only light touch for hedgefunds and those hedge funds that did collapse didn't cause any systemic issues
Cameron better on his facts today.....second planted Unite question....and a pointed question on why Ed didn't ask about shipyards....third Unite question....
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
He (and/or Darling, I'm not sure who should get the credit) did a reasonably good job sorting out the mess, after a wobbly start on Northern Rock (and after dragging Lloyds into the mess..).
Ben Brogan, Daily Telegraph tweets With economy recovering, @Ed_Miliband now hoping NHS will go wrong. Labour strategy is victory built on failure #pmqs
Ben Brogan, Daily Telegraph tweets With economy recovering, @Ed_Miliband now hoping NHS will go wrong. Labour strategy is victory built on failure #pmqs
Their hope for 2015 was always thus.
It is why Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
BTW, I thought EdM gave a classic example today of his inability to think on his feet at PMQ's.
Second time in just weeks where Ed Miliband has totally ignored job losses in Scotland, but if he had raised the issue today he would have highlighted yet again why he specifically ignored the Grangemouth issue. Ed Miliband isn't looking particularly clever or strong politically right now as he tries to shut down the Grangemouth/Falkirk/Unite issue with these avoidance tactics.
Unite bully boys, intimidation of families, and Leader of the Opposition.
Charlotte Leslie referring to misuse of Judicial Reviews by Green Councillors who set up a shell company to protest about sale of Bristol Rovers' & Bristol Rugby ground to Sainsbury's.
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
He (and/or Darling, I'm not sure who should get the credit) did a reasonably good job sorting out the mess, after a wobbly start on Northern Rock (and after dragging Lloyds into the mess..).
Ben Brogan, Daily Telegraph tweets With economy recovering, @Ed_Miliband now hoping NHS will go wrong. Labour strategy is victory built on failure #pmqs
Their hope for 2015 was always thus.
It is why Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
BTW, I thought EdM gave a classic example today of his inability to think on his feet at PMQ's.
My MP winning friends again !!! JB knows how to wind them up.
Greg Hands@GregHands2m #PMQs getting like Old Trafford. 5 minutes extra time in the hope that the Reds can score a late equaliser.
Paul Waugh@paulwaugh1m PM's political spokesman refuses to repeat Dep Chief Whip (@GregHands) claim that Speaker Bercow is politically biased.
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers41s Rubicon crossed in Tory/Bercow relations. First time PM has slapped him back and now dep chief whip tweeting accusations of bias #pmqs
What is the CGT loophole which Mark Reckless asked about?
I may be wrong - but homes bought by a company escape CGT - which the coalition have already taken some steps on, hiking stamp duty to 15% on homes over £2million.
Bercow gives all sides a little more latitude at PMQ's but the HoC rules are clear - questions to the PM must be framed in terms of responsibilities that are his and his answers accordingly.
The PM's answer to Cryer's question was way off the scale and he got gently chided by the Speaker and rightly so.
What is the CGT loophole which Mark Reckless asked about?
I may be wrong - but homes bought by a company escape CGT - which the coalition have already taken some steps on, hiking stamp duty to 15% on homes over £2million.
Thanks - yes, I thought they'd effectively kiboshed that wheeze, but maybe not.
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
I don't think I am muddling up anything, Charles. You still haven't explained why London grew so popular as a financial centre in the period. You seem to be implying it was because firms were attracted by the intrusive, bureaucratic and incompetent regulatory regime.
But that wouldn't make sense, would it?
For many of the reasons RN posted - language, tax, location, critical mass, opportunity to exploit the development of the Euro market, cluster effects in ancillary services, quality of life for employees, etc. These meant London captured a disproportionate share of the global sector growth. Regulation was a factor in the sense it was predictable. No one cared about the lightness of touch - it was only light touch for hedgefunds and those hedge funds that did collapse didn't cause any systemic issues
I don't think I am muddling up anything, Charles. You still haven't explained why London grew so popular as a financial centre in the period. You seem to be implying it was because firms were attracted by the intrusive, bureaucratic and incompetent regulatory regime.
But that wouldn't make sense, would it?
For many of the reasons RN posted - language, tax, location, critical mass, opportunity to exploit the development of the Euro market, cluster effects in ancillary services, quality of life for employees, etc. These meant London captured a disproportionate share of the global sector growth. Regulation was a factor in the sense it was predictable. No one cared about the lightness of touch - it was only light touch for hedgefunds and those hedge funds that did collapse didn't cause any systemic issues
"Language, tax, location, critical mass, opportunity to exploit the development of the Euro market, cluster effects in ancillary services, quality of life for employees, etc....."
But they always existed, Charles.
The novelty was the loosening of control, the lightening of touch - or so I have always been led to believe.
Compared to the Mayoral candidates for Seattle, de Blasio is a right winger. I was reading about the former, and how unusual it is for Mayoral candidates for a large city to compete on the basis of which one is the most hostile to local businesses.
Tend not to watch PMQs anymore, but from reports here it sounds like Bercow is still obediently serving those who get him his job.
You're correct but not as you think. MP's of all sides elected Bercow.
The Speaker is the Commons man not the governments or the PM's and so it must remain. If the PM, LotO or any MP transgress then they should expect a slap across the wrists.
Bercow gives all sides a little more latitude at PMQ's but the HoC rules are clear - questions to the PM must be framed in terms of responsibilities that are his and his answers accordingly.
The PM's answer to Cryer's question was way off the scale and he got gently chided by the Speaker and rightly so.
In fairness to both Cameron and Bercow, Cryer's question was so long and rambling, and almost all about Unions, Cameron can be forgiven for not passing up on an open goal, and Bercow gently reminding him that however rambling the question, it's best to try to remember its point.
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
He (and/or Darling, I'm not sure who should get the credit) did a reasonably good job sorting out the mess, after a wobbly start on Northern Rock (and after dragging Lloyds into the mess..).
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
As you know, I grew to disike Brown and his leadership, but credit when and where it's due. Bad leaders can do good things, and vice-versa. I always enjoy the contrast with Blair, who was imo a good Prime Minister who made a catastrophic error in respect of Iraq. Brown was a bad PM, who got it right when the banking crisis was at its most perilous.
Considering how catastrophc it could have been, that's quite a big plus.
Brown was responsible for introducing regulation that he termed as light - it consisted of lots of meaningless light regulations with lots of forms. Whilst everyone was busy doing that no-one was looking at the big picture. As such it's pretty clear that at least part of the financial crisis was very much made in Downing Street. No particular surprise that this wasn't highlighted in subsequent reports by some of those culpable.
Once the crisis was in full swing the Brown administration made some awful decisions - nearly ruining Lloyds for example, as has been pointed out below. The end solution of simply splurging enough money to buy everything hardly represents a victory. It may be argued that as it worked out it wasn't too bad, but we'll be struggling with the huge debts for decades. I think it's far from clear that the legacy of Brown's 'saving the world' won't finish up being that he in fact will have destroyed the UK.
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
I thought Dave won PMQs. I don't watch it so can only judge by reaction here and on twitter.
Bercow gives all sides a little more latitude at PMQ's but the HoC rules are clear - questions to the PM must be framed in terms of responsibilities that are his and his answers accordingly.
The PM's answer to Cryer's question was way off the scale and he got gently chided by the Speaker and rightly so.
In fairness to both Cameron and Bercow, Cryer's question was so long and rambling, and almost all about Unions, Cameron can be forgiven for not passing up on an open goal, and Bercow gently reminding him that however rambling the question, it's best to try to remember its point.
Indeed so.
At the end of his question Cryer opened the trade union door and the PM couldn't resist bursting through it with the full force of a Met Police drugs raid. A little more subtlety was required rather than the sledge hammer.
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
That was the Labour spin at the time, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that the USA needed help from Gordon Brown to figure out that they needed to rescue their banks.
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
That was the Labour spin at the time, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that the USA needed help from Gordon Brown to figure out that they needed to rescue their banks.
Considering that the TARP was much more successful than our bailout scheme I would suggest that they needed rather less help than Labour like to pretend...
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
He (and/or Darling, I'm not sure who should get the credit) did a reasonably good job sorting out the mess, after a wobbly start on Northern Rock (and after dragging Lloyds into the mess..).
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
As you know, I grew to disike Brown and his leadership, but credit when and where it's due. Bad leaders can do good things, and vice-versa. I always enjoy the contrast with Blair, who was imo a good Prime Minister who made a catastrophic error in respect of Iraq. Brown was a bad PM, who got it right when the banking crisis was at its most perilous.
Considering how catastrophc it could have been, that's quite a big plus.
Peter - Remind me - I'm not being sarky, I've simply forgotten - what was so crucial about that G20 summit? What did it achieve in practical terms by individual governments and international instiutions? I do recall Gordon Brown receiving praise, which maybe he deserved, but a little elaboration would be appreciated (if only by me!).
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
I thought Dave won PMQs. I don't watch it so can only judge by reaction here and on twitter.
Difficult to call. It was two shouty men shouting that "my numbers are better than yours" - both were in command of their numbers - sometimes a Cameron weakness.
The broader question is Ed's strategy of ignoring major topical events - Grangemouth, shipyard jobs, Colchester, in favour of one narrow point.
He might do better splitting his questions - I doubt today's outing will make the 6 o'clock news.
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.'
How should Dave describe Ed Miliband I wonder? The tories are going to paint ed miliband as the puppet of a bullying left wing business hating rabble rouser.
Richard Nabavi, Decrepit John, Peter the Punter and others:
The FSA was specifically warned about the RBS/ABN AMRO debacle in early 2007, a full 18 months before the crisis. They were given the information which should have made them ask questions. They didn't.
And G Brown was not the hero of the financial crisis. If anyone was, Darling was. Those banks were in trouble from at least spring 2008 and action should have been taken then. It wasn't because the government dithered and dithered and dithered until eventually action was taken 5 minutes before every bank in the country would likely have had to close its doors. The PM simply was not willing to take action early enough; he deserves much less credit than he is given for taking action at the last minute. We should never have been in that position.
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
That was the Labour spin at the time, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that the USA needed help from Gordon Brown to figure out that they needed to rescue their banks.
Particularly the USA, Richard.
Greenspan's stewardship was a significant contributory factor in the development of the crisis and there is no indication that the US had a clue what to do. Obama gave Brown considerable support at the G20 and was only too happy to press Brown's ideas on his own officials.
It is very well covered in Rawnesley's 'End Of The Party'. The author is no fan of GB either, but there was no denying the success of the conference he organised, and its importance in mitigating the damage of many years of financial misrule.
I guess one day this will be acknowledged, perhaps even by those accustomed to referring to the ex-PM in terms usually reserved for dog turds, but I suspect it will be a while.
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
I thought Dave won PMQs. I don't watch it so can only judge by reaction here and on twitter.
Difficult to call. It was two shouty men shouting that "my numbers are better than yours" - both were in command of their numbers - sometimes a Cameron weakness.
The broader question is Ed's strategy of ignoring major topical events - Grangemouth, shipyard jobs, Colchester, in favour of one narrow point.
He might do better splitting his questions - I doubt today's outing will make the 6 o'clock news.
That's my view too. But keeping hammering Ed on Unite/Falkirk is sound strategy for Dave (but not for too much longer) as it blunts the Labour attack on other areas.
Why is it seen as automatic that there will be an NHS A&E crisis this winter? What if there isn't? Sounds a trifle risky for Ed?
You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
I thought Dave won PMQs. I don't watch it so can only judge by reaction here and on twitter.
Difficult to call. It was two shouty men shouting that "my numbers are better than yours" - both were in command of their numbers - sometimes a Cameron weakness.
The broader question is Ed's strategy of ignoring major topical events - Grangemouth, shipyard jobs, Colchester, in favour of one narrow point.
He might do better splitting his questions - I doubt today's outing will make the 6 o'clock news.
That's my view too. But keeping hammering Ed on Unite/Falkirk is sound strategy for Dave (but not for too much longer) as it blunts the Labour attack on other areas.
Why is it seen as automatic that there will be an NHS A&E crisis this winter? What if there isn't? Sounds a trifle risky for Ed?
It sounded a little as if Ed was relishing the possibility of an NHS crisis this winter. Not the right tone, IMHO.
Given what is happening in NHS Wales, also not very wise.
Richard Nabavi, Decrepit John, Peter the Punter and others:
The FSA was specifically warned about the RBS/ABN AMRO debacle in early 2007, a full 18 months before the crisis. They were given the information which should have made them ask questions. They didn't.
And G Brown was not the hero of the financial crisis. If anyone was, Darling was. Those banks were in trouble from at least spring 2008 and action should have been taken then. It wasn't because the government dithered and dithered and dithered until eventually action was taken 5 minutes before every bank in the country would likely have had to close its doors. The PM simply was not willing to take action early enough; he deserves much less credit than he is given for taking action at the last minute. We should never have been in that position.
Darling played a pretty decent hand but he could not have organised the G20 conference, without which the remedial measures could not have been taken. That was Brown, and he pulled off the trick at the conference, which was no small matter.
Yes, of course the crisis should never have got to the point it did, but how many people, governments and institutions were culpable in that respect? Too many to list here.
And of course Brown himself would bear his fair share of the blame.
Why is it seen as automatic that there will be an NHS A&E crisis this winter? What if there isn't? Sounds a trifle risky for Ed?
Not really. If there isn't a problem no-one will care or remember and no doubt the government are trying really hard to ensure there isn't, especially since Labour have raised this issue. If there is a problem it makes Labour look ahead of the curve. Sounds like good opposition politics to me.
I think that Miliband's problems with Scotland go back further than even this Falkirk scandal, his campaign strategy and input at the last Holyrood elections or since appears almost non existent. And now thanks to his difficulties with Unite and Len McCluskey, this is become even more stark. Scottish Labour have been out of power at Holyrood now for six years, and the wider party out of power at Westminster for three years. And still the Scottish Labour party politicians appear to be using Holyrood as a stepping stone on the road to Westminster which sends a very poor message to the voters.
The only issue which Scottish Labour Westminster politicians have shown any passion for is the Independence Referendum, but then their own jobs depend on this fight. And many of those local Scottish Labour MP's are as closely linked or reliant on Unite as their Leaders, which makes raising or criticising Unite's behaviour in their own back yard as problematic for them too. When it came to the choice between taking on Unite's bad behaviour vs protecting the interests of ordinary Scottish Labour voters and workers at a time when the Union is at risk. Miliband and his party chose to back down against its biggest donor and it looks terrible.
The London Labour Leadership team don't appear to be that engaged or interested in Scotland or this Indy Referendum debate at all, and that leaves us with the unusual situation where Cameron and the Coalition Government are coming across as far more proactive in trying to stand up and fight for the Coalition. Even with the Grangemouth issue, it was stark that the Scottish and Westminster Government were both very supportive of any survival package to keep the plant open, and the sticking point was the way that the Unite Union totally mishandled the whole issue. Ed Miliband and the Labour party really do seem to be taking their Scottish support base for granted these days, and to the point that they think they can totally ignore the risk of major losses at Grangemouth or Govan. A very big risk for a party that saw the SNP win a majority at Holyrood back in 2011.
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
He (and/or Darling, I'm not sure who should get the credit) did a reasonably good job sorting out the mess, after a wobbly start on Northern Rock (and after dragging Lloyds into the mess..).
Darling was pretty solid, but it was Brown's leadership at the G20 summit which avoided a catastrophy, and not just in this country - the model was followed successfully in numerous countries, notably the USA.
As you know, I grew to disike Brown and his leadership, but credit when and where it's due. Bad leaders can do good things, and vice-versa. I always enjoy the contrast with Blair, who was imo a good Prime Minister who made a catastrophic error in respect of Iraq. Brown was a bad PM, who got it right when the banking crisis was at its most perilous.
Considering how catastrophc it could have been, that's quite a big plus.
Peter - Remind me - I'm not being sarky, I've simply forgotten - what was so crucial about that G20 summit? What did it achieve in practical terms by individual governments and international instiutions? I do recall Gordon Brown receiving praise, which maybe he deserved, but a little elaboration would be appreciated (if only by me!).
In short, JohnO, he nationalised the banks.
Had he not done so, a universal bank failure would probably have followed. You don't need me to spell out the consequences of that.
Of course nationalisation is a dirty word, so people tend not to use it but basically that was the remedy, however difficult and unpalatable for some.
Comments
If you are OK following Tipsters, may I recommend Paul Jacobs (aka Farringdon.) He is the regular winner of sporting Life's Naps table. His tips are published daily in The Morning Star, proof that not all aspects of Marxism are incorrect!
http://order-order.com/2013/11/06/unites-beef-with-the-tpa/#comment-1927670
Victory is ours...stop the sheep taking our bloody jobs.
The regulation was not effective (this probably was not a major point in location decisions). This was the result of a badly designed system, not an intentional strategy.
Should I win I'll be withdrawing posthaste as they're not long for this game with that pricing.
The Naps service is of course free. Here's the link if you are interested:
http://www1.skysports.com/racing/race-tips-naps
Farringdon is well down the list but the season has just started and he did have a 5/1 winner yesterday.
RBS is best described in Iain Martin's book (uncomfortable reading for Scots Nats, one suspects) which also casts an interesting light on Mrs Thatcher's defeat, which I shall post separately for reasons of length). Again, if RBS did not know ABN-Amro was toxic, how would the regulator?
Earlier crises were more easily contained as the complex derivatives of today had not been invented, and trade was far smaller. The crucial point is that even in this gentler world, Bank of England regulation failed, and failed recently and often.
But that wouldn't make sense, would it?
But operating with too high a risk outside terms of reference is independent (Or at best weakly correlated with) winning or losing cash.
No matter how powerful and incompetent Brown may have been, he could not possibly have engineered a world-wide collapse, even if he had been trying. It is well-documented that the majour source was the Sub-Prime fiasco in the US. It spread from there and was exacerated by a number of factors. Brown's mismanagement may well have contributed but even if that is accepted, you cannot ascribe to him a level of power and influence he simply did not have.
Are you obsessed with him?!
The crucial failure was that they didn't even ask the question.
The explanation for that extraordinary failure is that, thanks to Gordon Brown, it was no-one's responsibility to ask the question.
There's no getting away from this - and he was warned. It unfolded exactly as Peter Lilley warned it would.
Younger, busy scheming with Mathewson at the Royal Bank, was caught up in the fallout of the Conservatives’ civil war just when he was trying to concentrate on the Royal Bank’s looming, and still secret, internal revolution.
At first he declined the request to manage Thatcher’s leadership campaign, telling his Tory colleagues that he could not spare the time because of his work in Edinburgh. Then loyalty to his old boss meant that unwisely he caved in to pressure and tried to do both, shuttling between Edinburgh and London, with the plodding, shambolic, and frequently drunken Peter Morrison MP as his deputy on the Thatcher campaign.
Earlier in the year Younger had tried to warn the Tory leader just how perilous her position was, asking her to tone down her rhetoric on Europe. Thatcher would not listen. From Thatcher’s point of view Younger’s handling of the second leadership campaign was disastrous. He said later: ‘MPs did what constituents do in by-elections. As we guessed, at least fifteen told us they would vote for Margaret and then did the opposite. This was the simple reason why our forecasts proved to be wrong.’
On Tuesday 20 November Thatcher won, but fell four votes short of the total she needed to avoid a second round. Two days later she would resign. Famously, she was at the British Embassy in Paris when the result came through and went outside to say that she would fight on, delivering a holding statement that her supporters had persuaded her to make. On the night of the vote, Younger, her campaign manager, was not even at the count at the House of Commons in London. Astonishingly, he was in his office at the Royal Bank in St Andrew Square, watching events unfold on television.
Martin, Iain (2013-09-12). Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the men who blew up the British economy.
Note to moderators: the "plodding, shambolic, and frequently drunken Peter Morrison MP" is no longer in a position to sue pb for libel.
I do the same by not tipping waiters.
Anyway now you're arguing against yourself. I thought you said over-light regulation was the culprit?
Grangemouth ... Cost of living
Not watching or listening but I am guessing these phrases will come up ?
For individual traders, the problem is more (and I do not have time to source the quote) that there is no difference in outcome between a career-ending loss, and a career-ending loss of twice the size, so the only rational behaviour is to keep doubling the size of your bets.
Ed just used "clueless" after your post. Was that on the briefing note?
Rumbled !
No, I said light regulation was an attractive feature for a lot of London institutions at the time and it attracted a lot of business here. My main point however was that this fact is inconsistent with the kind of incompetent intrusive regime on which you place so much blame.
I think your basic point is OK. The regime was incompetent and intrusive, but you carry it too far - hence my question about a possible obsession with Brown.
I didn't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I don't hold him responsible for all the evils of mankind, or even the financial markets.
And I do recognise his outstanding role in sorting out the mess. Not sure you would be capable of enough objectivity to recognise that.
"Clueless" and "out of touch" from Ed Miliband are obvious hooks for the public, as is "weak" from David Cameron.
Surely the current government are incompetent twits? So you keep telling us
It is why Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
BTW, I thought EdM gave a classic example today of his inability to think on his feet at PMQ's.
We'll put you down as a "don't know" then !!
Charlotte Leslie referring to misuse of Judicial Reviews by Green Councillors who set up a shell company to protest about sale of Bristol Rovers' & Bristol Rugby ground to Sainsbury's.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 1m
Cameron winning #PMQs commandingly thanks to counter productive attacks from Labour & Speaker.
Greg Hands@GregHands2m
#PMQs getting like Old Trafford. 5 minutes extra time in the hope that the Reds can score a late equaliser.
For the City.....LOL
PM's political spokesman refuses to repeat Dep Chief Whip (@GregHands) claim that Speaker Bercow is politically biased.
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers41s
Rubicon crossed in Tory/Bercow relations. First time PM has slapped him back and now dep chief whip tweeting accusations of bias #pmqs
3-3
Winner from today's PMQs: Alex Salmond.
The PM's answer to Cryer's question was way off the scale and he got gently chided by the Speaker and rightly so.
The NHS is not territory that the Tories want to be playing on because everything bad that now happens now get blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the re-orgainsation.
His pre-election promise of no top down reorganisation is going to haunt him like fees haunt Clegg.
But they always existed, Charles.
The novelty was the loosening of control, the lightening of touch - or so I have always been led to believe.
The Speaker is the Commons man not the governments or the PM's and so it must remain. If the PM, LotO or any MP transgress then they should expect a slap across the wrists.
The more I hear from the US, the more I think it will one day break up into pieces.
As you know, I grew to disike Brown and his leadership, but credit when and where it's due. Bad leaders can do good things, and vice-versa. I always enjoy the contrast with Blair, who was imo a good Prime Minister who made a catastrophic error in respect of Iraq. Brown was a bad PM, who got it right when the banking crisis was at its most perilous.
Considering how catastrophc it could have been, that's quite a big plus.
Once the crisis was in full swing the Brown administration made some awful decisions - nearly ruining Lloyds for example, as has been pointed out below. The end solution of simply splurging enough money to buy everything hardly represents a victory. It may be argued that as it worked out it wasn't too bad, but we'll be struggling with the huge debts for decades. I think it's far from clear that the legacy of Brown's 'saving the world' won't finish up being that he in fact will have destroyed the UK.
At the end of his question Cryer opened the trade union door and the PM couldn't resist bursting through it with the full force of a Met Police drugs raid. A little more subtlety was required rather than the sledge hammer.
A couple more years in NW1, and you'll be voting for them
'You know that when Dave has to describe EdM as weak that he's losing.'
Dave lost PMQ's to-day!?
The broader question is Ed's strategy of ignoring major topical events - Grangemouth, shipyard jobs, Colchester, in favour of one narrow point.
He might do better splitting his questions - I doubt today's outing will make the 6 o'clock news.
How should Dave describe Ed Miliband I wonder? The tories are going to paint ed miliband as the puppet of a bullying left wing business hating rabble rouser.
Of course they are going to describe him as weak.
The FSA was specifically warned about the RBS/ABN AMRO debacle in early 2007, a full 18 months before the crisis. They were given the information which should have made them ask questions. They didn't.
And G Brown was not the hero of the financial crisis. If anyone was, Darling was. Those banks were in trouble from at least spring 2008 and action should have been taken then. It wasn't because the government dithered and dithered and dithered until eventually action was taken 5 minutes before every bank in the country would likely have had to close its doors. The PM simply was not willing to take action early enough; he deserves much less credit than he is given for taking action at the last minute. We should never have been in that position.
Greenspan's stewardship was a significant contributory factor in the development of the crisis and there is no indication that the US had a clue what to do. Obama gave Brown considerable support at the G20 and was only too happy to press Brown's ideas on his own officials.
It is very well covered in Rawnesley's 'End Of The Party'. The author is no fan of GB either, but there was no denying the success of the conference he organised, and its importance in mitigating the damage of many years of financial misrule.
I guess one day this will be acknowledged, perhaps even by those accustomed to referring to the ex-PM in terms usually reserved for dog turds, but I suspect it will be a while.
Why is it seen as automatic that there will be an NHS A&E crisis this winter? What if there isn't? Sounds a trifle risky for Ed?
Given what is happening in NHS Wales, also not very wise.
Darling played a pretty decent hand but he could not have organised the G20 conference, without which the remedial measures could not have been taken. That was Brown, and he pulled off the trick at the conference, which was no small matter.
Yes, of course the crisis should never have got to the point it did, but how many people, governments and institutions were culpable in that respect? Too many to list here.
And of course Brown himself would bear his fair share of the blame.
If there is a problem it makes Labour look ahead of the curve.
Sounds like good opposition politics to me.
The only issue which Scottish Labour Westminster politicians have shown any passion for is the Independence Referendum, but then their own jobs depend on this fight. And many of those local Scottish Labour MP's are as closely linked or reliant on Unite as their Leaders, which makes raising or criticising Unite's behaviour in their own back yard as problematic for them too. When it came to the choice between taking on Unite's bad behaviour vs protecting the interests of ordinary Scottish Labour voters and workers at a time when the Union is at risk. Miliband and his party chose to back down against its biggest donor and it looks terrible.
The London Labour Leadership team don't appear to be that engaged or interested in Scotland or this Indy Referendum debate at all, and that leaves us with the unusual situation where Cameron and the Coalition Government are coming across as far more proactive in trying to stand up and fight for the Coalition. Even with the Grangemouth issue, it was stark that the Scottish and Westminster Government were both very supportive of any survival package to keep the plant open, and the sticking point was the way that the Unite Union totally mishandled the whole issue. Ed Miliband and the Labour party really do seem to be taking their Scottish support base for granted these days, and to the point that they think they can totally ignore the risk of major losses at Grangemouth or Govan. A very big risk for a party that saw the SNP win a majority at Holyrood back in 2011. Reading the Scottish press this is not coming across well in Scotland - are London Labour trying to lose the Union?
Had he not done so, a universal bank failure would probably have followed. You don't need me to spell out the consequences of that.
Of course nationalisation is a dirty word, so people tend not to use it but basically that was the remedy, however difficult and unpalatable for some.