I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol
Find me the criminal statutes broken by Fred Godwin and the like.
Unless what they did at the time was illegal, then there can be no criminal prosecution.
We will never know will we, because they managed to bankrupt their companies without anyone investigating, or being allowed to investigate.
I note that today the BoE Chairman said of Lloyds Bank, “Such manipulation is highly reprehensible, clearly unlawful and may amount to criminal conduct.” The legal authorities have it would seem promised to consider whether they should investigate. What some people did was unlawful and those in charge are going to think about investigating.
If the Chairman of Lloyds Bank at the time of these malpractices can be allowed to accept his pension and wander off as if nothing had happened then we have the the risk to reward ratio totally wrong. I really begin to wonder whether the 80% plus tax rates of yesteryear were really such a bad idea.
What Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley all did to precipitate bankrupcy was to lend too much money to people whose prospects were uncertain and without adequate assets to underwrite the loans. (125% LTV, etc.)
Lax lending standards are definitely stupid, may well be reprehensible, but they are certainly not (currently) criminal.
With RBS and Lloyds the situtations are slightly different. RBS bought ABN Amro for cash at the top of the cycle - substantially increasing its leverage into a downturn. Stupid? Yes. But not criminal. Lloyds bought HBOS because they were asked to. Stupid? Yes. But not criminal.
Damn, Mr Robert, I always thought that there were legal rules about the conduct of company directors, indeed duties laid upon them . Perhaps, I was wrong or they just apply to little people outside the M25 not involved in financial services
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
Consider: How many Israeli civilians have been killed by the Palestinians? How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
The Israelis are clearly the power force in the region - which is why Hamas et al should have sued for peace many years ago instead of hiding behind civilians whilst pursuing terrorist acts. Are you suggesting that the victors in any war should be condemned on the basis of a number count?
I do find it grimly amusing that, according to their own website, one of the advisors to Res Publica, the body which has come up with the idea of getting bankers to swear oaths, is one Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne and, er, recently jailed for lying on oath.
A Pryce worth paying in that case
Avast, Cap'n Doc, a post worthy of a snigger or two, maybe even a damn good belly-laugh. Thank 'ee.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Have you any idea who actually pays a 'robin hood tax' - customers of the banks in the main. That'll really help the poor.
How many Israeli civilians have been killed by the Palestinians? How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
Are you suggesting the Israelis close down their missile defence systems for a few days, so that Hamas can even up the score?
We can only imagine what the media would be saying if the Israelis were doing a fraction what ISIS is doing to its enemies in Iraq, and yet we hear barely a peep about that from Jon Snow and co. even though it arguably affects people here more than what is going on in Gaza.
@Richard_Nabavi Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here. Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Thatcherism, which rescued us from being the 'sick man of Europe'. Maggie stood down 18 years before the financial crisis: it was Labour, and Labour alone, who were in control of the country for an entire decade leading up to the crisis, in the most favourable circumstances for reforming things. The responsibility is theirs.
As for what this government has done, yes, a lot of the structural problems remain. It's a bit rich of a supporter of a party which completely failed to fix the problems as they arose, and when it would have been much easier, and when money was plentiful, for the fact that they landed the coalition with a God-awful mess and no money. Of course it's taking time to fix that mess - I always said it would take three parliamentary terms.
Rescued us from being the sick man of Europe by, er, chucking 3 million on the sick?!
Should dig out the quote but I remember reading a German polician remarking (after yet another clown like British foray into the EU arena in the 90s) that the UK's employment record was indeed amazing given how sick everyone was.
This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.
Keep Karma and carry on
I suspect those backing the Draw may not be feeling so comfortable since tea.
Price hasn't moved much - from 1.8 to 2.14 after 2 quick wickets.
Will be favourite again very soon.
They'll be praying to Indra for a bit of rain in the Indian dressing room right about now.
OK but what is your point? some Jewish people are bloodthirsty islamophobes?
Did you see the video of the youths in Tel Aviv singing joyously about dead Gazan kids? It's on the prior thread.
Did you read the essay by the Deputy Leader of the Knesset calling for the ethnic cleansing of all Gaza, the slaughter of all Arabs that resist, and the repopulation of Gaza by Jews?
That was on a thread a couple of days ago.
Did you read about the Israeli women who demanded, online, that more boys should die on Gaza beaches, that "it's a shame we only killed four", “There isn’t a more beautiful picture than those of dead Arab children,” etc etc?
We discussed that a few days back.
My point is that Israel is now a country seriously diseased by racism and hatred, sick to its soul, and that Israel is now - arguably - unworthy of western support. Yet we continue to support it, ensuring a generation of Muslims will hate us, too.
And so the awful cycle will continue.
You don't think you might be extrapolating a bit much? You could probably find people on British streets who'd make those comments, you could certainly find some willing to say it about Muslim immigrants. The camera is drawn to the shocking, that doesn't mean it is the mainstream.
Don't you find it amazing that the youths singing about dead Gazan kids weren't arrested? That the police aren't looking for them? That there wasn't even a media outcry?
That says a lot about Israeli society. And none of it is good.
How do you know there wasn't a media outcry? Do you read the hebrew language papers in the country or are you just assuming? And the police don't hunt down racists in the UK either unless they show evidence of serious intent and planning. Browse YouTube for clips of EDL marchers saying terrible stuff, there's loads of it and they are rarely prosecuted.
I'm not saying Israel isn't more right-wing about security than we are, and possible racism is more prevalent. But you are assuming a huge amount from evidence which doesn't support it at all.
It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Who exactly are these 'bankers', and why would a tax on their clients - even if it raised any money, which is extremely unlikely given they can move their transactions elsewhere - mean that these mysterious 'bankers' pay for any problem?
Damn, Mr Robert, I always thought that there were legal rules about the conduct of company directors, indeed duties laid upon them . Perhaps, I was wrong or they just apply to little people outside the M25 not involved in financial services
You will find that bad business decisions, and incompetence are not criminal offences.
Fred Godwin, I'm sure, sincerely believed it was in the best interests of RBS shareholders to pay €75bn or so for ABN Amro. After all, he was largely paid in RBS options, and he would massively personally benefit from the acquisition being a success.
Time proved that it was a disastrously bad purchase that led inexorably to the multi-billion pound bailout of RBS's depositors.
If you want to change the system, the best way would be to (a) get rid of the option culture at banks which encourages excessive risk taking, and (b) require senior executives of banks to put two thirds of their post tax income into the shares of the company they run.
But criminalising stupidity simply isn't going to, and nor should it, happen.
hat says a lot about Israeli society. And none of it is good.
To be fair, Israel is a country that has lived on a knife edge for decades. It has many, many enemies, some of whom are sworn to wipe it and its people off the map for ever. Its had to face blacklists, intimidation, terrorism and even recently the threat of nuclear war. Now, American support is slipping, and ISIS is rising not far away.
Given what ISIS is doing to Iraqis, many of whom are muslims, we can only imagine what they would do to Israelis.
@Richard_Nabavi Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here. Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Thatcherism, which rescued us from being the 'sick man of Europe'. Maggie stood down 18 years before the financial crisis: it was Labour, and Labour alone, who were in control of the country for an entire decade leading up to the crisis, in the most favourable circumstances for reforming things. The responsibility is theirs.
As for what this government has done, yes, a lot of the structural problems remain. It's a bit rich of a supporter of a party which completely failed to fix the problems as they arose, and when it would have been much easier, and when money was plentiful, for the fact that they landed the coalition with a God-awful mess and no money. Of course it's taking time to fix that mess - I always said it would take three parliamentary terms.
Rescued us from being the sick man of Europe by, er, chucking 3 million on the sick?!
Should dig out the quote but I remember reading a German polician remarking (after yet another clown like British foray into the EU arena in the 90s) that the UK's employment record was indeed amazing given how sick everyone was.
Thatcher's legacy.
Bless, Ben. I am sure I remember you on here not so long ago complaining about HMG trying to get people off "The Sick" and back on the unemployment register where rather too many of them belong.
Local paper coverage of upcoming Holborn and St Pancrass selection...
Keir Starmer will get some competition....council leader Sarah Hayward is about to announce her candidacy..Assembly Member Tom Copley declares he won't run and support Hayward...CLP Chair (and former council group leader) Raj Chada is also supposed to try
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Post trying to imagine a different history accuses Tories of rewriting history.
The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
The fact you regard my perfectly calm and lucid statements as "hyperbole" shows that you are possibly suffering the same vile infection as those ludicrous, bigoted Zionists: "everything Israel does is permissible by definition, Israel must never be criticised and any criticism is rooted in anti-Semitism".
I am no friend of Islamism, as must be quite clear from my 6793 comments on this subject. But the horrors of Islamism do not excuse the sadism of Zionists, especially as it is us here in the west who will suffer the blowback, as these two poisonous ideologies collide.
Lol - 'my perfectly calm and lucid statements' - that's a keeper! The fact that anyone can boast about 6793 comments on here about anything suggests they need to get a life.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
How did the "Big Bang" (abolishing the distinction between Brokers and Jobbers) have any bearing on the financial crash of 2008?
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
Mr. M, celebrating the rise in GDP in 2009-10 after Brown gave us the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history is akin to congratulating a doctor on arresting the fall in a patient's heart rate, after they've died.
Mr. M, celebrating the rise in GDP in 2009-10 after Brown gave us the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history is akin to congratulating a doctor on arresting the fall in a patient's heart rate, after they've died.
Sinner repenteth and all that.
The scales fell from Brown's eyes all too late for the economy and his reputation.
Osborne on the other hand glories in his ignorance.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
The US has done better than us post 2009 for three main reasons:
1. It is benefiting hugely from increased natural gas and oil production 2. The US has not delevered (i.e. reduced private sector debt) to the same extent as the UK (or Europe, for that matter). 3. The desire of China, Russia and others to diversify away from the dollar, has led to their currency being relatively weak, boosting exports
'Austerity' or otherwise has had nothing to do with it.
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
I have noted the edict from Yahweh, aka Mike Smithson, and will resist further comment on That Subject, even if it is a tiny bit more stimulating that the umpteenth discussion of "who is to blame for the cuts".
Peace to all, I'm off to Primrose Hill for a walk. shalom.
Damn, Mr Robert, I always thought that there were legal rules about the conduct of company directors, indeed duties laid upon them . Perhaps, I was wrong or they just apply to little people outside the M25 not involved in financial services
You will find that bad business decisions, and incompetence are not criminal offences.
Fred Godwin, I'm sure, sincerely believed it was in the best interests of RBS shareholders to pay €75bn or so for ABN Amro. After all, he was largely paid in RBS options, and he would massively personally benefit from the acquisition being a success.
Time proved that it was a disastrously bad purchase that led inexorably to the multi-billion pound bailout of RBS's depositors.
If you want to change the system, the best way would be to (a) get rid of the option culture at banks which encourages excessive risk taking, and (b) require senior executives of banks to put two thirds of their post tax income into the shares of the company they run.
But criminalising stupidity simply isn't going to, and nor should it, happen.
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country: 1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and 2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.
And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.
That wasn't the Red Flag, Mr Llama. IIRC correctly I quoted the chorus to "She was poor but she was honest". Which I recall from student days! The words, but not the tune!
You are absolutely right, Mr. Cole and I apologise unreservedly for any offence my stupid mistake may have given. I should have known better, indeed I do. My only plea in mitigation was that at the time I was trying to remember who write "Anything Goes". My first memory was that it was Arthur Anderson.
Thank you Mr Llama; we can now get back to agreeing that the probity of some members of the banking fraternity seem to compare badly with that of Gypsy horse-dealers.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
The US has done better than us post 2009 for three main reasons:
1. It is benefiting hugely from increased natural gas and oil production 2. The US has not delevered (i.e. reduced private sector debt) to the same extent as the UK (or Europe, for that matter). 3. The desire of China, Russia and others to diversify away from the dollar, has led to their currency being relatively weak, boosting exports
'Austerity' or otherwise has had nothing to do with it.
I think the TARP was much more successful at recapitalising banks than our bailout scheme. That definitely helped them recover earlier.
"Austerity" is merely the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Austerity in the Uk means moving slightly towards living within our means - but not much.
The UK’s austerity policy is ideologically driven and is aimed at diverting finance from the poor to the rich under the pretext of the economic crisis.
"Austerity" is merely the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Austerity in the Uk means moving slightly towards living within our means - but not much.
The UK’s austerity policy is ideologically driven and is aimed at diverting finance from the poor to the rich under the pretext of the economic crisis.
It's not doing a very good job of diverting money from poor to rich. Income differentials have narrowed slightly since 2010.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
The US has done better than us post 2009 for three main reasons:
1. It is benefiting hugely from increased natural gas and oil production 2. The US has not delevered (i.e. reduced private sector debt) to the same extent as the UK (or Europe, for that matter). 3. The desire of China, Russia and others to diversify away from the dollar, has led to their currency being relatively weak, boosting exports
'Austerity' or otherwise has had nothing to do with it.
Fiscal tightening has been similar in both the US and UK.
"... we can now get back to agreeing that the probity of some members of the banking fraternity seem to compare badly with those of Gypsy horse-dealers."
That is really an unfair remark. A gypsy horse-dealer who gets found out before he can get away expects his victim to turn up with an iron bar and require restitution. A City type, witness here TCS1000s posts, who is caught out expects to be able to say, "I was stupid" and walk away with his bonuses and/or pension intact.
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
The US has done better than us post 2009 for three main reasons:
1. It is benefiting hugely from increased natural gas and oil production 2. The US has not delevered (i.e. reduced private sector debt) to the same extent as the UK (or Europe, for that matter). 3. The desire of China, Russia and others to diversify away from the dollar, has led to their currency being relatively weak, boosting exports
'Austerity' or otherwise has had nothing to do with it.
I think the TARP was much more successful at recapitalising banks than our bailout scheme. That definitely helped them recover earlier.
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Surely it's those who actually carry out any fraud who should be prosecuted? We seem to have into the bizarre mindset that bank's shareholders - who are completely innocent, and have no effective control anyway - should be fined for the actions of individuals that they knew nothing about. Nor did, typically, the directors know anything about the frauds.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
"... we can now get back to agreeing that the probity of some members of the banking fraternity seem to compare badly with those of Gypsy horse-dealers."
That is really an unfair remark. A gypsy horse-dealer who gets found out before he can get away expects his victim to turn up with an iron bar and require restitution. A City type, witness here TCS1000s posts, who is caught out expects to be able to say, "I was stupid" and walk away with his bonuses and/or pension intact.
Perhaps. I am reminded of Ernest Saunders, the only known case of a recovery from Alzheimers!
"... The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment ..."
How the f*** do you work that out? The regulatory regime was put in place following the 1997 election. The "Big Bang", which was actually about dissolving vested interests and not about banking, happened in the mid-1980s.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
It didn't prevent the collapses, but it did what a supervisory regime should do: contain the problem so it doesn't infect the whole banking system. It was removing that supervisory role, leaving no-one in charge of systematic integrity, which was Brown's uniquely stupid contribution to the history of banking regulation.
"... The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment ..."
How the f*** do you work that out? The regulatory regime was put in place following the 1997 election. The "Big Bang", which was actually about dissolving vested interests and not about banking, happened in the mid-1980s.
The *previous* regime, which Brown replaced, was designed for the pre-Big Bang era and had failed to stop .... In other words, Brown had not scrapped a working regime. (Clearly, he did not create one either.)
The government at the time of the financial crash happened to be Labour.In other parts of the world hit at the time were of many political persuasions but all of them were stuck in the neo-liberal version of capitalism,which would have been much worse under the Tories because they were demanding even less light-touch regulation than Gordon Brown.This started in the UK with Mrs Thatcher and her Big Bang and continued under Blair and Brown.However,when the crash hit I thank the heavens Gordon Brown,who proved very capable,rather than George Osborne,was the man in charge. The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Even if it was "the bankers" and not the politicians who created the crazy banking rules they were following, the fact that Labour knighted those same people for services to banking means they cannot be absolved of blame.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
The worldwide recovery in 2009-10 was orchestrated by Brown to a large extent, supported Obama's rejection of austerity which still holds today - and which is responsible for the US leaving the UK standing in the economic dust.
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
Amazing ignorance. The USA is cutting its defene spending and its cutting its non defence non discretionary spending as well. over a 10m year poeriod, assuming it is successful this will amount to $1 trillions in savings. Studies in America show the same thing that labour are peddling - 'that the recovery has passed me by'. Govt policies are seen as helping the banks business and the wealthy - under Obama. http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/12/five-years-after-market-crash-u-s-economy-seen-as-no-more-secure/
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Surely it's those who actually carry out any fraud who should be prosecuted? We seem to have into the bizarre mindset that bank's shareholders - who are completely innocent, and have no effective control anyway - should be fined for the actions of individuals that they knew nothing about. Nor did, typically, the directors know anything about the frauds.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
Aren't directors of a company supposed to be aware of what's going on? And if they are not, in the sense that it happened below their level, surely SOMEONE knows. The whole point of the Leeson case was that he spent some time and effort in covering up his actions so that he alone was responsible. Surely such activities as PPI misselling were known to and, importantly, authorised by someone, in the various organisations.
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Surely it's those who actually carry out any fraud who should be prosecuted? We seem to have into the bizarre mindset that bank's shareholders - who are completely innocent, and have no effective control anyway - should be fined for the actions of individuals that they knew nothing about. Nor did, typically, the directors know anything about the frauds.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
Absolutely, Mr. N, that is where I started from and where I still stand. Mr Robert, seemingly, took the view that if no one investigated that was fine because the directors, paid vast packages, were probably guilty of no more than stupidity. Of course if there were proper investigations then it might turn out that directors, of even big banks, might be culpable and that would never do.
I am also a simple chap and so I know that before you can prosecute you have to investigate. I also have this weird and old fashioned belief that as a leader you can delegate authority but never responsibility. So actually, in my simple, old-fashioned way I'd like to see those who are happy to take massive "compensation" packages held to account for their actions.
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Surely it's those who actually carry out any fraud who should be prosecuted? We seem to have into the bizarre mindset that bank's shareholders - who are completely innocent, and have no effective control anyway - should be fined for the actions of individuals that they knew nothing about. Nor did, typically, the directors know anything about the frauds.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
Absolutely, Mr. N, that is where I started from and where I still stand. Mr Robert, seemingly, took the view that if no one investigated that was fine because the directors, paid vast packages, were probably guilty of no more than stupidity. Of course if there were proper investigations then it might turn out that directors, of even big banks, might be culpable and that would never do.
I am also a simple chap and so I know that before you can prosecute you have to investigate. I also have this weird and old fashioned belief that as a leader you can delegate authority but never responsibility. So actually, in my simple, old-fashioned way I'd like to see those who are happy to take massive "compensation" packages held to account for their actions.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. That, after all, is an essential part of "leadership".
Point of order: Robin Hood wanted lower taxation, not higher.
A Robin Hood Tax is like Genghis Khan Pacifism.
True but it misses the point about Labour. Labour will pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money. Its not taxes which will be bad enough - they will spend money anyway even if not covered by taxes.
Mr. Robert, Criminalising stupidity is, I agree, a bad idea. However, the problem with the City is that directors can squawk, "I was an idiot" every time they get caught out and nobody seems interested in investigating. In the guide you so helpfully provided are clauses that many in the Financial Sector would seem to have ignored. The problem would seem to be one of proving Mens Rea, but even that has not been attempted because no criminal investigation appears to have taken place. Will the directors of Lloyds Bank at the time of the Repo rate scandal even be interviewed under caution?
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Surely it's those who actually carry out any fraud who should be prosecuted? We seem to have into the bizarre mindset that bank's shareholders - who are completely innocent, and have no effective control anyway - should be fined for the actions of individuals that they knew nothing about. Nor did, typically, the directors know anything about the frauds.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
Absolutely, Mr. N, that is where I started from and where I still stand. Mr Robert, seemingly, took the view that if no one investigated that was fine because the directors, paid vast packages, were probably guilty of no more than stupidity. Of course if there were proper investigations then it might turn out that directors, of even big banks, might be culpable and that would never do.
I am also a simple chap and so I know that before you can prosecute you have to investigate. I also have this weird and old fashioned belief that as a leader you can delegate authority but never responsibility. So actually, in my simple, old-fashioned way I'd like to see those who are happy to take massive "compensation" packages held to account for their actions.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. That, after all, is an essential part of "leadership".
Yet no-one has even come up with the slightest indication of what crime has been committed and by whom.
Come on. Let's talk about Bank A, which went bust in 2009 after lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.
It's a totally made up bank, so no danger of us libelling anyone.
Who in this fictional bank has committed what offence.
I know there's been no 'investigation'. But give me a general outline of what kind of law you think might have been broken and by whom?
Robin Hood wanted lower taxes on the poor. He robbed the rich to compensate for inequitable taxation.
The original Robin Hood ballads do not contain a single example of the robbery of a secular lord. Nor are the proceeds of a robbery ever given to the poor.
"Aren't directors of a company supposed to be aware of what's going on?"
Yes unless they claim to be stupid, in which case it is OK
"And if they are not, in the sense that it happened below their level, surely SOMEONE knows."
Probably, but as long as the directors pretend they are stupid everything will be fine. Everyone in the company can claim their pay and bonuses. If the wheel does fall off and the company is exposed as a bunch of thieves and crooks then the shareholders will pay the fine, the directors will retire (on full pension) because they were too thick to know what was going on, a new bunch of idiots will be hired and we can carry on with our next scam.
"What can the government do about this?"
Well, actually enforcing the law would be a good starter for ten. One radical solution would be to grant banking licences only to honest companies (that would get a good clear out going).
Aren't directors of a company supposed to be aware of what's going on? And if they are not, in the sense that it happened below their level, surely SOMEONE knows. The whole point of the Leeson case was that he spent some time and effort in covering up his actions so that he alone was responsible. Surely such activities as PPI misselling were known to and, importantly, authorised by someone, in the various organisations.
PPI misselling is an interesting one. It seems to be rather a case of retrospective regulation. All the banks were doing it, the compliance officers were presumably happy, the FSA (one imagines) knew all about it - if they didn't, what the hell were their 4,000 staff up to? It is not as though it was a secret, it was all out in the open. So, yes, it was authorised - that's because they thought it was OK and presumably thought the regulators were happy with it. It would have been a reasonable assumption at the time.
It's a very different case from Nick Leeson concealing his trades, where there was straightforward dishonesty. The primary (criminal) responsibility was, as you say, his, and he went to jail for it. The Barings directors were completely innocent of any deliberate wrong-doing, but some of them were negligent in their duty of care, in particular by failing to notice the odd pattern of (by Barings' standard) vast amounts of money having to be sent to Singapore to cover margin calls.
The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
Consider: How many Israeli civilians have been killed by the Palestinians? How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
Consider: Hamas's intention to harm and injury civilians by firing rockets indiscriminantly into town centres Israel's attempt, at least to some extent, to try and minimise civilian casulties
PBTories in full chorus supporting rotten banks and Big Business I see. Music to Labour's ears.
On topic, I don't see 33% exclusively blaming Labour as much of a barrier to Ed's majority. Clearly with that mindset they're never going to vote Labour no matter what.
The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
Consider: How many Israeli civilians have been killed by the Palestinians? How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
Consider: Hamas's intention to harm and injury civilians by firing rockets indiscriminantly into town centres Israel's attempt, at least to some extent, to try and minimise civilian casulties
Hmmm...is that why only 3 Israeli civilians are dead versus close to 1000 Palestinian civilians?
This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country: 1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and 2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.
And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
I get it! None of the changes that Brown and Ball matter!
This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country: 1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and 2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.
And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
I get it! None of the changes that Brown and Ball matter!
It's all Fatcha's fault!
No it's all Bwowns fault! He was maaad and spent all the munney!
"Yet no-one has even come up with the slightest indication of what crime has been committed and by whom."
Mr. Robert I refer you to the document you referenced earlier. If you feel the behaviour of some senior members of our banking community may not have breached some of those legal duties, well that is up to you. I think on the other hand that there is plenty to suggest they did, but no investigation took place!
Your idea seems to be that we can excuse everyone from any culpability because they were too thick to know what they were doing, seems bizarre to me. If the City employs a lot of very stupid people at very high salaries that their intellectual, let alone leadership, capacity does not justify, then lets tax the buggers back to the minimum wage.
With regard to the current Lloyds Bank Scandal, given that we have the Chairman of the BoE saying the Bank's conduct was illegal, how can there not be action by the police/SFO and the Bank itself. There are bonuses and pensions there that ought to be at risk, or maybe they were all too stupid..
This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country: 1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and 2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.
And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
I get it! None of the changes that Brown and Ball matter!
It's all Fatcha's fault!
None of the changes Brown made caused the global financial meltdown.
"... The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment ..."
How the f*** do you work that out? The regulatory regime was put in place following the 1997 election. The "Big Bang", which was actually about dissolving vested interests and not about banking, happened in the mid-1980s.
The *previous* regime, which Brown replaced, was designed for the pre-Big Bang era and had failed to stop .... In other words, Brown had not scrapped a working regime. (Clearly, he did not create one either.)
No, It wasn't.
The SFA was created in the mid 90s to unite the old regime & was pretty effective.
It was only when Brown hamstrung the Bank of England and refocused the FSA (his creation) on consumer protection that prudential supervision began to lag & systemic risk was reintroduced.
You mention Barings as a good example: I think it was a great example of the old system more of less working (my Dad had a bunch of meetings with Eddie George at the time). A bank employee took unauthorised risks. The Directors were culpable because they didn't monitor, supervise or understand the risks they were running. The shareholders were wiped out. The system was unaffected. The only bit that still causes grave annoyance is that the perpetual debt holders were also wiped out: on a theoretical basis that is absolutely right, but the holders were almost entirely charities who suffered hugely - you would have hoped (the sums weren't that large)
The move back to having the PRA and the FCA is a good thing. I shall refrain all temptation to express my views on the relative merits of the two organisations.
"PBTories in full chorus supporting rotten banks and Big Business I see."
Oi! I have been lumped in here as a PBTory often enough but I have just spent the last hour or so suggesting that Senior Bankers actually be held to account for their actions. My principle opponent, if I may use the word in this context, is a fellow who has, to my knowledge, never been accused of being a Tory.
Your idea seems to be that we can excuse everyone from any culpability because they were too thick to know what they were doing, seems bizarre to me. If the City employs a lot of very stupid people at very high salaries that their intellectual, let alone leadership, capacity does not justify, then lets tax the buggers back to the minimum wage.
With regard to the current Lloyds Bank Scandal, given that we have the Chairman of the BoE saying the Bank's conduct was illegal, how can there not be action by the police/SFO and the Bank itself. There are bonuses and pensions there that ought to be at risk, or maybe they were all too stupid..
Fortunately, we do not live in a country where the mere assertion that wrongdoing occurred by an employee of the state is equivalent to an indictment, or indeed, a conviction for an offence. Stupidity is not an offence in this jurisdiction, much as it would often be convenient for it to be.
This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country: 1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and 2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.
And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
There was no working regulatory regime. The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment, and in any case had already recently failed to prevent Barings (Nick Leeson), Johnson Matthey, and BCCI.
I get it! None of the changes that Brown and Ball matter!
It's all Fatcha's fault!
None of the changes Brown made caused the global financial meltdown.
The meltdown was largely caused by too much lending against dodgy assets (mainly property for the UK) [RBS and Lloyds were cases of buying steaming piles of c**p with inadequate due diligence - for which the Directors should be culpable. They claim to have relied on their outside advisers, but that is frankly unacceptable in my view].
Brown's changes to regulation weakened the protections that *might* have led to these issues being spotted in time to prevent systemic contaigen.
Your idea seems to be that we can excuse everyone from any culpability because they were too thick to know what they were doing, seems bizarre to me. If the City employs a lot of very stupid people at very high salaries that their intellectual, let alone leadership, capacity does not justify, then lets tax the buggers back to the minimum wage.
With regard to the current Lloyds Bank Scandal, given that we have the Chairman of the BoE saying the Bank's conduct was illegal, how can there not be action by the police/SFO and the Bank itself. There are bonuses and pensions there that ought to be at risk, or maybe they were all too stupid..
Fortunately, we do not live in a country where the mere assertion that wrongdoing occurred by an employee of the state is equivalent to an indictment, or indeed, a conviction for an offence. Stupidity is not an offence in this jurisdiction, much as it would often be convenient for it to be.
Did I ever suggest anything other than an investigation, Mr Town. Action by the police/SFO means investigation and possible,eventual, prosecution in a court of law, does it not?
Anywhere I have argued for being stupid to be made a criminal offence? No. What I do argue is that a pre-investigation of stupidity should be no bar to that investigation taking place. If Sir X wants to claim he was too thick to know what was going on in his bank that is up to him. A court, if it comes to that, may believe him. The shareholders of the bank might form a view too. They might even question the corporate governance arrangements that awards multi-million packages to people with less intellectual capacity than my cat and with no more curiosity than a turd.
"RBS and Lloyds were cases of buying steaming piles of c**p with inadequate due diligence - or which the Directors should be culpable. They claim to have relied on their outside advisers, but that is frankly unacceptable in my view"
Huzzah! Someone else who is prepared to say with great rewards should come great responsibility.
BenM - "Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997."
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
The undeniable fact is that in each constituency, thousands will now have jobs - or will know people who now have jobs - they didn't have when Labour left office. Seems to me that the best Labour is going to offer in their 2015 Manifesto is something broadly in line with a continuation of what the Coalition have been doing. They may not like it - and their paymasters will hate it - but frankly, TINA.
So come May 2015, you can either vote to continue with a team that has been responsible for getting the highest rate of growth in the G8. Or you can vote for a bunch of reluctant and very recent converts to responsible money - who may just be crossing their fingers behind their backs when they say they will continue with a steady as she goes economic policy....
In the words of the very best of PB Hodges...." I can see a crossover coming....I....can see a crossover coming".
I am mentally preparing myself for Ed M as PM. I guess it won't be so bad. I think the best thing will be that all those anti-cuts protesters that are on Tv that are raging and full of hate will hopefully be cheered up and therefore hopefully there will be less rage and hate in the world.
Mr Briskin. You will not need to worry as we will be independent , he will be PM of a foreign country.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
YAWN
Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..
Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...
Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.
You mean the 11% of Scots who would cheer an English loss?
You cannot help yourself Toom. Get over it , hatred destroys you from within.
@CarlottaVance Be fair? When the English lads used to come up for the five nations, we used to boo them consistently and rub their faces in the ordure for anything up to 2 hours after the match, then get drunk with them. When England won, they did the same to us. These lads would travel up from as far away Bristol to watch the match in our local pub, go figure? But they did it for years, even if they couldn't get tickets for the match itself.
I have no doubt that's true - and the vast majority of both Scots and English are either indifferent to the other country's team's fate, or wish them well. But what malcolmg's challenged intellect cannot cope with is that twice as many Scots as English wish the other team to lose - so he adopts the usual Nat tactic of bluster and invective......
Dear Dear , get the hankies out , how pathetic can you get. You have such a chip on your shoulder it must hurt.
Aren't directors of a company supposed to be aware of what's going on? And if they are not, in the sense that it happened below their level, surely SOMEONE knows. The whole point of the Leeson case was that he spent some time and effort in covering up his actions so that he alone was responsible. Surely such activities as PPI misselling were known to and, importantly, authorised by someone, in the various organisations.
PPI misselling is an interesting one. It seems to be rather a case of retrospective regulation. All the banks were doing it, the compliance officers were presumably happy, the FSA (one imagines) knew all about it - if they didn't, what the hell were their 4,000 staff up to? It is not as though it was a secret, it was all out in the open. So, yes, it was authorised - that's because they thought it was OK and presumably thought the regulators were happy with it. It would have been a reasonable assumption at the time.
It's a very different case from Nick Leeson concealing his trades, where there was straightforward dishonesty. The primary (criminal) responsibility was, as you say, his, and he went to jail for it. The Barings directors were completely innocent of any deliberate wrong-doing, but some of them were negligent in their duty of care, in particular by failing to notice the odd pattern of (by Barings' standard) vast amounts of money having to be sent to Singapore to cover margin calls.
Sorry for the delay, been enjoying delicious meal prepared by Mrs Cole, and a rather nice NZ Sav Blanc .
As regards PPI, I'm sure many of us here had offers of credit cards, loans, etc, and if we looked at them were offered PPI. I had a credit card or two at various times but I knew that, as I was self-employed (as I was for some years) and subsequently because I was employed by the NHS, which, to the fury of some here, had an excellent support package in case of sickness etc, always knew that I should tell the vendors to go and do something unmentionable to themselves. However several vendors were very insistent indeed, basically because their salaries depended on selling these products. It seems to me that this is the nub of the problem; small basic salaries, with "reasonableness" depending on commission levels. Those who set up such employment contracts bear a heavy responsibility; perhaps there's an element of "unintended consequences" but isn't that, effectively, what manslaughter is?
"Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."
"RBS and Lloyds were cases of buying steaming piles of c**p with inadequate due diligence - or which the Directors should be culpable. They claim to have relied on their outside advisers, but that is frankly unacceptable in my view"
Huzzah! Someone else who is prepared to say with great rewards should come great responsibility.
Mr Llama: In my professional capacity I know a great deal about misbehaviour in the City, having to investigate a significant amount of it. The FCA has investigated Lloyds, the bank. They can also investigate individuals as can the SFO. Do not assume that because you do not hear of things happening they aren't. Prosecuting individuals for corporate malfeasance is not easy - and has not been easy for years and years - see, for instance, the failed prosecutions in the Townsend Thoresen Zeebrugge disaster. See, also, the failure to hold Robert Maxwell responsible for his stewardship of a public company long before he got his hands on Mirror Group.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of leadership. If people want the kudos and rewards of being a leader then they absolutely have to take the responsibilities also and cannot choose to plead stupidity or ignorance or adopt the "three monkeys" approach. Too many people in senior positions in banks (and in public life generally) have done this and this has to - and is, albeit slowly - changing.
The two main political parties are both culpable, largely because they are all too willing to accept the large revenues flowing from the City and have, for all sorts of reasons, been unwilling to regulate it effectively for fear of killing the golden goose.
What worries me about Labour's approach is this: they seem fixated on the idea that they can tax banks and bankers to pay for the things they want to spend money on. This tells me that they have not learnt their lesson because this is simply a repeat of their economic policy 1997 - 2010. Get the money from the City and spend it. Ordinary people will be happy because they get lots of goodies but don't have to pay more tax.
A well regulated financial system won't be able to produce the same level of revenues because it won't be doing the same sorts of risky trades and bankers won't be paid in cash but in shares which they won't get for years and years and banks will, anyway, have to hold much more capital so that if they go wrong the taxpayer won't have to bail them out. The golden goose doesn't exist any more in the way it used to but Labour still think it's there for the plucking. They - and the rest of us - are going to get a shock if they get into power because in order to pay for what they want all sorts of ordinary people - not just "bankers" - will have to pay a lot more and get a lot less.
BenM - "Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997."
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
The undeniable fact is that in each constituency, thousands will now have jobs - or will know people who now have jobs - they didn't have when Labour left office. Seems to me that the best Labour is going to offer in their 2015 Manifesto is something broadly in line with a continuation of what the Coalition have been doing. They may not like it - and their paymasters will hate it - but frankly, TINA.
So come May 2015, you can either vote to continue with a team that has been responsible for getting the highest rate of growth in the G8. Or you can vote for a bunch of reluctant and very recent converts to responsible money - who may just be crossing their fingers behind their backs when they say they will continue with a steady as she goes economic policy....
Headed by Ed Miliband.
Labour. Why would you take the risk?
Unfortunately people will because they believe that Labour will give them something for nothing. For many people the economy doing well and having a job is irrelevant, they just want something for nothing or as you rightly say why would you take the risk.
We all know that if Labour win in 2015 they revert to type and the tories will have to sort out the economy again when the electorate come to their senses.
Its like people in run down areas of the country who have had a 100% labour council forever and they keep voting labour and keep remainng living in a run down area and the Council does nothing for them. Its makes no sense but thats the way it is. Tory and some Liberal Council areas are mainly well maintained nice places to live. Why wouldn't those in not so nice places to live think if we have a tory council area maybe our area will become a nice place to live? Its always baffled me.
Ed Miliband did something similar when he confronted his wretched personal ratings in the opinion polls by admitting to looking weird and being useless at photo opportunities. But he tried to make these deficiencies seem like virtues by suggesting that he was bravely standing up against a ‘showbiz’ culture that was creating disillusionment with politics today.
It was inevitable, therefore, that some should ask why he had hired a voice coach, a ‘posture’ adviser, an ‘empathy’ expert, and an American spin doctor.
BenM - "Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997."
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
The undeniable fact is that in each constituency, thousands will now have jobs - or will know people who now have jobs - they didn't have when Labour left office. Seems to me that the best Labour is going to offer in their 2015 Manifesto is something broadly in line with a continuation of what the Coalition have been doing. They may not like it - and their paymasters will hate it - but frankly, TINA.
So come May 2015, you can either vote to continue with a team that has been responsible for getting the highest rate of growth in the G8. Or you can vote for a bunch of reluctant and very recent converts to responsible money - who may just be crossing their fingers behind their backs when they say they will continue with a steady as she goes economic policy....
Headed by Ed Miliband.
Labour. Why would you take the risk?
Unfortunately people will because they believe that Labour will give them something for nothing. For many people the economy doing well and having a job is irrelevant, they just want something for nothing or as you rightly say why would you take the risk.
We all know that if Labour win in 2015 they revert to type and the tories will have to sort out the economy again when the electorate come to their senses.
Its like people in run down areas of the country who have had a 100% labour council forever and they keep voting labour and keep remainng living in a run down area and the Council does nothing for them. Its makes no sense but thats the way it is. Tory and some Liberal Council areas are mainly well maintained nice places to live. Why wouldn't those in not so nice places to live think if we have a tory council area maybe our area will become a nice place to live? Its always baffled me.
Eh, you think people are desperate to live in poverty etc and if they would just vote Tory all would be well. There speaks someone who has plenty of money and no idea what it is to be poor.
PPI misselling is an interesting one. It seems to be rather a case of retrospective regulation. All the banks were doing it, the compliance officers were presumably happy, the FSA (one imagines) knew all about it - if they didn't, what the hell were their 4,000 staff up to? It is not as though it was a secret, it was all out in the open. So, yes, it was authorised - that's because they thought it was OK and presumably thought the regulators were happy with it. It would have been a reasonable assumption at the time.
Sorry for the delay, been enjoying delicious meal prepared by Mrs Cole, and a rather nice NZ Sav Blanc .
As regards PPI, I'm sure many of us here had offers of credit cards, loans, etc, and if we looked at them were offered PPI. I had a credit card or two at various times but I knew that, as I was self-employed (as I was for some years) and subsequently because I was employed by the NHS, which, to the fury of some here, had an excellent support package in case of sickness etc, always knew that I should tell the vendors to go and do something unmentionable to themselves. However several vendors were very insistent indeed, basically because their salaries depended on selling these products. It seems to me that this is the nub of the problem; small basic salaries, with "reasonableness" depending on commission levels. Those who set up such employment contracts bear a heavy responsibility; perhaps there's an element of "unintended consequences" but isn't that, effectively, what manslaughter is?
You are right that there was a lot of misselling. And where people are deceived those doing the deceiving should be held responsible.
But you also touch upon a point which has been less remarked on. People also bought. Adults did so. They could and should have read what they were buying. They could and should have taken advice. They could have said no. As I did. And you did. And quite a few others. They too bear some responsibility for their actions. They too cannot just use the line "I was stupid" or "I was ignorant and did not bother reading what I was signing." Some of them were people who ran their own companies or had responsible jobs or had advisors etc. Some of them were people who liked the idea of having something for nothing as well. Some of them were people who liked very much the idea of spending money that they had not earned or saved. Bankers were not the only ones being greedy in the 80's, 90's, 00's and thereafter.
BenM - "Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997."
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
The undeniable fact is that in each constituency, thousands will now have jobs - or will know people who now have jobs - they didn't have when Labour left office. Seems to me that the best Labour is going to offer in their 2015 Manifesto is something broadly in line with a continuation of what the Coalition have been doing. They may not like it - and their paymasters will hate it - but frankly, TINA.
So come May 2015, you can either vote to continue with a team that has been responsible for getting the highest rate of growth in the G8. Or you can vote for a bunch of reluctant and very recent converts to responsible money - who may just be crossing their fingers behind their backs when they say they will continue with a steady as she goes economic policy....
Headed by Ed Miliband.
Labour. Why would you take the risk?
Unfortunately people will because they believe that Labour will give them something for nothing. For many people the economy doing well and having a job is irrelevant, they just want something for nothing or as you rightly say why would you take the risk.
We all know that if Labour win in 2015 they revert to type and the tories will have to sort out the economy again when the electorate come to their senses.
Its like people in run down areas of the country who have had a 100% labour council forever and they keep voting labour and keep remainng living in a run down area and the Council does nothing for them. Its makes no sense but thats the way it is. Tory and some Liberal Council areas are mainly well maintained nice places to live. Why wouldn't those in not so nice places to live think if we have a tory council area maybe our area will become a nice place to live? Its always baffled me.
Eh, you think people are desperate to live in poverty etc and if they would just vote Tory all would be well. There speaks someone who has plenty of money and no idea what it is to be poor.
How do you know my personal circumstances?
I live in Eastleigh, its Lib Dem, and will remain Lib Dem, because it is a very well run council and a really nice place to live. Its logical.
What i dont understand are areas where Labour have been 100% in power for decades and the area remains run down and not a nice place to live yet it remains 100% labour.That seems illogical to me. Why dont people vote for change.
BenM - "Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997."
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
Headed by Ed Miliband.
Labour. Why would you take the risk?
area maybe our area will become a nice place to live? Its always baffled me.
Eh, you think people are desperate to live in poverty etc and if they would just vote Tory all would be well. There speaks someone who has plenty of money and no idea what it is to be poor.
How do you know my personal circumstances?
I live in Eastleigh, its Lib Dem, and will remain Lib Dem, because it is a very well run council and a really nice place to live. Its logical.
What i dont understand are areas where Labour have been 100% in power for decades and the area remains run down and not a nice place to live yet it remains 100% labour.That seems illogical to me. Why dont people vote for change.
Ed Miliband did something similar when he confronted his wretched personal ratings in the opinion polls by admitting to looking weird and being useless at photo opportunities. But he tried to make these deficiencies seem like virtues by suggesting that he was bravely standing up against a ‘showbiz’ culture that was creating disillusionment with politics today.
It was inevitable, therefore, that some should ask why he had hired a voice coach, a ‘posture’ adviser, an ‘empathy’ expert, and an American spin doctor.
I meant to comment on something similar posted earlier. By raising Ed's "image problem", Labour and Ed must be hoping for something akin to an exorcism, in so far as, even success entails people talking about it - talking about it now, that is, rather than later. Therein lies the gamble. If nobody had responded to his speech, it would definitely have failed; now, the die has been cast.
"Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."
Superficially my guess is that study is drawing a distinction between formal CRA loans and the general zeitgeist that the CRA has become a symbol of.
A well regulated financial system won't be able to produce the same level of revenues because it won't be doing the same sorts of risky trades and bankers won't be paid in cash but in shares which they won't get for years and years and banks will, anyway, have to hold much more capital so that if they go wrong the taxpayer won't have to bail them out. The golden goose doesn't exist any more in the way it used to but Labour still think it's there for the plucking. They - and the rest of us - are going to get a shock if they get into power because in order to pay for what they want all sorts of ordinary people - not just "bankers" - will have to pay a lot more and get a lot less.
A very fine post, Mrs Free, especially, if I may say so, the final paragraph. However, I have to ask why have so few people been held to account for their actions. Mr Robert says its because the were just too stupid to know what they were doing , or rather not doing. Well I don't accept that. If Sir X was as thick as two short planks what was he doing in the job, how did he get it, who appointed him?
Full respect to you, Mrs Free, but the scale of fraud and corruption in the financial sector and the lack of convictions are out of sync. The latest scandal, the one at Lloyds Bank, nobody has been convicted which is fair enough because nobody has been charged. Fine and dandy. That a criminal investigation has not yet taken place is an outrage! The SFO say they are thinking about starting one. What! Really after all this time and all the stories and figures that have been flying around it takes the Governor of the Bank of England to say that the Lloyds Bank's employees behaved unlawfully before the SFO declares that it is thinking about starting an investigation. Gimmie a break.
Whisper a word that Sir X might have touched a fifteen year-old's breast 20 years ago and he would be in the cells faster than you could say, "Fraud". Actually expose a multi-million pound fraud that occurred in Sir X's company whilst he was in charge and getting paid millions for being so... Well, its all so difficult isn't it? X wasn't terribly bright. How do we prove mens rea or even negligence. Best let him just retire, don't want a fuss or a scandal.
By raising Ed's "image problem", Labour and Ed must be hoping for something akin to an exorcism
It was insanity
They briefed that there was going to be a summer campaign. Relentless push on the NHS, every day.
Day 1: "Our Leader is Weird! It's Official!!!"
WTF as the kids are saying
Once a narrative (or dare I say a 'meme') is established, it is difficult to challenge by merely repeating it. What you really need to do is encourage a different viewpoint; frame the debate in a different way. The Tories can't say "Yes, we're the nasty party, but..." because they won't get further than the second comma. So no it won't work, IMO.
You are right that there was a lot of misselling. And where people are deceived those doing the deceiving should be held responsible.
But you also touch upon a point which has been less remarked on. People also bought. Adults did so. They could and should have read what they were buying.
Up to a point. I once joined a company whose pension advisers were selling guaranteed income if a staff member fell ill. The adviser sent me a strongly-worded standard letter saying that I'd surely want to take this superb offer.
I quite like reading small print, because I'm allergic to being had, and discovered a clause which completely ruled me out from benefiting, for a reason that the adviser will have been aware of. I frostily pointed it out, and got an abject apology. Then, a year later, I discovered that the company pension fund was predicting double the benefit that it was really offering (they were double-counting contributions). Feeling a bit of a troublemaker, I pointed this out too, and got another apology and corrected statements for everyone in the company.
I'm prepared to believe that both were accidental errors, and I took no further action. But out of idle curiosity, could/should I have done anything, given that I'm not aware of anyone who lost by it?
Ms Cyclefree, you commented that you had considerable experience in City regulation and I have no doubt that you are right when you say prosecution, under the system in UK, is difficult, if not frequently impossible. Actually getting evidence, and possibly more importantly, witnesses who will stand up in Court is, I am sure incredibly difficult. However, I have to agree with Mr Llama when he says that, and I quote "Whisper a word that Sir X might have touched a fifteen year-old's breast 20 years ago and he would be in the cells faster than you could say, "Fraud". Similarly Mrs Y takes £5k fraudulently in benefits and is jailed for it. I'm a subscriber to Private Eye, and while I take that published there with a considerable pinch of salt, I do find myself concerned that issue after issue City frauds, or at least sharp practice are reported and SFA is, apparently, done about it.
The problem, to some extent, Is what is visible to the general public; sharp practice or indeed obvious illegality in the City is "got away with".
A well regulated financial system won't be able to produce the same level of revenues because it won't be doing the same sorts of risky trades and bankers won't be paid in cash but in shares which they won't get for years and years and banks will, anyway, have to hold much more capital so that if they go wrong the taxpayer won't have to bail them out. The golden goose doesn't exist any more in the way it used to but Labour still think it's there for the plucking. They - and the rest of us - are going to get a shock if they get into power because in order to pay for what they want all sorts of ordinary people - not just "bankers" - will have to pay a lot more and get a lot less.
Well regulated doesn't necessarily mean heavily regulated. Set down rules, tell people that they have to follow them, and check that they have. Asking them to fill in endless forms asserting that they have is pointless.
City regulation is in a worse place than it was before big bang. Misdemeanours such as filling in forms incorrectly - yep, you're all over that. Insider trading? Not a clue.
Comments
The Tories have been allowed to rewrite history and will have borrowed,with LibDem help, more in 5 years than Labour did in 13.
It was greedy bankers who caused the problem and they must pay with a Robin Hood Tax to help the poor.
Belike.
How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
Are you suggesting the Israelis close down their missile defence systems for a few days, so that Hamas can even up the score?
We can only imagine what the media would be saying if the Israelis were doing a fraction what ISIS is doing to its enemies in Iraq, and yet we hear barely a peep about that from Jon Snow and co. even though it arguably affects people here more than what is going on in Gaza.
Should dig out the quote but I remember reading a German polician remarking (after yet another clown like British foray into the EU arena in the 90s) that the UK's employment record was indeed amazing given how sick everyone was.
Thatcher's legacy.
I'm not saying Israel isn't more right-wing about security than we are, and possible racism is more prevalent. But you are assuming a huge amount from evidence which doesn't support it at all.
You will find that bad business decisions, and incompetence are not criminal offences.
Fred Godwin, I'm sure, sincerely believed it was in the best interests of RBS shareholders to pay €75bn or so for ABN Amro. After all, he was largely paid in RBS options, and he would massively personally benefit from the acquisition being a success.
Time proved that it was a disastrously bad purchase that led inexorably to the multi-billion pound bailout of RBS's depositors.
If you want to change the system, the best way would be to (a) get rid of the option culture at banks which encourages excessive risk taking, and (b) require senior executives of banks to put two thirds of their post tax income into the shares of the company they run.
But criminalising stupidity simply isn't going to, and nor should it, happen.
To be fair, Israel is a country that has lived on a knife edge for decades. It has many, many enemies, some of whom are sworn to wipe it and its people off the map for ever. Its had to face blacklists, intimidation, terrorism and even recently the threat of nuclear war. Now, American support is slipping, and ISIS is rising not far away.
Given what ISIS is doing to Iraqis, many of whom are muslims, we can only imagine what they would do to Israelis.
Keir Starmer will get some competition....council leader Sarah Hayward is about to announce her candidacy..Assembly Member Tom Copley declares he won't run and support Hayward...CLP Chair (and former council group leader) Raj Chada is also supposed to try
A Robin Hood Tax is like Genghis Khan Pacifism.
Gordon Brown created the circumstances that led to the size of the disaster in the UK. He deserves no credit for trying to fix his own mess
http://isteve.blogspot.se/2013/04/minority-mortgage-meltdown-in-atlanta.html?m=1
http://isteve.blogspot.se/2013/04/minority-mortgage-meltdown-in-prince.html?m=1
http://takimag.com/article/the_diversity_recession/print#axzz38sA3nzJd
Meanwhile in Europe, the UK was myopic enough to allow Osborne access to the tiller, he was instrumental in urging European leaders to follow an austerian path (wisely rejected by Obama), so it is Osborne who should share some of the blame for the catastrophe that followed in the eurozone throughout 2011-12 and the dismal performance of the UK economy though that period and beyond.
The scales fell from Brown's eyes all too late for the economy and his reputation.
Osborne on the other hand glories in his ignorance.
1. It is benefiting hugely from increased natural gas and oil production
2. The US has not delevered (i.e. reduced private sector debt) to the same extent as the UK (or Europe, for that matter).
3. The desire of China, Russia and others to diversify away from the dollar, has led to their currency being relatively weak, boosting exports
'Austerity' or otherwise has had nothing to do with it.
If we are not to investigate fraud and corruption by individuals then 80% plus tax levels seem justified.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 2m
@wallaceme @stephentall Checked back through accounts. This statement is in 2011, 2012 and 2013 accounts.
Thank you Mr Llama; we can now get back to agreeing that the probity of some members of the banking fraternity seem to compare badly with that of Gypsy horse-dealers.
"... we can now get back to agreeing that the probity of some members of the banking fraternity seem to compare badly with those of Gypsy horse-dealers."
That is really an unfair remark. A gypsy horse-dealer who gets found out before he can get away expects his victim to turn up with an iron bar and require restitution. A City type, witness here TCS1000s posts, who is caught out expects to be able to say, "I was stupid" and walk away with his bonuses and/or pension intact.
I'm a simple sort of chap. Prosecuting the guilty, not the innocent, seems a good place to start. Otherwise all you will do is prevent honest people becoming directors in the first place. Why should they take the risk that they would take the rap for the crimes of some guy they've never met or even heard of?
"... The regulatory regime was designed for a pre-Big Bang environment ..."
How the f*** do you work that out? The regulatory regime was put in place following the 1997 election. The "Big Bang", which was actually about dissolving vested interests and not about banking, happened in the mid-1980s.
The USA is cutting its defene spending and its cutting its non defence non discretionary spending as well. over a 10m year poeriod, assuming it is successful this will amount to $1 trillions in savings.
Studies in America show the same thing that labour are peddling - 'that the recovery has passed me by'. Govt policies are seen as helping the banks business and the wealthy - under Obama.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/12/five-years-after-market-crash-u-s-economy-seen-as-no-more-secure/
I am also a simple chap and so I know that before you can prosecute you have to investigate. I also have this weird and old fashioned belief that as a leader you can delegate authority but never responsibility. So actually, in my simple, old-fashioned way I'd like to see those who are happy to take massive "compensation" packages held to account for their actions.
Labour will pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money. Its not taxes which will be bad enough - they will spend money anyway even if not covered by taxes.
Come on. Let's talk about Bank A, which went bust in 2009 after lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.
It's a totally made up bank, so no danger of us libelling anyone.
Who in this fictional bank has committed what offence.
I know there's been no 'investigation'. But give me a general outline of what kind of law you think might have been broken and by whom?
"Aren't directors of a company supposed to be aware of what's going on?"
Yes unless they claim to be stupid, in which case it is OK
"And if they are not, in the sense that it happened below their level, surely SOMEONE knows."
Probably, but as long as the directors pretend they are stupid everything will be fine. Everyone in the company can claim their pay and bonuses. If the wheel does fall off and the company is exposed as a bunch of thieves and crooks then the shareholders will pay the fine, the directors will retire (on full pension) because they were too thick to know what was going on, a new bunch of idiots will be hired and we can carry on with our next scam.
"What can the government do about this?"
Well, actually enforcing the law would be a good starter for ten. One radical solution would be to grant banking licences only to honest companies (that would get a good clear out going).
It's a very different case from Nick Leeson concealing his trades, where there was straightforward dishonesty. The primary (criminal) responsibility was, as you say, his, and he went to jail for it. The Barings directors were completely innocent of any deliberate wrong-doing, but some of them were negligent in their duty of care, in particular by failing to notice the odd pattern of (by Barings' standard) vast amounts of money having to be sent to Singapore to cover margin calls.
Hamas's intention to harm and injury civilians by firing rockets indiscriminantly into town centres
Israel's attempt, at least to some extent, to try and minimise civilian casulties
On topic, I don't see 33% exclusively blaming Labour as much of a barrier to Ed's majority. Clearly with that mindset they're never going to vote Labour no matter what.
EDIT: Ooops forgot about OGH's edict up-thread!
It's all Fatcha's fault!
Mr. Robert I refer you to the document you referenced earlier. If you feel the behaviour of some senior members of our banking community may not have breached some of those legal duties, well that is up to you. I think on the other hand that there is plenty to suggest they did, but no investigation took place!
Your idea seems to be that we can excuse everyone from any culpability because they were too thick to know what they were doing, seems bizarre to me. If the City employs a lot of very stupid people at very high salaries that their intellectual, let alone leadership, capacity does not justify, then lets tax the buggers back to the minimum wage.
With regard to the current Lloyds Bank Scandal, given that we have the Chairman of the BoE saying the Bank's conduct was illegal, how can there not be action by the police/SFO and the Bank itself. There are bonuses and pensions there that ought to be at risk, or maybe they were all too stupid..
The SFA was created in the mid 90s to unite the old regime & was pretty effective.
It was only when Brown hamstrung the Bank of England and refocused the FSA (his creation) on consumer protection that prudential supervision began to lag & systemic risk was reintroduced.
You mention Barings as a good example: I think it was a great example of the old system more of less working (my Dad had a bunch of meetings with Eddie George at the time). A bank employee took unauthorised risks. The Directors were culpable because they didn't monitor, supervise or understand the risks they were running. The shareholders were wiped out. The system was unaffected. The only bit that still causes grave annoyance is that the perpetual debt holders were also wiped out: on a theoretical basis that is absolutely right, but the holders were almost entirely charities who suffered hugely - you would have hoped (the sums weren't that large)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/bondholders-to-sue-barings-and-issuers-1.457627
The move back to having the PRA and the FCA is a good thing. I shall refrain all temptation to express my views on the relative merits of the two organisations.
"PBTories in full chorus supporting rotten banks and Big Business I see."
Oi! I have been lumped in here as a PBTory often enough but I have just spent the last hour or so suggesting that Senior Bankers actually be held to account for their actions. My principle opponent, if I may use the word in this context, is a fellow who has, to my knowledge, never been accused of being a Tory.
Brown's changes to regulation weakened the protections that *might* have led to these issues being spotted in time to prevent systemic contaigen.
Anywhere I have argued for being stupid to be made a criminal offence? No. What I do argue is that a pre-investigation of stupidity should be no bar to that investigation taking place. If Sir X wants to claim he was too thick to know what was going on in his bank that is up to him. A court, if it comes to that, may believe him. The shareholders of the bank might form a view too. They might even question the corporate governance arrangements that awards multi-million packages to people with less intellectual capacity than my cat and with no more curiosity than a turd.
Huzzah! Someone else who is prepared to say with great rewards should come great responsibility.
I'm still trying to get my head round how Labour "picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment" - by leaving office with unemployment HIGHER than they inherited.
It must be Labour economics. They are not of this dimension.....
The undeniable fact is that in each constituency, thousands will now have jobs - or will know people who now have jobs - they didn't have when Labour left office. Seems to me that the best Labour is going to offer in their 2015 Manifesto is something broadly in line with a continuation of what the Coalition have been doing. They may not like it - and their paymasters will hate it - but frankly, TINA.
So come May 2015, you can either vote to continue with a team that has been responsible for getting the highest rate of growth in the G8. Or you can vote for a bunch of reluctant and very recent converts to responsible money - who may just be crossing their fingers behind their backs when they say they will continue with a steady as she goes economic policy....
Headed by Ed Miliband.
Labour. Why would you take the risk?
"Labour. Why would you take the risk?"
Perhaps because you cannot stand Cameron?
As regards PPI, I'm sure many of us here had offers of credit cards, loans, etc, and if we looked at them were offered PPI. I had a credit card or two at various times but I knew that, as I was self-employed (as I was for some years) and subsequently because I was employed by the NHS, which, to the fury of some here, had an excellent support package in case of sickness etc, always knew that I should tell the vendors to go and do something unmentionable to themselves. However several vendors were very insistent indeed, basically because their salaries depended on selling these products.
It seems to me that this is the nub of the problem; small basic salaries, with "reasonableness" depending on commission levels. Those who set up such employment contracts bear a heavy responsibility; perhaps there's an element of "unintended consequences" but isn't that, effectively, what manslaughter is?
Meanwhile (and I don't know what your examples are saying) this is a typical example of a study of CRA loans from the (Minneapolis) Fed:
https://minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&
"Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of leadership. If people want the kudos and rewards of being a leader then they absolutely have to take the responsibilities also and cannot choose to plead stupidity or ignorance or adopt the "three monkeys" approach. Too many people in senior positions in banks (and in public life generally) have done this and this has to - and is, albeit slowly - changing.
The two main political parties are both culpable, largely because they are all too willing to accept the large revenues flowing from the City and have, for all sorts of reasons, been unwilling to regulate it effectively for fear of killing the golden goose.
What worries me about Labour's approach is this: they seem fixated on the idea that they can tax banks and bankers to pay for the things they want to spend money on. This tells me that they have not learnt their lesson because this is simply a repeat of their economic policy 1997 - 2010. Get the money from the City and spend it. Ordinary people will be happy because they get lots of goodies but don't have to pay more tax.
A well regulated financial system won't be able to produce the same level of revenues because it won't be doing the same sorts of risky trades and bankers won't be paid in cash but in shares which they won't get for years and years and banks will, anyway, have to hold much more capital so that if they go wrong the taxpayer won't have to bail them out. The golden goose doesn't exist any more in the way it used to but Labour still think it's there for the plucking. They - and the rest of us - are going to get a shock if they get into power because in order to pay for what they want all sorts of ordinary people - not just "bankers" - will have to pay a lot more and get a lot less.
We all know that if Labour win in 2015 they revert to type and the tories will have to sort out the economy again when the electorate come to their senses.
Its like people in run down areas of the country who have had a 100% labour council forever and they keep voting labour and keep remainng living in a run down area and the Council does nothing for them. Its makes no sense but thats the way it is. Tory and some Liberal Council areas are mainly well maintained nice places to live. Why wouldn't those in not so nice places to live think if we have a tory council area maybe our area will become a nice place to live? Its always baffled me.
But you also touch upon a point which has been less remarked on. People also bought. Adults did so. They could and should have read what they were buying. They could and should have taken advice. They could have said no. As I did. And you did. And quite a few others. They too bear some responsibility for their actions. They too cannot just use the line "I was stupid" or "I was ignorant and did not bother reading what I was signing." Some of them were people who ran their own companies or had responsible jobs or had advisors etc. Some of them were people who liked the idea of having something for nothing as well. Some of them were people who liked very much the idea of spending money that they had not earned or saved. Bankers were not the only ones being greedy in the 80's, 90's, 00's and thereafter.
I live in Eastleigh, its Lib Dem, and will remain Lib Dem, because it is a very well run council and a really nice place to live. Its logical.
What i dont understand are areas where Labour have been 100% in power for decades and the area remains run down and not a nice place to live yet it remains 100% labour.That seems illogical to me. Why dont people vote for change.
I meant to comment on something similar posted earlier. By raising Ed's "image problem", Labour and Ed must be hoping for something akin to an exorcism, in so far as, even success entails people talking about it - talking about it now, that is, rather than later. Therein lies the gamble. If nobody had responded to his speech, it would definitely have failed; now, the die has been cast.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/12/did-the-community-reinvestment-act-cra-lead-to-risky-lending.html
They briefed that there was going to be a summer campaign. Relentless push on the NHS, every day.
Day 1: "Our Leader is Weird! It's Official!!!"
WTF as the kids are saying
I wonder where Ed will be for this one...
Full respect to you, Mrs Free, but the scale of fraud and corruption in the financial sector and the lack of convictions are out of sync. The latest scandal, the one at Lloyds Bank, nobody has been convicted which is fair enough because nobody has been charged. Fine and dandy. That a criminal investigation has not yet taken place is an outrage! The SFO say they are thinking about starting one. What! Really after all this time and all the stories and figures that have been flying around it takes the Governor of the Bank of England to say that the Lloyds Bank's employees behaved unlawfully before the SFO declares that it is thinking about starting an investigation. Gimmie a break.
Whisper a word that Sir X might have touched a fifteen year-old's breast 20 years ago and he would be in the cells faster than you could say, "Fraud". Actually expose a multi-million pound fraud that occurred in Sir X's company whilst he was in charge and getting paid millions for being so... Well, its all so difficult isn't it? X wasn't terribly bright. How do we prove mens rea or even negligence. Best let him just retire, don't want a fuss or a scandal.
I quite like reading small print, because I'm allergic to being had, and discovered a clause which completely ruled me out from benefiting, for a reason that the adviser will have been aware of. I frostily pointed it out, and got an abject apology. Then, a year later, I discovered that the company pension fund was predicting double the benefit that it was really offering (they were double-counting contributions). Feeling a bit of a troublemaker, I pointed this out too, and got another apology and corrected statements for everyone in the company.
I'm prepared to believe that both were accidental errors, and I took no further action. But out of idle curiosity, could/should I have done anything, given that I'm not aware of anyone who lost by it?
However, I have to agree with Mr Llama when he says that, and I quote "Whisper a word that Sir X might have touched a fifteen year-old's breast 20 years ago and he would be in the cells faster than you could say, "Fraud".
Similarly Mrs Y takes £5k fraudulently in benefits and is jailed for it.
I'm a subscriber to Private Eye, and while I take that published there with a considerable pinch of salt, I do find myself concerned that issue after issue City frauds, or at least sharp practice are reported and SFA is, apparently, done about it.
The problem, to some extent, Is what is visible to the general public; sharp practice or indeed obvious illegality in the City is "got away with".
City regulation is in a worse place than it was before big bang. Misdemeanours such as filling in forms incorrectly - yep, you're all over that. Insider trading? Not a clue.