NJS 4411 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? By doing what they are doing now after the horse has bolted. Stress testing, scrutinising bank risk profiles and exposures. I don't blame the FSA, they didn't have the expertise required to scrutinise the banks and their instruments in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 New Labour didn't have a scooby what was going on in the financial market. All they saw was pounds, shillings and pence (excuse the old terms) and [perceived] success. New Labour were as happy as sand boys whilst everything was rosy and they were terrified of the financial capital of the world going to Frankfurt (which seemed a distinct possibility around 10 years ago) so were more than happy to let things go just as long as London remained at the epicentre of world finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? By doing what they are doing now after the horse has bolted. Stress testing, scrutinising bank risk profiles and exposures. I don't blame the FSA, they didn't have the expertise required to scrutinise the banks and their instruments in detail. The BOE didn't have the expertise either - the root cause of this goes back to Thatcher and Reagan - the market knows best philosophy compounded by later slackness and encouragement of consumer greed. If 5 or 10 years ago Labour had announced large scale regulation of the city and a huge clampdown on irresponsible lending via credit cards and mortgages what do you think the reaction would have been? It would have ranged from mild "Old labour stifling growth" jibes to outright rebellion and would certainly have lost them the last election. If Cameron or Duncan Smith had won on that basis do you think there would have been more chance of the Tories preventing the crunch or Newcastle winning a trophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? By doing what they are doing now after the horse has bolted. Stress testing, scrutinising bank risk profiles and exposures. I don't blame the FSA, they didn't have the expertise required to scrutinise the banks and their instruments in detail. The BOE didn't have the expertise either - the root cause of this goes back to Thatcher and Reagan - the market knows best philosophy compounded by later slackness and encouragement of consumer greed. If 5 or 10 years ago Labour had announced large scale regulation of the city and a huge clampdown on irresponsible lending via credit cards and mortgages what do you think the reaction would have been? It would have ranged from mild "Old labour stifling growth" jibes to outright rebellion and would certainly have lost them the last election. If Cameron or Duncan Smith had won on that basis do you think there would have been more chance of the Tories preventing the crunch or Newcastle winning a trophy? There is a massive difference between the stimulating effect of deregulation introduced by the tories and the free for all credit fest we saw under labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 "Light touch regulation." Aye Gordon, "no more boom and bust!" "British jobs for British workers!" "Prudence!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17645 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 New Labour didn't have a scooby what was going on in the financial market. All they saw was pounds, shillings and pence (excuse the old terms) and [perceived] success. New Labour were as happy as sand boys whilst everything was rosy and they were terrified of the financial capital of the world going to Frankfurt (which seemed a distinct possibility around 10 years ago) so were more than happy to let things go just as long as London remained at the epicentre of world finance. Or could it be said that because the financial institutions had grown so powerful since de-regulation that they would've cheerfully held any government in the world to ransome in this way because of the nature of the global marketplace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 New Labour didn't have a scooby what was going on in the financial market. All they saw was pounds, shillings and pence (excuse the old terms) and [perceived] success. New Labour were as happy as sand boys whilst everything was rosy and they were terrified of the financial capital of the world going to Frankfurt (which seemed a distinct possibility around 10 years ago) so were more than happy to let things go just as long as London remained at the epicentre of world finance. Or could it be said that because the financial institutions had grown so powerful since de-regulation that they would've cheerfully held any government in the world to ransome in this way because of the nature of the global marketplace? Just greed basically, look where politicians and ex-politicians go for £££'s. Look at how much Blair is being paid currently in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17645 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? By doing what they are doing now after the horse has bolted. Stress testing, scrutinising bank risk profiles and exposures. I don't blame the FSA, they didn't have the expertise required to scrutinise the banks and their instruments in detail. The BOE didn't have the expertise either - the root cause of this goes back to Thatcher and Reagan - the market knows best philosophy compounded by later slackness and encouragement of consumer greed. If 5 or 10 years ago Labour had announced large scale regulation of the city and a huge clampdown on irresponsible lending via credit cards and mortgages what do you think the reaction would have been? It would have ranged from mild "Old labour stifling growth" jibes to outright rebellion and would certainly have lost them the last election. If Cameron or Duncan Smith had won on that basis do you think there would have been more chance of the Tories preventing the crunch or Newcastle winning a trophy? There is a massive difference between the stimulating effect of deregulation introduced by the tories and the free for all credit fest we saw under labour. or, in other words "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" And no one, Bank of England or FSA could've stopped them once the ball was rolling. Tories keeping their mates happy by taking a sledgehammer to financial regulation in the 80's have a lot to answer for......"Greed is good,greed works, greed is right" was supposed to be a satire, not a lifestyle for chinless twats in red braces.But they were too thick to realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21985 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Absolute rubbish, it was Labours decision to move control of the banking industry to the FSA from the BOA that allowed this to happen. Ah yes - only the UK is affected so isn't it's its obvious the root cause is the FSA. How exactly would the BofE prevented this Danny? By doing what they are doing now after the horse has bolted. Stress testing, scrutinising bank risk profiles and exposures. I don't blame the FSA, they didn't have the expertise required to scrutinise the banks and their instruments in detail. The BOE didn't have the expertise either - the root cause of this goes back to Thatcher and Reagan - the market knows best philosophy compounded by later slackness and encouragement of consumer greed. If 5 or 10 years ago Labour had announced large scale regulation of the city and a huge clampdown on irresponsible lending via credit cards and mortgages what do you think the reaction would have been? It would have ranged from mild "Old labour stifling growth" jibes to outright rebellion and would certainly have lost them the last election. If Cameron or Duncan Smith had won on that basis do you think there would have been more chance of the Tories preventing the crunch or Newcastle winning a trophy? There is a massive difference between the stimulating effect of deregulation introduced by the tories and the free for all credit fest we saw under labour. Following the lead of the USA, as always, and not directly attributable to government anyway. You're not naive enough to think the tories would have made a difference are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 There is a massive difference between the stimulating effect of deregulation introduced by the tories and the free for all credit fest we saw under labour. Possibly but the point is would any government have prevented it? If as I said at any time in the last 5 or 10 years a rule had been mooted that only people in work and eatning more than say 30k and with a cast iron credit rating could get a mortgage, personal loan or credit card what would the reaction have been? I'm not saying that that should have been done btw but even "sensible" regulation like setting fractional reserve multipliers would have been met with cries of armageddon by the banks and as a consequence the public at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15716 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Aye Gordon, "no more boom and bust!" This one's well on course, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Danny B's taxi driver is seething. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Danny B's taxi driver is seething. Obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think it's an excellent idea and a step in the right direction. I'm only disappointed it doesn't go further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Aye Gordon, "no more boom and bust!" This one's well on course, I'd say. "NO..... MORE..... BOOM!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15716 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Aye Gordon, "no more boom and bust!" This one's well on course, I'd say. "NO..... MORE..... BOOM!!!" Precisely, my dear Fopson. (God it's depressing though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 He (Brown) came out with another classic the other day following the e-mail scandal. When in Glasgow and casually apologising, he said: 'I take full responsibility, and that's why the person who was responsible has gone.' Almost a Bush-ism or Phil the Greek-ism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 He (Brown) came out with another classic the other day following the e-mail scandal. When in Glasgow and casually apologising, he said: 'I take full responsibility, and that's why the person who was responsible has gone.' Almost a Bush-ism or Phil the Greek-ism. I clocked that one too. What a lizard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Flexible labour markets are more important for business innovation and start-ups than this tax change. Seems fair to me, someone has to pay for injection of income into the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Flexible labour markets are more important for business innovation and start-ups than this tax change. Seems fair to me, someone has to pay for injection of income into the economy. You get taxed to buggery in France, don't you Chez? NZ = top rate of 39% (but no personal allowance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Flexible labour markets are more important for business innovation and start-ups than this tax change. Seems fair to me, someone has to pay for injection of income into the economy. You get taxed to buggery in France, don't you Chez? NZ = top rate of 39% (but no personal allowance). I do, which partly explains the amount of frenchmen living in london. The biggest complaint of small to medium sized business in this country is the regulation of the labour market though, not tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Flexible labour markets are more important for business innovation and start-ups than this tax change. Seems fair to me, someone has to pay for injection of income into the economy. You get taxed to buggery in France, don't you Chez? NZ = top rate of 39% (but no personal allowance). I do, which partly explains the amount of frenchmen living in london. The biggest complaint of small to medium sized business in this country is the regulation of the labour market though, not tax. Yup, health payments (by the company) and the like for workers in France are a nightmare. Can't hardly fire the fuckers either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Danny B's taxi driver is seething. Obsessed. The irony. What are you doing here again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Danny B's taxi driver is seething. Obsessed. The irony. What are you doing here again? Can't help yourself can you? Edited April 23, 2009 by Danny B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now