Brown wastes more of our tax pounds on Labour propaganda website

MiserlyMartin

SGE1 wrote: »

Fine: I challenge you to find one lie on the website. A lie, by the way, is a factual inaccuracy, not just something you disagree with, just to be clear.

I will start with his claim of "I've been saying for the last ten years that we need better regulation and global coordination..." Well that is a big fat lie. In fact he did the opposite, and spoke about further DE-regulation of the banks when he was chancellor. This has been discussed in other threads on MSE.

lynzpower

And this is what bothers me. If yuu ( Yes Gordon, im talking to you) have wanted better regulation over the last 10 years, the as Chancellor of the exchequer, you would have been in the most perfect situation in which to implement it. HOwever, you didnt, because maybe you just didnt see it as that important.....

It really bothers me that we are still perpetuatiung this "it started in AMERICA" dont say its my fault it started in AMERICA.....

baileysbattlebus

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

I will start with his claim of "I've been saying for the last ten years that we need better regulation and global coordination..." Well that is a big fat lie. In fact he did the opposite, and spoke about further DE-regulation of the banks when he was chancellor. This has been discussed in other threads on MSE.

Gordon Brown has been advocating global financial regulation for at least 10 years - and no one wanted to know. Perhaps they will now.

Here is a sniippet from a speech he made in 2001 to the Federal Reserve Bank.

And I have become convinced that it is in the interests of stability - and of preventing crises in developing and emerging market countries - that we seek a new rules-based system: a reformed system of economic government under which each country, rich and poor, adopts agreed codes and standards for fiscal and monetary policy and for corporate governance.
This adoption of clear transparent procedures – essentially new rules of the game – in monetary and fiscal decisions – for example, presenting a full factual picture of the national accounts, usable central bank reserves, foreign currency borrowings, and indicators of the health of the financial sectors – would improve macroeconomic stability, deter corruption, provide to markets a flow of specific country by country information that will engender greater investor confidence and reduce the problem of contagion. And the adoption of systems and standards is important because confidence about the future is essential for there to be confidence about today.

Implementing these codes will mean radical changes in the way governments and financial markets operate. These new rules of the game are not incidental to the financial architecture for the new global economy: they are the financial architecture for the new global economy.
And, as part of this process of adopting codes and standards that help developing countries, and indeed all countries, there must be:
· An enhanced role for the IMF monitoring and reporting on the operation of codes and standards; and
· More effective systems of crisis prevention and management with support from the international community for the good performers and the private sector accepting matching commensurate responsibilities.

And as far back as 1999, in New York

• first, a framework of internationally agreed codes and standards, new economic disciplines, to be accepted and implemented by countries which participate in the international financial system;
• second, global not just national financial regulation. We need to make the international and national bodies responsible for financial sector supervision work together more effectively;
• third, a new framework for crisis prevention and crisis resolution based on a partnership between public and private sectors;
• fourth, social progress with new social principles at the IMF and World Bank, allied to our initiatives for immediate debt reduction.

don't let the facts get in the way..........................

Rochdale_Pioneers

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

don't let the facts get in the way..........................

What do the facts have to do with anything......? Brown is guilty! He personally destroyed not only our economy but everyone else's as well. You know all those broken banks littered across the world - Brown forced them to invest in stupid risks! Its all his fault.

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

don't let the facts get in the way..........................

They were speeches. Not what he has done.

Speeches are very different to actually doing something. He did the opposite of what he spoke.

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They were speeches. Not what he has done.

Speeches are very different to actually doing something. He did the opposite of what he spoke.

It's quite tough to try and implement global financial standards and regulations on your own. It takes other countries and organisations such as the IMF to do their bit too. They didn't - but they might now.

My post was to put another view to the poster who said that Gordon Brown advocating global regulation was " a big fat lie" - when in fact he has been advocating it for years.

Optimist

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Gordon Brown has been advocating global financial regulation for at least 10 years - and no one wanted to know. Perhaps they will now.

don't let the facts get in the way..........................

Facts indeed

"In Britain we – rightly – are concerned about regulation. But the same is true in America. Indeed regulation is a crucial test of the realities of globalisation: as societies around the world become more prosperous, so the demand – particularly in the developed world – for regulation and protection from risk, is everywhere rising; yet at the same time businesses increasingly have real choices about where to locate. So let me say in Britain we are determined to get this right. Last year we set out radical proposals for changing the way we regulate: minimising the administrative burdens of regulation; and ensuring that the realities of regulation, as you experience them on the ground, are transformed -- by moving away from the old blanket approach, of 100 per cent form-filling and 100 per cent inspection that is inefficient and wasteful of your time, to a new approach based on risk.
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, will ensure we achieve this. And alongside the Pre-Budget Report, I will publish an assessment setting out the reductions in the burdens of regulatory enforcement and inspection that are being driven through as a result of the new approach – helping us merge 35 regulators down into nine, by the end of this year, and abolishing ten regulatory bodies.

And we will take the fight on deregulation to Europe - an issue on which I had discussions with Chancellor Merkel last week - and my aim is to stand up for Britain and British business and economic interests in every forum of Europe --- an approach that is pro-Britain, pro-business and pro-European single market; a Europe which must move from what I call trade bloc Europe to become global Europe – open, outward looking, reforming, liberalizing, and opening up service"


Gordon Brown 5 June 2006 to the CBI
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/speech_chex_050606.htm

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

It's quite tough to try and implement global financial standards and regulations on your own. It takes other countries and organisations such as the IMF to do their bit too. They didn't - but they might now.

My post was to put another view to the poster who said that Gordon Brown advocating global regulation was " a big fat lie" - when in fact he has been advocating it for years.

He is the PM for the UK. Not the world. he shouldn't be setting global regulations, though he has a voice.

But just like every other speech GB does, contrary to what you posted above :

CBI Speech, 2005:
Our risk based approach to deregulation - outlined originally in the Hampton Report, now extends from the light touch of the Financial Services Authority right across to reducing inspections by local authorities.

Sixth, a long term approach to tax and deregulation including for Britain's 4 million small businesses

http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/32fb9342737d4d578025739f00349766?OpenDocument

That, is why it's all a big fat lie. He can speak about stuff as much as he likes, but it's not what he says, its what he does that counts. He didnt do any of what you pulled up. He did the opposite. That in itself, is lying. So you only proved the point!

I reckon he only advocates various stuff to save his own butt, so he can say, what you have, I have been saying this for years.

SGE1

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

I will start with his claim of "I've been saying for the last ten years that we need better regulation and global coordination..." Well that is a big fat lie. In fact he did the opposite, and spoke about further DE-regulation of the banks when he was chancellor. This has been discussed in other threads on MSE.

Better regulation and de-regulation are not mutually exclusive...

nickmason

SGE1 wrote: »

Better regulation and de-regulation are not mutually exclusive...

There's something we can agree on! Hurrah
Might disagree on which is which, but hey nothing lasts forever...