Question Time

StevieJ

I can't believe what Redwood just said something like the current problems were caused by amongst other things Labours failure to regulated the banks.

Just a reminder of his report from 2007.

Redwood urges bonfire of regulations

• Less regulation of the financial services industry - including deregulation of the mortgage industry.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/08/redwood-urges-b.html

Graham_Devon

Why can't you believe it? He's an MP.

Rochdale_Pioneers

StevieJ wrote: »

I can't believe what Redwood just said something like the current problems were caused by amongst other things Labours failure to regulated the banks.

Just a reminder of his report from 2007.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/08/redwood-urges-b.html

But if you are a Tory 2010 is year zero. You never said or did anything before then that disagrees with anything you say or do now and anyone who disagrees is a deficit denier.

Orpheo

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

But if you are a Tory 2010 is year zero. You never said or did anything before then that disagrees with anything you say or do now and anyone who disagrees is a deficit denier.

Quite.

The term 'deficit denier' is simply silly. I imagine these labels are thought up by some spotty, ambitious youth, with a first in PPE and no experience of an actual job. "Call them deficit deniers; it has undertones of holocaust denier and makes them sound like nazis."

In the interests of balance, nulabour had developed a habit of implying that anyone who didn't agree with their policies was evil, not to mention proposing to have their opinions (policies) enshrined in law.

They're all as bad as each other. Self-serving and narcissistic.

samtheman1k

Less regulation does not mean worse regulation...it was Labour's failure to regulate PROPERLY that is what he is referring to, not the AMOUNT of regulation.

CLAPTON

samtheman1k wrote: »

Less regulation does not mean worse regulation...it was Labour's failure to regulate PROPERLY that is what he is referring to, not the AMOUNT of regulation.

of course

which part of his 2007 report did he spell out the new (better) but shorter regulations?

IronWolf

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Really2

But the point is fairly right.

If you have regulation in place and it does noting or fails it is pointless, and you are to blame.

Just like if it was deregulated, a lack of regulation would have been to blame.

I don't think anyone now looking back does not think a poor/lack of regulation was partly to blame.

The worst thing was we were paying out for regulators who in reality took their eye well and truly off what they were suppose to be doing.

IronWolf

Who would have had the balls to stand up in 2006 and say "right, we are making it law to have a 20% deposit on a mortgage and maximum loan 3x salary. We're also making it illegal for UK banks to have more than 100 derivative contracts"

Really2

IronWolf wrote: »

Who would have had the balls to stand up in 2006 and say "right, we are making it law to have a 20% deposit on a mortgage and maximum loan 3x salary. We're also making it illegal for UK banks to have more than 100 derivative contracts"

So regulation was pointless?
That would question why the UK taxpayer footed the cost of the FSA then.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

But the point is fairly right.

If you have regulation in place and it does noting or fails it is pointless, and you are to blame.

Just like if it was deregulated, a lack of regulation would have been to blame.

i think steviej's point is that the same party that is now criticising the other party for de-regulation previously had the same de-regulation on it's agenda.

don't forget who started the whole financial sector de-regulation and it wasn't the labour party.

this isn't a Labour vs Tory post btw. for me there both as bad as each other despite most people on here thinking Labour = bad and Tories = have the answer. it's not the case unfortunately.