We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

LIEBOR - who's to blame

Wookster
Wookster Posts: 3,795 Forumite
in Debate House Prices & the Economy
I've just watched something on TV where Labour (Chris Leslie) are blaming the Conservatives for LIEBOR saying that they were pro "light touch" regulation.

The shamelessness of these people knows no bounds!!!
«1

Comments

  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Comrade Chris has some chutzpah.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    I reckon it'll turn out to be Gordon Brown's fault.
  • Wookster
    Wookster Posts: 3,795 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    Comrade Chris has some chutzpah.

    People talk about Tory arrogance, but it is not a patch on the likes of Ed Balls, Chris Leslie, Rachel Reeves, Chuka Umunna etc.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 29 June 2012 at 6:35PM
    every party was in favour of light touch financial regulation except the loony left who it appears have been proved correct.

    blame is now pointless

    we need to start with a new regulatory scheme that assumes

    -if corruption is possible then it's already taking place
    -chinese walls or firewalls won't work
    -all rules need reinforcing with criminal sanctions with minimum prison terms specified
    -regulators should adopt an adversarial roll on the assumption that wrong doing is taking place
    - any new innovations introduced by banks should be assumed to be fauldulent until proved otherwise


    and I'm sure there are lots more
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    But if British banks are as straight as a die, won't they be at a big disadvantage to American banks?
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • System
    System Posts: 178,423 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    CLAPTON wrote: »


    and I'm sure there are lots more


    The Regulator should not be an ex-banker.
    The Regulator must sign an undertaking that he will never work for a bank after his term of office is over.
    The Regulator will have a fixed term of office and cannot be sacked either by government or parliament.
    The Regulator will have the power to question anybody under oath, and require sight of any document he wishes, government or private.
    The Regulator will receive a fixed fee for his services, and no other benefits.
    The Regulator will receive no public honour, knighthood, etc after he has served his term of office.
    This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Clifford_Pope wrote: »
    The Regulator should not be an ex-banker.
    The Regulator must sign an undertaking that he will never work for a bank after his term of office is over.
    The Regulator will have a fixed term of office and cannot be sacked either by government or parliament.
    The Regulator will have the power to question anybody under oath, and require sight of any document he wishes, government or private.
    The Regulator will receive a fixed fee for his services, and no other benefits.
    The Regulator will receive no public honour, knighthood, etc after he has served his term of office.


    although I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure that's very practical.

    the 'regulator' himself will be very little actual regulation; that will be done by the staff

    without banking expertise they would be at a disadvantage compared to those regulated.

    etc
  • GeorgeHowell
    GeorgeHowell Posts: 2,739 Forumite
    The answer lies in calling out what is effectively fraud as a criminal offence and making it stick. If some of these wide boys started doing a drop of porridge it would make the rest sit up and think very long and hard about their modus operandus. The Americans did that in the commercial world sphere with their Sarbanes-Oxley legislation and that certainly shook some trees very hard indeed.
    No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • The_J
    The_J Posts: 1,250 Forumite
    Clifford_Pope wrote: »
    The Regulator should not be an ex-banker.

    Yeah, someone with no experience in banking is going to be a great choice...
    The Regulator must sign an undertaking that he will never work for a bank after his term of office is over.

    Fair enough.
    The Regulator will have a fixed term of office and cannot be sacked either by government or parliament.

    No-one should be unsackable. That amount of power leads to corruption.
    The Regulator will have the power to question anybody under oath, and require sight of any document he wishes, government or private.

    They can actually pretty much do this already.
    The Regulator will receive a fixed fee for his services, and no other benefits.

    Hopefully it's a high fee. Sounds like the worlds shittest job so far.
    The Regulator will receive no public honour, knighthood, etc after he has served his term of office.

    So he's literally doing it just for the money? And he's unsackable? Yeah...that would never lead to him being bribed.
    The J is a Financial Advisor-This site doesn't check anyone's status and as such any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice. Always seek professional advice.
  • thor
    thor Posts: 5,515 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Wookster wrote: »
    I've just watched something on TV where Labour (Chris Leslie) are blaming the Conservatives for LIEBOR saying that they were pro "light touch" regulation.

    The shamelessness of these people knows no bounds!!!
    Thank f*ck the CONservatives were not in power then. When all this went down they were lampooning Labour for putting in too much regulation. No doubt the tories were afraid their chums might up sticks and leave the country.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.3K Life & Family
  • 261.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture