NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
'Dear Chancellor - stop fighting the regulator, or make it stop fighting you!'
in Martin's blogs & appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the news
6 replies 2.8K views
Former_MSE_Paloma Former MSEForumite
This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
Read Martin's "Dear Chancellor - stop fighting the regulator, or make it stop fighting you!" Blog.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Energy Price Cap change
Martin Lewis on what it means for youMSE News
Best £1 you've ever spent?
Share your most impressive bargainsMSE Forum
New MSE Forum avatars available
Try 'em out nowMSE Forum
I'm not, it's the standard MO of the UK.
A regulator is going to be around for a long time. It should therefore take a long term view, look at consequences of the actions of government and providers (be they mortgage, energy etc), and propose and enforce codes of practice and conduct which exist to protect Mr & Mrs Taxpayer over the long term.
The government, as elected, has a 4 year time span to work. Therefore, whilst it has the most power in this group, it is also intrisically short-term baised - it needs to act in a way that benefits people tomorrow, rather than 5 years down the line. Which is why, in my view, it's really stupid that we leave long term decisions like energy policy to the government, rather than a long term entitiy like the regulator and utilities.
The government is in a position to influence behaviour via short term incentives, together with the providers. However, it also needs to allow the regulator to do its job over the longer term. So whilst the government for instance is offering help to buy, to get people on the property ladder tomorrow, the regulator is crying out "this all happened 6 years ago, and we had a sub-prime mortgage crash in 2008. Stop lending to people who can barely afford repayments at todays ridiculously low interest rate!"
So whilst help-to-buy is popular with the current taxpayers presently, the government needs to ensure that it's short term goals don't come at the expense of the long term goals. Unfortunately, time and time again, the short-term goals get the priority and completely destroy the long term goals. Which is why we're going to be getting rolling powercuts sometime next year - because short termism won in energy policy, rather than proper long-term planning. And you can't just build a new power station tomorrow. Some would say that's because the govenment, and not Ofgem and the utilities, had the keys to the energy policy box.
So I believe regulators need to be established, supported (even when their goals are conflicting to the government du jour) and given appropriate powers to ensure that long term goals are met and that they can survive the whims of a government trying to win votes.
However, they also need to act in a hands-off way supports their long term position - not mandating that certain things get done in a very prescriptive way, for instance, but instead ensuring that overall, the industry is working for the taxpayer and societal benefit. So for an example: a directive saying energy tarriffs must be simplified and easily comparable between companies is appropriate. Mandating a layout of an energy bill and setting a restriction of 4 tarriffs per energy company on the other hand is too far - the regulator needs to set down the most fundamental groundrules by which everyone plays. Not listing the precise specifications of the stitching on the players shoes. For a legal analogy, they should look after the spirit of the law. the letter of the law can be looked after by the short-termists like the government.
So I feel there is always going to be conflict - the regulator is a check and balance - it should create conflict when long and short term goals are badly misaligned. Whose job it is to sort this out on the other hand is a matter of opinion. Personally, i think it should be the government with the day-to-day power, but the regulator able to over-rule certain practices which are damaging to society in the long term. As it is, the government has all the power, and the regulator either toes the line or gets disbanded as a money-wasting quango. So it is dysfunctional as it stands, but there is a framework there that can work, in my humble opinon.
Good post - like your ideas around principles based regulation and long termism. The challenge is how to keep the whole system democratic and accountable while maintaining the right tension between regulator, regulated and government to try to ensure the best long term outcome for citizens.
The challenge of our current situation is that the regulations needed to be tightened in 2003 and not 2009 and since with hindsight.
The challenge seems to be is that we are not very good as individuals about thinking about the long term. We vote in governments or offer them a second term when we feel a short term benefit, even when with hindsight it was the wrong thing to do. Likewise goverments who take tough decisions and get us back on track usually get punished at the ballot box.
No BIG lenders will lend at present to Local Authority owned BLOCKS in South London anyway and this is official from COLLEYS - - the flat issue is secondary.
To say for one second, that Banks would not get their money back from a resale, should there ever have to be one, is absurd. With 24 people plus viewing a property in any one showing, their excuses and lies are lame.
- Fund for Lending lets politicians promote themselves as helping business create jobs
- Increased capital requirements lets politicians promote themselves as forcing banks to be responsible
It makes sense, when you realise the purpose of the policies is to get re-elected.
I think Mr Lewis should stick to what he does best; pointing out to consumers where they can get the best deal on washing powder or whatever, and refrain from commenting on subjects on which he clearly knows or understands very little.
So effectively we have Funding for Lending pumping money to the banks to lend out, but in reality, it’s just gone to help build their capital requirements.
Err, no. The amount of money that someone (e.g. a government) decides to deposit with (i.e.lend to) a bank has no effect at all on the amount of capital a bank possesses.