Comments

[Denis Cooper]

I don't need to wait for the report to know that Brown took responsibility for the "prudential supervision" away from the Bank of England and gave it to the FSA, and that the FSA fell down on that job, but somehow blame is still attached to the Bank and its governor.

Maybe because the public know his name, and his first name is unusual and easily remembered, and he's still in his post, while they haven't the first idea about the name of the man who was put in charge of the FSA but who has now sneaked off leaving a wrecked economy.

[michael mcgough]

Government too !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031946/UK-debt-Britain-plunges-danger-zone-Labours-10-year-borrowing-binge.html

How much has the deficit and national debt decreased under Cameron/Osborne ?

[Denis Cooper]

... "prudential supervision" of banks ...

[Andrew Smith]

The Financial Services Authority had all the staff it needed and it made the laws themselves for supervising banks. The banks lived within the rules and generally they survived.

The banks in biggest difficulty were Northern Rock whose internal model was defective and yet it was praised by the FSA.

Lloyds had potential difficulties with its fast grown mortgage book but it would have survived without its Brown-induced purchase of HBOS.

In short, the tools exist for supervising the banks which must themselves take the commercial decisions. The very idea that politicians could run banks is farcical, but I suppose Cameron didn't mean that - he just likes to agree with Vince Cable and get a media slot.

[It doesn't add up...]

Of course the banks are putting the economy at risk: because they have been told not to be tough on mortgages, they are being forced to use harsh terms and cut lending to businesses and on unsecured consumer credit in order to reduce their gearing. If you want the economy to prosper that needs to be rebalanced.

[Commentator]

The banks were not free from blame but for the most part, they were stoking up the credit-fuelled bubble which the LibLabCon wanted and still want: hence their ZIRP policy of robbing savers and stoking inflation. The regulators cheered the banks on and Cameron was going to share all the proceeds of that (totally illusory) growth.

The latest deluded proposal is to make it even more expensive for the banks to raise funds. This is apparently totally compatible with getting them to lend more money. It also ignores the fact that the banks which went bust here were not investment banks.

Can you get an Oxford 1st in PPE from a vending machime these days?