The Poor Treatment of Gordon Brown

1246

Comments

  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sensoria wrote: »
    So Gordon Brown has recieved 8 apologies and corrections from News International over incorrect stories about him.

    Seems to me he does a lot of good work.

    I guess so-

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_cowdenbeath#register
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    rusty123 wrote: »
    OK Windy her's a final thought....if the FSA were simply spectators devoid of any teeth or ability to step in, why did Gordon Brown stop them from interfering?
    Why did he basically set them up in the first place......all for show was it?

    Labour didn't let the FSA regulate the Banks but they're happy for Leveson to regulate the Press :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    Labour didn't let the FSA regulate the Banks but they're happy for Leveson to regulate the Press :confused:

    Please answer post #76 then. :)
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    I've never argued they were any good, they are a part of the banking system and profit from it. What I want to know, and keep asking, is...*what regulation/s did the banks break?

    To regulate is to make sure people/sectors operate inside the rules (regulations) set down by law/statute...yes?

    Regulators can't invent regulation just to stop private banks trading in a way in which they don't like...yes?

    How would a regulator or Brown or the treasury know that the financial products they were 'investing' in were rubbish?

    Can a regulator prevent a bank selling mortgages to people that meet the requirements?

    You see Rusty, all I ever read from government supporters and some others is 'should 'ave regulated 'em innit'. Regulate what exactly? Stop banks from doing what exactly?

    :confused:

    *Excepting Libor, drug money laundering, sanction breaking, mis-selling (fraud) which have come to light after the crash and were actually breaking laws, not regulation.

    "FSA should and could have intervened in RBS takeover of ABN AMRO, says Treasury Committee Report "

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news/fsa-should-and-could-have-intervened-in-rbs-takeover-of-abn-amro-says-treasury-committee-report/
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Please answer post #76 then. :)

    Please see post #80 :)
  • CoolSharpHarpCoolSharpHarp Posts: 7,565
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    I've never argued they were any good, they are a part of the banking system and profit from it. What I want to know, and keep asking, is...*what regulation/s did the banks break?

    To regulate is to make sure people/sectors operate inside the rules (regulations) set down by law/statute...yes?

    Regulators can't invent regulation just to stop private banks trading in a way in which they don't like...yes?

    How would a regulator or Brown or the treasury know that the financial products they were 'investing' in were rubbish?

    Can a regulator prevent a bank selling mortgages to people that meet the requirements?

    You see Rusty, all I ever read from government supporters and some others is 'should 'ave regulated 'em innit'. Regulate what exactly? Stop banks from doing what exactly?

    :confused:

    *Excepting Libor, drug money laundering, sanction breaking, mis-selling (fraud) which have come to light after the crash and were actually breaking laws, not regulation.

    The FSA had five objectives - Market Confidence, Financial Stability, Public Awareness, Consumer Protection and Reduction of Financial Crime.

    Arguably it's the first two they failed on - Did they maintain confidence in the financial system and did the FSA contribute to the protection and enhancement of the UK financial system.

    How good was their risk identification and assement - did they have good market intelligence, so that the FSA could make supervisory judgement. Did they develop, monitor and evaluate sectoral risk.
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Regulators can't invent regulation just to stop private banks trading in a way in which they don't like...yes?
    Yes they can and they should have intervened.
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Can a regulator prevent a bank selling mortgages to people that meet the requirements?
    It was the FSAs job to manage risk and intervene in the market if it wasn't operating correctly.

    This is a complicated area, but you obviously don't know the FSAs remit.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    heiker wrote: »

    The report identifies issues arising from the FSA’s own report into the failure of RBS that may merit further legislative or regulatory change. The report also considers the value of the reporting process for understanding the causes of RBS’s failure and for ensuring that appropriate lessons have been learnt.

    On the ability of regulators to take action on acquisitions in the future (para 44)

    We recommend that Government include an explicit requirement for the Prudential Regulation Authority to approve major bank acquisitions and mergers in forthcoming legislation and that HM Treasury, working with the relevant public bodies, report on the legislative or other changes it proposes to make to the current regime regulating acquisitions in the banking sector.


    And that was the sole reason for the banks crashing then?

    You missed the other questions. This is about the acquisition of another company and the lessons learn from it but the decision to invest in the deal was down to RBS was it not? I'm sure it was a bad deal in hindsight but who could have stopped them doing it, not the FSA under the regulations at the time it would seem.
  • tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I disliked him, but even I felt the Murdoch media's malicious campaign against him was vile.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The FSA had five objectives - Market Confidence, Financial Stability, Public Awareness, Consumer Protection and Reduction of Financial Crime.

    Arguably it's the first two they failed on - Did they maintain confidence in the financial system and did the FSA contribute to the protection and enhancement of the UK financial system.

    How good was their risk identification and assement - did they have good market intelligence, so that the FSA could make supervisory judgement. Did they develop, monitor and evaluate sectoral risk.

    Yes they can and they should have intervened.

    It was the FSAs job to manage risk and intervene in the market if it wasn't operating correctly.

    This is a complicated area, but you obviously don't know the FSAs remit.

    I don't and we had a thread on here a while back discussing regulation and who could do what and when, it seems unclear.

    So how would the FSA stop banks buying financial instruments which turned out to be sub prime?

    How would the FSA stop banks lending to customers for mortgages that the client met the conditions for?

    How would the FSA have imposed stricter reserve limitations on banks under the regulation at the time?

    How would the FSA prevent banks from selling debt in the form of unsecured borrowing such as credit cards, loans or overdrafts?

    How would the FSA have known about any of this when the law breaking such as drugs money, sanction breaking and libor fixing weren't discovered until well after investigation of banking got under way as a result of the crash?

    It will be good to hear from someone who does understand the FSA's remit. :)
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »

    The report identifies issues arising from the FSA’s own report into the failure of RBS that may merit further legislative or regulatory change. The report also considers the value of the reporting process for understanding the causes of RBS’s failure and for ensuring that appropriate lessons have been learnt.

    On the ability of regulators to take action on acquisitions in the future (para 44)

    We recommend that Government include an explicit requirement for the Prudential Regulation Authority to approve major bank acquisitions and mergers in forthcoming legislation and that HM Treasury, working with the relevant public bodies, report on the legislative or other changes it proposes to make to the current regime regulating acquisitions in the banking sector.


    And that was the sole reason for the banks crashing then?

    You missed the other questions. This is about the acquisition of another company and the lessons learn from it but the decision to invest in the deal was down to RBS was it not? I'm sure it was a bad deal in hindsight but who could have stopped them doing it, not the FSA under the regulations at the time it would seem.

    Gordon Brown admitting to his failure over regulation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5421TLz5M
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Poor Brown, I feel sorry for him. Perhaps we should send him some flowers.

    Anyone know where he is? New York? Dubai? Singapore? India? China?
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    Gordon Brown admitting to his failure over regulation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5421TLz5M

    WindWalker will now come back and say that Brown was wrong to admit that he was at any fault for banking regulation :D
  • tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Poor Brown, I feel sorry for him. Perhaps we should send him some flowers.

    Anyone know where he is? New York? Dubai? Singapore? India? China?

    Just don't bother sending them to his constituency, or even the House of Commons. :D
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Poor Brown, I feel sorry for him. Perhaps we should send him some flowers.

    Anyone know where he is? New York? Dubai? Singapore? India? China?

    First laugh of the day - cheers for that :D
  • monkeydave68monkeydave68 Posts: 2,421
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sensoria wrote: »
    So Gordon Brown has recieved 8 apologies and corrections from News International over incorrect stories about him.

    Amazing how none of the anti Brown camp mention these.

    http://labourlist.org/2013/03/news-international-have-issued-eight-corrections-to-stories-about-gordon-brownin-just-six-months/

    Seems to me he does a lot of good work.

    well he destroyed this country if that's what you mean
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    WindWalker will now come back and say that Brown was wrong to admit that he was at any fault for banking regulation :D

    I've always been more interested in what regulations were changed by Brown to make it easier to crash banks and what regulations were broken causing the banks to crash rather than excusing or exonerating Brown. :)

    *Note: the actual regulations, not the people who oversaw them.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And from the link supplied earlier:

    Andrew Tyrie MP said:

    The Bank of England has still to produce a comprehensive review of the Bank’s role in, and response to, the crisis. Whilst the three reviews announced earlier this year represent some progress, they fall well short of what is required. A comprehensive review should already have taken place.

    The Treasury Committee has been pressing for changes to the Financial Services Bill to ensure that reports such as this are produced by regulators. The Treasury Committee will return to the issue after the publication of the three reviews commissioned by the Court of the Bank of England.

    A radical improvement of the Bank’s own governance is an essential part of regulatory reform.


    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news/fsa-should-and-could-have-intervened-in-rbs-takeover-of-abn-amro-says-treasury-committee-report/
  • CoolSharpHarpCoolSharpHarp Posts: 7,565
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    I don't and we had a thread on here a while back discussing regulation and who could do what and when, it seems unclear.

    So how would the FSA stop banks buying financial instruments which turned out to be sub prime?

    How would the FSA stop banks lending to customers for mortgages that the client met the conditions for?

    How would the FSA have imposed stricter reserve limitations on banks under the regulation at the time?

    How would the FSA prevent banks from selling debt in the form of unsecured borrowing such as credit cards, loans or overdrafts?

    How would the FSA have known about any of this when the law breaking such as drugs money, sanction breaking and libor fixing weren't discovered until well after investigation of banking got under way as a result of the crash?

    It will be good to hear from someone who does understand the FSA's remit. :)


    One of the main roles the FSA has is to understand how firms operate and the associated risks. This can be done using various methods, such as:

    1. Reports - annual controllers reports, compliance reports, financial reports (so that adequate financial resources are maintained), persistency reports, product sales data
    2. FSA visits to firms
    3. Mystery shopping

    If the FSA see practices they do not like, they can do FSA interviews (compulsory),get search warrants, withdraw authorisation, prevent individuals from undertaking specific regulated activities etc.

    The FSA is probably one of the most powerful government agencies, to the point they can pretty much ignore Treasury Select Committees. They have the powers to intervene in companies and in effect dictate how they operate. A simple example being, mortgage companies no longer base maximum loan size on income multiples; it's now based on an affordability basis.

    Therefore in all the examples you have pointed out, if the FSA had felt there where risks to market confidence and/or risks to the consumers, they could and should have stepped in.

    The problem was that the oversight of risk mitigation failed.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So The Sun prints a series of innaccurate statements about Brown they have retracted months later?

    The interesting thing will be how many many of these will still be trotted out as "fact" in the years to come...a bit like the David Mellor Chelsea Shirt myth...was still being peddled on here a couple of weeks ago.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i still dont understand how brown caused the entire worldwide credit crunch. for example - putting the usa to one side - how did he make the Icelandic banking system collapse ?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    One of the main roles the FSA has is to understand how firms operate and the associated risks. This can be done using various methods, such as:

    1. Reports - annual controllers reports, compliance reports, financial reports (so that adequate financial resources are maintained), persistency reports, product sales data
    2. FSA visits to firms
    3. Mystery shopping

    If the FSA see practices they do not like, they can do FSA interviews (compulsory),get search warrants, withdraw authorisation, prevent individuals from undertaking specific regulated activities etc.

    The FSA is probably one of the most powerful government agencies, to the point they can pretty much ignore Treasury Select Committees. They have the powers to intervene in companies and in effect dictate how they operate. A simple example being, mortgage companies no longer base maximum loan size on income multiples; it's now based on an affordability basis.

    Therefore in all the examples you have pointed out, if the FSA had felt there where risks to market confidence and/or risks to the consumers, they could and should have stepped in.

    The problem was that the oversight of risk mitigation failed.

    So just a general summary of what the FSA is there for then. Copied from a link? Tell me, if it was so easy to stop banks buying financial instruments, what regulation would they use and how would they have identified they were in fact worthless?

    If it's so straight forward, why is even the EU under basel having so much trouble increasing reserves (bank capital adequacy)for banks? They should just be able to insist on them according to you? :confused:

    International regulatory framework for banks (Basel III)


    http://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm

    But then we have this:

    Stocks in British banks rise as lenders are buoyed by easing of cash reserves rules by regulators


    PUBLISHED: 12:17, 7 January 2013

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2258122/Bank-chiefs-agree-Basel-III-liquidity-rule.html

    :confused:
  • paul2307paul2307 Posts: 8,079
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    i still dont understand how brown caused the entire worldwide credit crunch. for example - putting the usa to one side - how did he make the Icelandic banking system collapse ?

    In part its down to "globalization" something which both Blair and Brown were fond of , the British banks failed because they bought toxic debt from foreign banks who in short conned them, Banks are international companies now and if they fail its not just one country that suffers the effects
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    paul2307 wrote: »
    In part its down to "globalization" something which both Blair and Brown were fond of , the British banks failed because they bought toxic debt from foreign banks who in short conned them, Banks are international companies now and if they fail its not just one country that suffers the effects

    The financial system is cloaked in smoke and mirrors, fraud, deception and gambles. Then you have the shadow banking industry which operates outside regulation and all the derivatives and other financial instruments bandied about between them. It's all fiction with theoretical profits and losses on screens until the numbers don't add up. Then they are in trouble. Very little is to do with lending to private individuals, even the sub prime mortgages should have been a matter for the issuing banks but because they were sliced and diced with other loans and all rated as AAA on the strength of a small part of the package being good, everyone got caught out when the wheel fell off.

    London is the main financial centre for major trading so naturally we were hit badly, as was Wall Street. Other countries also suffered but didn't have the financial trading muscle to make good any problems and Euro countries being hampered by not being in control of their own currency. Even now the banks are far from safe and another bail out or recapitalisation wouldn't surprise most people. It is a complex risky business with plenty of scope to hide things from view, that only works for so long as we found out in 2008. Reform of the money system is needed, not the just the bank system but that may have to wait a while yet...or maybe not, who knows?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allaorta wrote: »
    It's substantially figure playing bullshine.

    Really?

    How is this not correct then?

    In 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8%


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One thing you can't fault is his work ethic. He is a workaholic.

    In fact he's so busy working that he doesn't have the time to turn up to the House of Commons (where he is actually paid to be) more than a handful of times a year.
Sign In or Register to comment.