A Banking 'Leveson' ePetition

[Serial_Apologist]

So what do you advocate intead, then? OK, a petition alone is likely to achieve little beyond what you say that it will, but if no one says or does anything, what will that achieve? Come on - tell us your recommended solution, please!

Await the Resurrection?

[ahinton]

Await the Resurrection?

Nice one but, unlike the proverbial number 9 bus, there won't be another one along in a minute or any time soon...

[scottycelt]

What a pointless petition. It will just be a waste of money and tell us stuff that we already know....

Agreed ... it does seem completely pointless. A Public Inquiry could arguably make things worse by the following:

a) Inquiry findings that are tamer than anything proposed now (don't bet against it!) Even if that is not the case, will the ultimate law changes be any different because of the Inquiry findings? It is even conceivable that if the economy starts to improve the politicians may be tempted to water down any changes to the law that may be currently proposed.

b) Wasting at least a year (almost certainly longer), then the Inquiry finding what is already known as fact. Again attitudes may have softened a year or two ahead, and the banks get off lightly.

We all know the banks' recent behaviour needs to be rectified by legal curbs. A Leveson-type Public Inquiry is simply passing the decision-making buck and gives the politicians the perfect excuse to do nothing, at least for the time-being.

We need political action now, not yet another seemingly endless TV 'soap' ...

[amateur51]

Agreed ... it does seem completely pointless. A Public Inquiry could arguably make things worse by the following:

a) Inquiry findings that are tamer than anything proposed now (don't bet against it!) Even if that is not the case, will the ultimate law changes be any different because of the Inquiry findings? It is even conceivable that if the economy starts to improve the politicians may be tempted to water down any changes to the law that may be currently proposed.

b) Wasting at least a year (almost certainly longer), then the Inquiry finding what is already known as fact. Again attitudes may have softened a year or two ahead, and the banks get off lightly.

We all know the banks' recent behaviour needs to be rectified by legal curbs. A Leveson-type Public Inquiry is simply passing the decision-making buck and gives the politicians the perfect excuse to do nothing, at least for the time-being.

We need political action now, not yet another seemingly endless TV 'soap' ...

It's called 'process' scotty - you start by creating pressure on the politicians to take the banking crisis seriously (not splitting the banks 'by 2019' Vince) then you find out what went wrong as a matter of public record & then you put in place remedies.

But the politicos will always take the line of least resistance. Which is why we have to kick up a fuss now

[amateur51]

What a pointless petition. It will just be a waste of money and tell us stuff that we already know....namely that the bankers are among the lowest form of pondlife and make lawyers look like saints.

It's the start of a process, RM. What we know at the moment is mostly speculation

[scottycelt]

It's called 'process' scotty - you start by creating pressure on the politicians to take the banking crisis seriously (not splitting the banks 'by 2019' Vince) then you find out what went wrong as a matter of public record & then you put in place remedies.

But the politicos will always take the line of least resistance. Which is why we have to kick up a fuss now

There's already been plenty of fuss kicked-up, ams, and a Public Inquiry is not really part of the process. It is a sideshow, and the media will be concentrating on looking for convenient scapegoats rather than bothering their little heads about future law-changes..

We have a government which is meant to govern and it can get sanction from elected members of parliament to make the necessary changes to the law. Cameron and Cleggie will still have to make the decision whatever the Public Inquiry finds and, in any case, would the latter's findings be binding on the government?

We already know what went wrong ... ie, no proper regulation of bankers' conduct and behaviour. The government can simply take the necessary advice from independent professionals with experience of the industry and act accordingly.

[amateur51]

There's already been plenty of fuss kicked-up, ams, and a Public Inquiry is not really part of the process. It is a sideshow, and the media will be concentrating on looking for convenient scapegoats rather than bothering their little heads about future law-changes..

We have a government which is meant to govern and it can get sanction from elected members of parliament to make the necessary changes to the law. Cameron and Cleggie will still have to make the decision whatever the Public Inquiry finds and, in any case, would the latter's findings be binding on the government?

We already know what went wrong ... ie, no proper regulation of bankers' conduct and behaviour. The government can simply take the necessary advice from independent professionals with experience of the industry and act accordingly.

Is there an enquiring bone in your body, scotty?

Are you not the slightest bit vengeful?

From the outfit that brought us The Inquisition I think your passivity is quite shameful and frankly ... disappointing

[Resurrection Man]

There's already been plenty of fuss kicked-up, ams, and a Public Inquiry is not really part of the process. It is a sideshow, and the media will be concentrating on looking for convenient scapegoats rather than bothering their little heads about future law-changes..

We have a government which is meant to govern and it can get sanction from elected members of parliament to make the necessary changes to the law. Cameron and Cleggie will still have to make the decision whatever the Public Inquiry finds and, in any case, would the latter's findings be binding on the government?

We already know what went wrong ... ie, no proper regulation of bankers' conduct and behaviour. The government can simply take the necessary advice from independent professionals with experience of the industry and act accordingly.

At last someone speaking with some commonsense as opposed to the usual cant and drivel about 'posh boys'. This rot started back when Labour was in power and let us not forget that. The very same Labour Government that introduced the idea of 'something for nothing' into our national psyche with their liberalisation of the legal practice. Result? We are the 'whiplash' injury centre of the world.

And to those tediously banging on about banks supporting the Tory party blah blah....etc , I'd fully support your views if at the same time we stop the Trade Unions being able to vote or have a say in the running of the Labour Party.

[scottycelt]

Is there an enquiring bone in your body, scotty?

Are you not the slightest bit vengeful?

From the outfit that brought us The Inquisition I think your passivity is quite shameful and frankly ... disappointing

Can't quite recollect that old 15th Century Inquiry, but 'shameful and disappointing' ... that's just what my dear old dad used to call me, amsey.!

As for being 'vengeful'? ... nah, I'm afraid I'm not a social liberal, either .. terrible, eh?

[Flosshilde]

Is there an enquiring bone in your body, scotty?

Are you not the slightest bit vengeful?

From the outfit that brought us The Inquisition I think your passivity is quite shameful and frankly ... disappointing

NO, of course not. Scotty's been brought up not to question anything, to believe what he's told by whoever is 'above' him (however improbable it seems), & to accept the status quo.

[scottycelt]

NO, of course not. Scotty's been brought up not to question anything, to believe what he's told by whoever is 'above' him (however improbable it seems), & to accept the status quo.

Oh, I see, so Scotty's call for an immediate change in banking regulation when others apparently prefer to 'kick the can down the road' fits in perfectly with that description, Floss ... gotcha! ... no wonder Scotty's a complete prat ... what's he like, eh?

[eighthobstruction]

>>>what's he like, eh?<<<

....sweet and patient perhaps....courteous....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

nobut thee said can'a have both action and inquiry Scottycelt

[aeolium]

I agree with scottycelt that there really is no need for a Leveson-style enquiry, since pretty well all the shortcomings of the financial institutions are well known. We know for instance that:

1) reckless bank investments, or gambling using complex derivatives, have created the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
2) those investments were encouraged by short-term incentives and the knowledge that losses were effectively underwritten by the taxpayer
3) banks have been manipulating the inter-bank interest rate for their own advantage
4) banks have routinely been mis-selling financial products
5) banks have severely cut lending to small businesses, preferring to use the generous BoE quantitative easing to shore up their own precarious finances
6) that regulation of the banks has been (and still is) far too light
7) that the relationship between politicians and bankers has been, and is, far too cosy so that even after the crash of 2008 politicians are still reluctant to put in effective regulation
8) that top bankers' pay is excessive and not related to long-term achievement (or indeed any kind of achievement)

So what more could a year long Leveson-type enquiry reveal? Surely what is needed is an independent commission with cross-party membership, revisiting the Vickers conclusions, to come up with much tougher regulation - and probably the full separation of retail and investment operations, with bank executives to be made criminally accountable for corporate failures.

[scottycelt]

>>>what's he like, eh?<<<

....sweet and patient perhaps....courteous....

Hey, steady on, eighth ...