Cable to push for disqualification of disgraced bankers

Vince Cable is to pave the way for the Financial Conduct Authority to disqualify directors of banks in the wake of any future financial crisis.

As part of a major consultation on the rules surrounding company directors, the Business Secretary will on Monday also raise the prospect of other regulators being able to ban directors of companies that fall under their remit. The measure is intended to restore faith in companies and their directors as a whole.

PaulWeighell: What about failed public sector workers and bosses who are not even on the Companies House role of directors yet often have far more power and fail far more often?

Crafford: Out of interest PaulWeighell - I, recently, had occasion to seek the Articles of Association for the BoE from Companies House and was told that this was not available.  "Why not" I asked "that is what Companies House is for?"  "Oh", said they "because it is protected by Royal Charter - can't you see the 'R.C.' before its company number?" WHAT are they hiding.  I have little doubt that the BoE is not really under public control - you will find two famous families that really control and benefit from it.  It pretends to be different from the privately owned "Fed" and the "ECB" and the "BIS" (Bank of International Settlements)  but is not - all one massive on-going fraud against the public. Astounding.

PaulWeighell: Not at all as you claim. The BoE is not a limited company and has no Mem and Arts. BoE is a wholly public state owned organisation and acts under mandate from the elected government. My guess is that you have got the BoE itself confused with their wholly owned subsidiary nominee company BoEN Ltd. That is just a holding nominee company and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements. It is now dormant.

MrVeryAngry: Eggsaktly.  It's a government department. Which brings the lie to whole 'B o E is independent' meme.

MrVeryAngry: Well that's just fine and dandy.  But what about accountability for all the failed bureaucrats and Gordon Bloody Brown whose unwarranted expansion of money and credit plus his utterly flawed FSMA2000 precipitated all this mess?  Without any companion accountability for the grubby little bureaucrats at the Financial Shambles/Catastrophe Authority and the ability to recall MP's and make them responsible for the dysfunctional bureaucracies to which they hive off their responsibilities this is just more stupid posturing and the ongoing attempt by the likes of Cable to deflect blame from themselves.  It's straight out of the two key totalitarian playbooks of our time Das Capital and Mien Kampf. Twerp.

Kooljeff: And when Brown wanted to introduce some mild restrictions and checks & balances who said no, we need further deregulation?  Step forward Camoron and Gidiot

PaulWeighell: Brown and Blair had 13 years to do that! trying to pass their buck to the coalition is not convincing.

Kooljeff: "… trying to pass their buck to the coalition is not convincing…" But blaming eveything on Labour after the coalition has been in power for over 3 years is ok?  Typical Tory hypocrisy

MrVeryAngry: @ Kooljeff That's a lie. I presume by your tone you're a lefty, so let me explain; I am relatively extremely well informed on FS regulation and its history. 1. Since 1986 when Mrs T brought in the 1986 Financial Services Act FS regulation has been ratcheted up year by year by successive governments culminating in the utterly flawed FSMA 2000.  (Mind you the Coalitions recent attempt runs it a pretty close second) 2. The purpose of the 2000 Act was never 'better regulation'. It always 'nationalisation by regulation.'  (You can take cl4.4 out of the Labour Party constitution but you cannot take it out of socialists). 3,  Hence entirely contrary to what Brown maintained, that the Act was 'light touch regulation', it wasn't.  He was lying, again.  In absolute fact the 2000 Act was the most prescriptive set of rules ever. It laid out everything in detail.  If you print it out with all the other tripe produced by the FSA etc the pile of paper printed single side A4 stands eight and one half feet high. 4. Brown never wanted to introduce some mild restrictions, since he already had them in place.  He was lying, again. 5.  As well as laying out very detailed rules, the FSMA 2000 also destroyed what minimal checks and balances were left in the system permitting him, Brown, to massively expand money and credit. He used the commercial banks as willing fellow travellers to pump this money into the economy, (see the explosion in house prices 1999 to 2009) and paid them well, But as they have now found out, if you sup with the Devil you need a very long spoon. 6. Regulation is the problem, it is not and never will be the solution.  The current banking settlement needs radical reform (see Douglas Carswell's proposal), but what it does not need is more failed regulationism. 7.  I hold no candle for Osborne. Comparing him and Brown is like comparing an adder with a cobra.  They'll both kill you and they are both snakes. 8. In re Cameron, anyone who claims to be the 'heir to Blair' has serious problem.  Why claim to be the heir to biggest liar there has ever been in UK politics?

Kooljeff: A report produced by the Conservative Party in 2007 – endorsed by Cameron – called ‘Freeing Britain to Compete‘ recommended that a vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Here are a few gems – direct quotes – taken from the report: "The (Labour) government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money ……………We need to make it more difficult for ministers to regulate, and we need to give the critics of regulation more opportunity to make their case against specific new proposals………We recommend deregulating venture capital fund raising, and investment for professional investors………A Conservative government should relax banking regulation, allowing a new breed of venture/micro-credit institutions…………….Competition is the customers’ main ally. It is competition which keeps the bank honest ……………………We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk…………Our aim is to liberate the economy from the burden of unnecessary regulations……………Before imposing traditional ‘heavy’ regulation, government should always consider whether the ends could be achieved by less burdensome means, such as through competition, incentive schemes, or self-regulation…….The regulatory burden should be measured and reduced year on year…………Greater use should be made of “codes of practice” rather than direct regulation…………From its first days in office, a Conservative government should challenge the public and press assumptions that encourage excessive regulation, and explain the likely effects of and reasons for its regulatory reforms………"So just before it all went tits-up the Tory party were advocating LESS regulation.  I told no lies.  It is here in Tory black and white.  Now be a good little bank stooge and quietly shut up.

MrVeryAngry: Classic Fail to read the post I made and understand it and then, for supposed rebuttal, respond with something that actually supports my analysis. Brown said he wanted to add more restrictions, but he was lying - again.  He lied that the FSMA was light touch regulation - it was.  It was and remains very prescriptive regulation to the point of nationalisation by regulation.  Brown lied about the true purpose of the FSMA which was to put the control of the supply and distribution of money in his, Brown's hands.  And self evidently it failed. I concede that you might be confused (easily done it seems) that I was rejecting the second part of your comment about the Tories wanting to reduce regulation.  I confess I had forgotten about the excellent Tory report you quote which recognises exactly the points I made in my post. If you had read my posts you would know that I am no 'bank stooge'. Twerp.

Kooljeff: "…I concede that you might be confused (easily done it seems) that I was rejecting the second part of your comment about the Tories wanting to reduce regulation.  I confess I had forgotten about the excellent Tory report you quote which recognises exactly the points I made in my post…" You Tories really did take 1984 as your blueprint for government and your use of Newspeak.  A report that advocates LESS banking regulation is cited by you as calling for more regulation. QUOTE: "…We need to make it more difficult for ministers to regulate…" QUOTE: "…A Conservative government should relax banking regulation…" And so on and so on. But you are no Tory apologist for the banks oh no.

princesspeach: Obviously a banker twat.

MrVeryAngry: Nope.  Not a banker at all.  And Princess, unless you can construct proper and well informed arguments to challenge me it is thou who art the twat(ess).

dalai guevara: Well, yes MrVeryAngry, what about them? Just because you're not doing one thing means you should not do the other?

MrVeryAngry: Eh?  Have you actually read wot I rote?

dalai guevara: Yes I have - you are saying that politicians, fsa-types and others aren't covered by this announcement. So what? Who is it that commands the outrageously high and disproportionate bonuses? Who committed numerous cases of proven 'mis-selling' fraud with regard to PPI, swaps, Libor and so on? Who laundered drug money? Who is responsible for corporate governance of financial institutions? So, just because you're not doing one thing means you should not do the other?

MrVeryAngry: Yep, as I suspected you do not seem to have read my posts.  The bankers were paid their lunatic bonuses because of failed regulationism,  not despite it.  Looking at one of your examples, PPI, do you realise that retail financial services was told to sell crap by the government and the regulators? And 'swaps' are a direct result of the unwarranted expansion of money and credit by Brown? You might also like to know that the FSA/FOS/FSCS pay very high wages and are engaged in tax avoidance by ''employing' many staff on short service contracts through private service companies? Are you also aware of the employment history of that well known paragon of virtue, one H Sants?  From Banking, to the FSA, and back to working for a bank.  The one to which the the FSA applied its biggest ever fine on Sants' watch, plus a knighthood? The whole government/regulation/banking nexus is utterly corrupt, in large part because of the stupidity, fiscal incontinence and general cluelessness - plus a lot of deviousness - of King Brown Balls.

dalai guevara: We are not in disagreement - nick the lot, start at the top, work your way down. Putting away a single French African (and that's it) will not suffice. The issues we face have not gone away, so people will not forget - it's that simple.

MrVeryAngry: OK.  But the 'arrest them all' has to include the whole regulatory bureaucracy, Brown, Balls etc etc as well as the senior bankers.  The analogy I like is the drug business.  Brown captured and ran the cartel with terror.  His consigleri was Balls.  The FSA were his enforcers.  The bankers were his pushers.

dalai guevara: Well, you see, Brown was a clever chap giving the BoE independence in monetary policy and regulatory powers to the then FSA. Good luck with proving collusion there. I prefer dealing with the simple and straight forward aspects first: money laundering, PPI/swap/Libor fraud is criminal, no need for new laws, no need for delays, no need to let a cooling-off period pass and so on - go for it: nick the lot!

MrVeryAngry: Er, no. BoE was and is not 'independent'.  It's a department of government.  What it is is unaccountable.  Plus under King it went along with Brown's money and credit expansion agenda which precipitated the failure.  The FSA, oras I prefer to call it -  the Financial Shambles Authority, is even more unaccountable than the BoE.  It has no democratic, legal or financial accountability and no skin in the game. It's bureaucrats didn't just fail to regulate they simply failed, which is exactly what you'd expect from central planning.  At the same time they live the life of Reilly. As I explained in previous posts the FSA told the FS industry to sell PPI (in about 2002).  The PPI scandal is a direct result of the failure of the FSA and its institutional corruption and clueless interventionism. SWAPS came about because banks were trying to help customers hedge out likely interest rate rises from what they knew (as did I) were unsustainably low interest rates.  The problem is that they did not realise just how stupid Brown would be in bailing out the banks with taxpayers money and cutting interest rates to 0.5% and visiting financial repression on all the prudent. LIBOR was condoned and monitored by the FSA and the BoE.  We always assumed that it was set by the LIBOR setters asking bank A at what price it would lend to bank B.  What transpired was that the BoE/FSA had got it the wrong way round and were asking Bank A at what price it thought it could borrow from Bank B. Doh! In all those failures we see the dead hand of failed bureaucrats. In regards money laundering I'd like to see to what you are referring before commenting.

sludge_in_NZ: "Cable to push for disqualification of disgraced bankers" Oh yes?  And what about pushing for disqualification of disgraced politicians ?

Iain downs: lets have a law that says that if you become a govt minister or a senior ranked civil servant you arent allowed to join any enterprise for a ten year period that you have had any dealings with. Then we will see how much the parasites want to be in govt.

truthmatters: You took the words right out of my mouth - sludge!