Eddie George Knew of Regulatory Failure in 2002
Iain Dale 4:16 PM
Eddie George was always a sceptic about Gordon Brown's economic conduct. But he was faced with a Chancellor determined to get his own way and completely sure of his own rightness. I've stumbled across a speech Eddie George gave to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference way back in 2002. It seems to me that he knew full well that Brown's new regulatory framework wasn't working.
Wasn't that a clear warning that the tri-partite system wasn't working? And yet no one did anything about it. Or am I reading too much into this?
The market-based approach is, in principle, the best means we have of allocating resources to where they can be most productively used and raising global as well as national economic efficiency. But that can’t mean simply a free-for-all. It needs accompanying conditions to limit distortions if it is to work well.
It needs a consistent framework of macro-economic stability, for example, with countries living within their means, limiting aggregate public and private sector demand to the supply-side capacity of our economies. [That involves both fiscal “prudence” to borrow the Chancellor’s favourite expression – if I’m actually allowed to borrow from the Chancellor – it used to be the other way round! – and it involves “monetary stability” to use my own favourite expression. But more than that, markets needs to operate within a transparent framework of accepted principles and standards of behaviour if they are to function effectively.
But we also need a clearer and more predictable framework governing the massive increase in international private capital flows - which can be of real benefit to recipient countries if they are sustained, but deeply damaging if they prove to be volatile – as we have seen dramatically demonstrated in recent years. We have come a long way in the various international fora to address the many issues arising under this heading but the recent disruptive volatility of financial markets in the industrial world reminds us that we still have a long way to go.
But I want to make just two points this evening.
The first is that while governments – nationally and internationally – clearly have the primary responsibility for establishing and applying the framework within which markets operate, reflecting both social and economic priorities, they cannot do everything themselves. An effective market-based system depends fundamentally upon the standards of professional competence and behavioural conduct of the private sector participants in the market. We’ve recently seen the damage which markets themselves inflict on those involved when standards fall short of what is expected. My concern is that without high standards of professional responsibility the market system will become increasingly rule-bound.
Wasn't that a clear warning that the tri-partite system wasn't working? And yet no one did anything about it. Or am I reading too much into this?
Another Nice Little Earner For Sir James Crosby
Iain Dale 2:41 PM
Dear oh dear. If you ever wanted to know why Sir James Crosby was unfit to ever be appointed deputy chairman of the FSA, read THIS blog by Paul Waugh. He reveals that Sir James's pensions package from HBOS entitles him to an annual pension of £572,000 per annum. No wonder the bank almost went under.
When Did Gordon Last Meet Sir Bob Worcester?
Iain Dale 1:56 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if Gordon Brown has paid a recent visit to the offices of Ipsos Mori. Their latest poll shows the following...
Con 48% (+4)
Lab 28% (-2)
Lib 17% (-)
Mori often show a narrower Tory lead than other pollsters, so this is a noteworthy poll. It is also the third poll in two weeks, I think, which shows Labour on 28%. PoliticalBetting has some interesting analysis.
Con 48% (+4)
Lab 28% (-2)
Lib 17% (-)
Mori often show a narrower Tory lead than other pollsters, so this is a noteworthy poll. It is also the third poll in two weeks, I think, which shows Labour on 28%. PoliticalBetting has some interesting analysis.
The MORI top-line numbers, of course, only include those 100% certain to vote and this tends to produce dramatic changes when things are going very bad or very well for a party. So in the second set of figures that the pollster issues, the shares of those naming a party, it’s C39:L31:LD19.What the poll has not done is confirm the swing to the Lib Dems that we saw last week in the three telephone pollsters that use past vote weighting - ICM, Populus and ComRes. But MORI’s 17% share of last month has been retained. Back in November Nick Clegg’s party was getting just 12%.
In all the polling at the moment the critical element is what the numbers will do to the internal machinations of the Labour party. It’s hard to see how 20% deficits from the firm are going to do anything other than add to the gloom and speculation about the leadership.
There will come a moment, surely, Brown’s position could come under real pressure.
Really? What fun! I think this might be some wishful thinking. Any move against Brown could not possibly come until after the June elections.
Posts
