Il Governatore Boe avverte Reeves indebolito le regole bancarie rischi di ripetere la crisi del 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/22/boe-governor-rachel-reeves-banking-rules-andrew-bailey
di OGSyedIsEverywhere
Il Governatore Boe avverte Reeves indebolito le regole bancarie rischi di ripetere la crisi del 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/22/boe-governor-rachel-reeves-banking-rules-andrew-bailey
di OGSyedIsEverywhere
8 commenti
The Banks always do what they want anyway…rules yeah right.
BofE Governor is right, however Reeves is desperate to find growth from somewhere and is happy to burn any and everything to do it.
The above said 2008 wasn’t exactly the BofE’s
finest hour and we’ve all ended up paying again and again for it ever since.
It doesn’t matter, her paymasters have decided what they want, and the government will provide it – along with the necessary bailouts when it all goes wrong again.
I’ve lost count by now since they’re all back to back, what number would this once in a lifetime crisis be now?
Everyone involved in the industry knows there is too much regulation and red tape, much of which is contradictory, but the challenge is knowing what you can remove to enable efficiency without increasing risk.
The proposed changes to the FOS are a great start, but ring-fencing and capital requirements are probably the area they should stay well clear of deregulation, though this is probably what the banks will push for.
As much as people moan the UK banks have been impeccably behaved since 08, closest we’ve had to a proper scandal since is Farage being binned by NatWest.
If this was a headline about Tory policy you’d just shrug. It’s almost like the only difference is the colour. Same shit different colour.
> Reeves last week used her annual Mansion House dinner to announce sweeping changes to banking industry rules, telling City bosses she believed that in too many cases regulation was a “boot on the neck” of business.
> Bailey refused to back the chancellor’s analogy when pressed by the Treasury committee chair, Meg Hillier, saying: “I do not use those terms, let me say that … It is not a term I use.”
I don’t understand this. Why instead of emasculating the England’s Bank, why not just cut its independence and put the bank under Treasury? Surely, it would promote growth and stability instead of competing against the government’s will, not?
The fact that bankers can request, with some decent chance of receiving what they want, regulations being removed, tells you everything you need to know about how corrupt this all is.