Saturday 14 February 2015

Why it was called the Financial Shambles Authority and why it's now called the Financial Catastrophe Authority

Finally, at last, we have some concrete evidence of what I and many others always knew and have been banging on about for years.

The FSA and its successor the FCA are constitutionally corrupt.  Both outfits have in practice absolutely no democratic, legal or financial accountability whatsoever.  They are Government, the police, the judiciary, the jury and the executioner all rolled into one outfit.  They contravene a key principle of a democratic government system - the separation of powers.

And now we have proof that the whole construct was ill thought through - or was it?

Even though the appalling New Labour are no longer in power, their legacy and programme continues under the Financial Catastrophe Authority.  If you wanted to nationalise money, banking and financial services generally, but not seen to be doing so, why not establish a 'regulator' with wide powers that is forever unaccountable to the people and its parliamentary representatives?

I doubt that the rent seeking and witless Tories will properly exploit these revelations, probably because they put in place the FCA - which I can tell you from personal experience is far far more arrogant and ignorant than its predecessor.

Update.

IanB makes a good point in the comments which is actually part of my contention.  The FCA (and its associates - The FOS and the FSCS) are crony organisations.  You only have to look at the revolving door between the FCA/The Banks/The Big Consultancies/Government to see that in action.  The FCA is no more a Consumer Champion than I am Miss World.

8 comments:

Rich Tee said...

In September 2014, the CEO of Scottish Widows admitted that his company can't cope and can't provide an acceptable customer service.

In February 2015, the CEO of the partly taxpayer-owned Lloyds Banking Group , the owners of Scottish Widows, gets a £7 million performance-related bonus approved by the treasury.

Bayard said...

"I doubt that the rent seeking and witless Tories will properly exploit these revelations,"

If you wanted to be able to help out your cronies, and them only, in banking and financial services generally, but not seen to be doing so, why not develop a 'regulator' with wide powers that is forever unaccountable to the people and its parliamentary representatives?

It would keep the big boys in the style to which they were accustomed while harassing any upstarts that had the gall to encroach onto the big boys' territory. The Finanz-SS have something to recommend them to both sides.

Ian B said...

The big question of course is whether the central banking and associated instutitional system represent government control of banking, or banking control of government. Who's nationalising who?

Mark Wadsworth said...

IB, yes, I wonder about the same question.

Rich Tee said...

IB, The trouble is that the huge international flows of money that can happen at the speed of light now are able to cross national boundaries instantly, and they can outmanouevre any attempt by national governments to regulate them.

So I think it is probably banking control of government now.

A K Haart said...

IB - "The big question of course is whether the central banking and associated instutitional system represent government control of banking, or banking control of government. Who's nationalising who?"

Blimey that's a thought to ponder on.

Bayard said...

Well, if the FinanzSturmAbteilung are the banksters' enforcers, that would explain why they harass the likes of Lola and let the HSBC get away with the sort of things that are in the news ATM.

Graeme said...

It could be worse. Under the French model, the largest bank or regulated entity would get to nominate the chair of the regulator as well.