Bit of both, I would say, having watched his three hour 'interrogation' by the Commons committee. They tried, my God, how they tried, to get him to 'cough' but he wasn't giving anything away, well, none of the really important people, that is, like his fellow big-shots in the bank, the Grand Panjandrums in the Bank of England and least of all any ex-ministers. Of course, the fourteen little scrotes from the dealing floor were tossed to the dogs without compunction but they're not really important, you see. Or at least, for the moment they may not be important but I wonder if they have a few tales to tell and if, even as as I tap away here, the dandruff-ridden hacks of The Sun ("We Love It!") are already waving Rupe's chequebook ubder their noses?
I felt that by and large the MPs made as good a fist of it as they could given that, as one of them suggested, Diamond was 'playing a Boycott'. For the benefit of my foreign readers, Geoffrey Boycott was one of our greatest cricket batsmen, notorious for going in to bat and then staying at the crease for an eternity whilst scoring at a snail's pace irrespective of whether the team actually needed fast scoring. Anyway, the result was that Diamond spent three hours saying nothing.
Even so, saying nothing on certain aspects whilst appearing to be voluble, even garrulous, on others in order to waste time, still provides some indicators. One thing stood out clearly and that was that Mr. Diamond was promoted way above his abilities. He was a typical example of a man probably brilliant as a hands-on operator but lacking all the intellectual ability to be a great hands-off leader. In military terms, the truly Great Captains of History have the ability stand away from the detail and take in the broader picture which will include non-military factors. At the same time, they are disciplined enough to allocate time, on a daily basis, to carry out regular visits to junior formations much lower down the command structure in order to speak to the junior officers and their men and get a feel for what is going on in their army. I recently praised Mungo Melvin's excellent biography of von Manstein in which he describes the way the General, irrespective of alarums and excursions all along the front, would always find time to be driven as close to the front line as possibe to gauge the situation and the morale of his troops at first hand. This skill Diamond obviously lacked and it seems to me that his underlings knew better than to burden him with bad news!
In my opinion there is no need for yet another Leveson-style 'bore-athon'. A short, sharp enquiry to dig out the other malpractitioners and then a few additions to the forthcoming Finance bill including clear lines of personal legal responsibility is all that is required. As for Osborne's silly effort in tomorrow's Spectator to throw a bucket of poo over 'Brown & Balls, the Brokers Men'; he should be careful the wind doesn't change direction so that he gets some of his own back! I don't think the public like this intra-party blame game, they just want the banks sorted out and due restitution made to those who suffered financial hardship. I hope that the money eventually stripped from the banks by fines goes to those who were their victims.
I disagree entirely. One of the worst features of the coalition has been its abject failure to pin the blame for our predicament firmly onto Labour. It goes far wider than LIBOR. The ruined public finances, the effed-up civil service, the profoundly stupid and reckless rescue of the banks... the whole damn thing.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, 04 July 2012 at 20:22
Labour are to blame for everthing that happened before the Tories got in. And the Tories are to blame for everything before Labour got in. Where do the Lib mobsters fit in!
Posted by: Jimmy | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 01:13
Bob Diamond walked away untouched - as intended.
What bugs me is that none of the regulators or controlling agencies seems up to their job. Every week we read of this or that regulator failing to do what we pay them to do. Trouble is, if they did their alleged jobs they would necessarily send in a big bill, so one has the itsy bitsy suspicion they are told to soft-pedal - and keep drawing their pay.
As for the banks - a very tricky problem indeed, we now seem to be scraping the bottom of the money-barrel and shortly the spoon will be licked clean too. Could it be that HMG was so desperate for the last shekel it gave a nod and wink - I reckon so. But now the cat is out the bag and we might as well go for root and branch reform, the system is buggered and not going to get better as it stands. Hang on for a bumpy ride.
Posted by: rogerh | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 07:00
I agree that 'Dim Dave' lost the chance right at the beginning to ram home Labour's culpability and on the back of it to force through some truly radical cuts which he could have blamed on Brown & Balls. The reason he failed was because he has no philosophy, no ideology, in fact, no idea at all, bar getting re-elected. There have been no cuts, we're still borrowing hand over fist and today, I gather, the hopeless old twat in the BoE is about to start the printing presses - again - despite it have nil effect on the previous two occasions.
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 08:34
The only Prime Ministers with principles in my life time (aged 76) were Alec whatisname and Margaret Thatcher. There doesn't seem to be any chance of another one before I pop my clogs.
Posted by: backofanenvelope | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 09:27
Good God, old Alec Douglas-Home, blink and you'd miss him! Prime Minister for two days short of a year according to Wiki. At least he got rid of Retail Price Maintenance, one of the biggest rackets ever inflicted upon the British public.
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 09:37
Aye, Alec looks pretty good in retrospect.
Posted by: dearieme | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 11:20
If I remember rightly, he was way behind Wilson in the opinion polls when he took office; but only lost by about 4 seats. Why was that? Because he was perceived to be a gentleman. Just like Mrs Thatcher. I can remember telling an Italian that she was actually a bloke in drag. An Italian eavesdropper nearly drowned in his soup.
Posted by: backofanenvelope | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 11:43
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Osborne SHOULD be placing the blame exactly where it belongs. It was Labour, in the form of the innumerate and chip-riddled Chancellor, who petulantly removed bank regulation from the Bank of England, which he perceived as embodying the worst the wicked Establishment.
Eddie George and then Mervyn King have been blamed by the determinedly ignorant for matters which were and are not their responsibility. Bank regulation was removed from the BoE and handed over to the bunch of incompetents in the Keystone Gestapo of the Financial Services Authority.
Once the BoE no longer had real-time monitoring of banks' capital, liabilities and gearing, the Jock banks were able to go wild in the expansionary ambitions. Similarly, the jumped-up building societies like Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley grew on their delusions of adequacy. The FSA simply did not have the necessary expertise or sanctions to reign them in.
Note how HSBC remained largely unscathed, Barclays survived and Lloyds TSB was only brought down by its forced purchase of HBOS.
If the BoE had remained in charge, this simply would not have happened - just as it had not happened for the previous century and more. Osborne is absolutely correct in laying the blame firmly at the feet of the bloody Brownites.
And, for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with U. Quotes. Cut the redundant and distracting apostrophes.
Posted by: Webwrights | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 17:06
I can't say that I am too disturbed by the LIBOR rigging which is way above my head but as a former small - er, no - tiny businessman (there was just me!) I do think the behaviour of the High Street banks in stitching people up with iniquitous loan agreements that they knew were impossible to service was verging on the criminal, or at least, the mafia would have been proud of it!
I remember when I retired and moved down here to the south west I received a call from my local Lloyds inviting me in for a chat and I said no. My wife asked why and I told her that all they wanted to do was sell me something. Even though I was out of business it had still permeated my consciousness that banks had changed!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 05 July 2012 at 21:38
Your penultimate sentence - exactly, spot-on, hear, hear!
Your last sentence - there's two hopes of that, as they say in Glasgow.
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Friday, 06 July 2012 at 12:30
Thanks, Andrew.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 06 July 2012 at 14:34