They wouldn't have moved lock stock and barrel but they would have relocated their "investment" (sharking) departments to less stringent areas of the world, and then still shot themselves in the foot.

That would have been ok let the Cayman Isles bail them out or just let the investment arm fail by the way side ala Lehman

That's naive in the absolute extreme.



You saw what happened when NatWest had a computer glitch for a weekend (it went on for much longer with Ulster Bank). Now imagine the panic that would've ensued if people realised that their Northern Rock and RBS cards no longer worked. Not only that, all those employed by companies that banked with those two couldn't process payments, leading to a very real knock-on effect among all of the rest of the banking sector.



We would have seen civil unrest not known since Cromwell's time, last year's riots would've seemed like a vicar's tea party in comparison.



You can blame Brown & Balls all you like but those fooking bankers were hiding the scale of the problem from their ferllow bankers and in some circumstances, even from their own colleagues. It's no wonder the FSA didn't flag the problem, so deep-seated was the scale and scope of the corrupt activities.

It was meant as a flippant remark, the fact still remains if the main stream banking was separated form the gambling and the monies in the main stream ring fenced then the riskier investment gambling could be let go bust and thus avoiding your armageddon senario. Brown didn't need to compound matters with how he treated Lloyds.



The potential issues of sub prime were well known and the potential catastrophe discussed by numerous luminaries well before it happened. Government knew how leveraged the banks were they just thought they would continue lending to each other indefinitely. Northern Rock were offering 125% mortgages, that was an unsustainable position, Labour had ample opportunity to do something but did nothing - the fsa has been shown to be not fit for purpose - Balls & Brown were part of the problem not all of it but not without blame

On this I absolutely agree that a lack of regulation was a massive problem – although I suspect that, by the time Ed had any say in anything, it was far too late in terms of the 2008 crisis. Hardly anyone saw it coming – Dean Baker (US macroeconomist and co-founder of the for Economic and Policy Research) is one of a very rare number of exceptions.



But the ethos of deregulation doesn't stand on its own: it's part of a wider political/economic ideology – specifically in terms of the times we're living though, neoliberalism. Which also includes deindustrialisation and privatisation. Both of those were also continued by Blair's governments.



Deregulation is a key aspect of small statism. There's a reason the Tories' own current crop of Tea Partiers want even more deregulation, even knowing what happened in terms of finance, and even when there is not a jot of evidence that deregulation in other sectors would create jobs, for instance. It's an obsession with nothing to support it – and indeed, with much against it.

The government - both parties are equally guilty - seem intimidated by the bankers, doesn't help when you have so many eggs in that basket. You would have thought their arrogance would have been dented by their abject failure to run their businesses properly, but no their self esteem knows no bounds. As usual when business really needs them to step up to the plate they ensure they look after their own first.



I can understand the large scale deindustralisation for mass produced basic products - we simply cannot compete with the BRIC countries, but for small run highly technical products we are as good as anywhere and this should be encouraged. From a skill retention basis if nothing else

Agreed, certainly on the latter point – to an extent on the first. My own interpretation would be that, ideologically speaking, the current government (not the Conservative Party in its entirety, perhaps) but the Parliamentary Party, certainly, have little problem with the power of big finance – and, indeed, big business.



A number of them have financial interests with just such companies.



I think it's more a case of intimidation with Labour and a feeling that nothing can be done; they'll threaten to leave etc etc. Although I'd equally say that (my own interpretation again) that some of them are ideologically not far from a similar view.







Which raises the need for regulation. But it needs to be done properly and with proper legislation to back it up and proper penalties too. It's not just the banks: I'm just reading Ben Goldacre's [iBad Pharma[/i, about how big pharmaceutical corporations behave, and it's pretty shocking. You cannot escape from the view that, at core, their ultimate priority is making money (a legal obligation for a company, of course) but that that frequently comes well above patient wellbeing. But it's also a story of cack-handed regulation with no real clout behind it.







Did you see Sally C's comment about engineering graduates ending up working in the City, because of the money?



Skills retention, certainly.



I'm think I'm correct in saying that we lose many researchers too, because of a lack of investment in research, and because jobs abroad, and other lines of work, pay better.



We have expertise and excellence in a number of fields – and we need to look for more. But at the risk of repeating myself, they won't happen overnight. What is clearly unsustainable, though, is a general population, with dwindling income levels, in a country that needs people to spend for the sake of the economy. And that's without considering the human aspect of that.

My son has just taken a job in Australia, he is 21 a qualified mechanical engineer, he sees not future career path in this country, which is really sad indeed.

This country has never valued mechanical engineers. In Germany, anyone with "Ing" as a prefix to his name is held in reverence. Here, even an "I Mech E" is viewed as little more than a grease monkey

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/graph-cameron-wants-shrink-state?CMP=twt_fdCameron determined to win the race to the bottom of public expenditure[/url

Time to plan my emigration to a civilised country methinks.

Is this what [iCall Me Dave[/i meant by 'Big Society?'



[urlhttp://uk.news.yahoo.com/hungry-pupils-being-fed-teachers-225528172.html[/url