In her first Mansion House speech as Chancellor, Rachel Reeves announced plans to deregulate the UK’s financial market (“Reeves pledges to rip up red tape as post-2008 crash regulation ‘gone too far’”, Thursday 14 November). She argued that rules brought in following the 2008 banking crash have had the “unintended consequences” of holding back “growth”.
The casino economy of the early noughties came to an abrupt end in 2008 with a banking crash which brought down major banks like Northern Rock, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and the Bradford & Bingley.
The crash was caused by banks reckless borrowing to fund their gambling on the financial markets. When the bubble burst in 2008 it was the worst financial crisis since the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
The neo-liberals, who insisted society was best organised on free-market principles in which the strong thrive and the weak go to the wall, turned to the state for help. The bankers were bailed out by the state to the tune of £137 billion.
Thatcherites who had chanted the mantra “there is no alternative” to free-market capitalism for decades openly embraced the alternative of state intervention to the anarchy of the market. The working-class picked up the bankers’ tab with 16 years of austerity and public-sector cuts.
Now Reeves wants to give the bankers another chance for a tiny minority to risk crashing the economy in the pursuit of obscene profits.
Rachel Reeves is reopening Casino UK and, as the chief croupier, is inviting bankers to place their bets. Never mind if they lose their shirts, Reeves will see the working-class will cover their losses … again.
Sasha Simic
West Bank, London
Leaving the EU was lunacy - looking elsewhere won’t help
To misquote the Bard, “To rejoin (the EU) or not to rejoin (the EU), that is the question.”
For me, and many others, there is an increasingly urgent need to become a (welcomed) part of the EU. The folly of leaving the union has surely been proven beyond doubt (“Step up Brexit reset or European allies will lose patience, Starmer warned”, Friday 15 November).
The lies, fabrication and obfuscation of the Brexiteers has been exposed, resulting in Britain languishing in the depths in an economic and social slough.
Why are we whispering these thoughts when we should be shouting them from the rooftops? It was sheer lunacy to leave our biggest trading partner when there was no replacement present and the theory of our future trading success was built on lies.
There is no possibility of America, India, China trade agreements, and I’m afraid that the Australian, Icelandic, and other trading deals just will not fill our trading gap.
As our new government is reluctant to broach the subject on full membership with the EU, perhaps the electorate can persuade them to be bold and petition for inclusion.
This failed idea of leaving the largest trading hub in the world is now obvious, and increasingly causing economic strife in Britain. We must urge our government to start the process of rejoining the EU without delay.
Keith Poole
Basingstoke, Hampshire
Reeves wooed businesses, then pulled the rug out from beneath
I read John Rentoul’s column (“We need more than your ‘Crisis? What crisis?’ response to dire growth figures, Chancellor”, Friday 15 November) with interest and agreement.
The chancellor’s budget was a seismic shock and may have given her and her team immense pleasure, it’s foreseeable effects should have resonated, and indeed warned of its predictable consequences.
It is understandable that she wanted to hit the economic ground running, but not running out of control. Businesses do indeed feel they have been pilloried, and naturally their fiscal pain will land on hard-working people’s shoulders as it trickles down.
Of course, now growth has flatlined and she shouldn’t be surprised, as she has taken the rug from under their feet - and it was a strange thing to do, when she and the prime minister have been wooing businesses for years as to their fiscal credibility.
Andrew Bailey was correct to comment about the downsides of Brexit but how this can all be reconciled with the new American administration is really unfathomable. Less gung-ho measures from the government would be a proactive start, because the more ameliorative measures in the budget just got buried.
Judith Daniels
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Fix indefinite sentencing injustice now
As the system currently stands, most prisoners can expect to be released early, subject to parole board approval. With very few exceptions, even those who have committed extremely serious crimes will be released having served the sentence imposed on them at trial.
So, how can the government claim that someone on an IPP [imprisonment for public protection] sentence (“‘Don’t be on wrong side of history’: Indefinite jail terms compared to Post Office and Infected Blood scandals”, Friday 15 November) does not deserve similar consideration, especially when many are guilty of only minor offences?
If it is wrong now to use IPP sentencing, it was wrong when used, and this injustice should be immediately rectified.
Or is the government worried it will be accused of being soft on crime?
Geoff Forward
Stirling, Scotland
