Time for a major shake-up of England and the FSA

The recent dismal failure of England's footballers in the World Cup in South Africa seemed to be as a result of both a lack of confidence and commitment, and an absence in understanding of how a result could be achieved.

The situation cried out for change, and like many before him, The Godfather appeared to shy away from the responsibility afforded to him by the role. Who would have thought that Mr Capello wouldn't have had the bottle to axe an out of touch Rooney, to recognise what everyone else knew; Emile Heskey had had his chance and pairing him with an off-form partner would result in the hapless displays we endured during their all too brief sojourn in South Africa. Whatever happened to "cometh the hour, cometh the man"?

For me, Fabio lost the dressing room when he misguidedly sent an SOS to Jamie Carragher (and as has been reported, an unwilling Paul Scholes, who had, it is said, already booked his Summer holidays and was reluctant to change his plans). Clearly Fabio had no confidence in the younger players who actually wanted to play for their country, and will be the stronghold of our future campaigns, although I doubt under Capello. Instead Fabio put his trust in the mainstays of his qualifying campaign, admittedly strong personalities who it would have been difficult to replace on reputation, but who, one would hope, could have respected him all the more for having the courage of his convictions. However after the mercy dash for older, retired personnel the damage was already done. Wasn't it the Eagles in their seminal opus Hotel California who said "you should never look back"? Perhaps where Glenn Hoddle would look to Eileen Drewery for inspiration, Fabio should have drafted in Don Henley for motivational purposes. Sometimes you just have to rip it up and start again (Orange Juice anyone?)
For 4-4-2 read RDR.

We now hear mutterings that the FSA will finally consider what the industry has been asking for since regulation began; why not regulate the products and not their sale? This happens widely elsewhere; no drug can be brought to market without years of clinical trials. No car is launched without exhaustive and expensive NCAP testing. Would the super-regulator, in the interest of discharging its consumer protection mandate, not be better to focus on a proactive, credible, strategy than one of ineffective, reactive, deterrent? But surely, if they do so, that will render the need for much of the change outlined by RDR open to debate. The decision to embrace the need for a change of direction, no matter how obvious to the armchair critic, is difficult. Just ask Mr Capello.

Hector Sants is of course now staying on at the helm to guide the transition of the FSA to the new order. Whether this is the correct decision by George Osborne, time alone will tell. Most fair minded individuals want to see a regulator run with the aim of providing a regulatory environment that is strong and focussed and that allows innovation, supported by guidance and assistance from the Regulator; not an environment where fines and sanctions (apart from those who clearly really deserve it) are the norm. To complete the footballing analogy perhaps some strong team talks are called for in the dressing room to regain true focus. It is a brave person that can admit change is necessary. There remains a good opportunity here, the question is, "Are the Chancellor and his colleagues brave enough to provide the necessary direction to ensure Mr Sants delivers a proactive regulatory environment, or will it be more of the same and the inevitable defeat?"

Mark Lisle, is compliance manager at Rowanmoor Pensions