If you want to change the way your banking system is regulated, if you want to learn the mistakes of what’s gone wrong, then you have to change your government.

Osborne frames banking reform as inseparable from political change: regulation is not a technocratic fix but a product of who holds power and what incentives they face. The line implies that the failures behind a financial crisis (or regulatory breakdown) are rooted in governmental choices—laws, oversight culture, and enforcement priorities—so meaningful learning and correction require replacing the decision-makers, not merely adjusting rules at the margins. Rhetorically, it turns public frustration with banks into an electoral argument, suggesting that accountability for financial mismanagement ultimately runs through democratic control of the state.