The credit crunch continues

We are still experiencing a crunch in credit - when will it end?

The financial crisis, which began in 2007, is often described as the "credit crunch". The evidence, however, is that the crunch in credit only really began in 2009 and shows no sign of abating.

For many the financial crisis became real when queues of depositors were filmed outside Northern Rock on 14th September 2007. However, Bank of England credit data reveals that the credit crunch really began in the middle of 2009 and in a very dramatic fashion. It was then that many sectors of the British economy witnessed such a dramatic fall in credit that nearly three years on credit levels remain significantly below their peak.

Credit in many sectors fell off a cliff edge in the second quarter of 2009 after years of continual growth. The sectors in the table above all witnessed dramatic falls in credit in the middle of 2009, although real estate saw a more pronounced fall about a year later.

What is even more worrying is the fact that, in many sectors, credit levels have continued to fall.

The data in table 2 begins where that of table 1 finished and gives bimonthly credit figures from March 2011 to March 2012. Credit in these four key sectors has continued to fall. Of most concern are the falls in credit to manufacturing and financial intermediation firms. The manufacturing sector produces the majority of Britain’s goods exports and firms in this sector rely on credit to invest in capital. Furthermore, trade credit helps firms reach foreign markets. The fall in credit to firms involved in financial intermediation is both a symptom and a cause of the problem and is evidence of the weaknesses that continue to plague the British banking system.

The final table indicates the severity of the credit crunch. Interestingly the crunch that began in the middle of 2009 was of a similar magnitude to the contraction in credit since the end of 2010. The data suggests that, far from the crunch relaxing, it continues and with previous falls the problem is compounded.

The picture is not the same for all sectors; lending to individuals secured on the value of property or similar asset has returned to, and in fact risen beyond, pre-crisis levels. The hotels and restaurants sector did not witness a significant fall in credit during the crisis. Nevertheless credit constraints continue to affect many important sectors of the British economy and there is little indication that this situation will change any time soon. Given this, it is hard to argue that the worst is behind us.

What time is it? Time to make it easier to get credit. Photograph: Getty Images

Selling Circuits Short: Improving the prospects of the British electronics industry by Stephen L. Clarke and Georgia Plank was released yesterday by Civitas. It is available on PDF and Amazon Kindle

Show Hide image

Women-only train carriages are just a way of ensuring more spaces are male by default

We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

“A decent girl,” says bus driver Mukesh Singh, “won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy.”

Singh is one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and fatal assault of Jyoti Singh Pandey on a Delhi bus in 2013. His defence was that she shouldn’t have been on the bus in the first place. Presumably he’d have said the same if she’d been on a train. In the eyes of a rapist, all space is male-owned by default.

I find myself thinking of this in light of shadow fire minister Chris Williamson’s suggestion that woman-only train carriages be introduced in order to combat sexual violence on public transport. It’s an idea originally proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, only to be shelved following criticism from female MPs.

Now Williamson feels that a rise in sex attacks on public transport has made it worth considering again. Speaking to PoliticsHome, he argues that “complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks”. He does not bother to mention who the perpetrators might be. Bears, vampires, monsters? Doesn’t really matter. As long as you keep the bait safely stored away in a sealed compartment, no one’s going to sniff it out and get tempted. Problem solved, right?

And that’s not the only benefit of a woman-only carriage. What better way to free up space for the people who matter than to designate one solitary carriage for the less important half of the human race?

Sure, women can still go in the free-for-all, male-violence-is-inevitable, frat-house carriages if they want to. But come on, ladies - wouldn’t that be asking for it? If something were to happen to you, wouldn’t people want to know why you hadn’t opted for the safer space?

It’s interesting, at a time when gender neutrality is supposed to be all the rage, that we’re seeing one form of sex segregated space promoted while another is withdrawn. The difference might, in some cases, seem subtle, but earlier sex segregation has been about enabling women to take up more space in the world – when they otherwise might have stayed at home – whereas today’s version seem more about reducing the amount of space women already occupy.

When feminists seek to defend female-only toilets, swimming sessions and changing rooms as a means of facilitating women’s freedom of movement, we’re told we’re being, at best, silly, at worst, bigoted. By contrast, when men propose female-only carriages as a means of accommodating male violence and sexual entitlement, women are supposed to be grateful (just look at the smack-downs Labour’s Stella Creasy received for her failure to be sufficiently overjoyed).

As long as over 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, there can be no such thing as a gender-neutral space. Any mixed space is a male-dominated space, which is something women have to deal with every day of their lives. Our freedoms are already limited. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about personal safety. Each time it is proposed that women don’t go there or don’t do that, just to be on the safe side, our world gets a little bit smaller. What’s more, removing the facilities we already use in order to go there or do that tends to have the exact same effect.

Regarding female-only carriages, Williamson claims “it would be a matter of personal choice whether someone wanted to make use of [them].” But what does that mean? Does any woman make the “personal choice” to put herself at risk of assault? All women want is the right to move freely without that constant low-level monologue – no, those men look fine, don’t be so paranoid, you can always do the key thing, if you’ve thought it’s going to happen that means it won’t …. We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

In 1975’s Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller pointed out that the fact that a minority of men rape “provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation”. Whether they want to or not, all men benefit from the actions of those Brownmiller calls “front-line masculine shock troops”. The violence of some men should not be used as an opportunity for all men to mark out yet more space as essentially theirs, but this is what happens whenever men “benevolently” tell us this bus, this train carriage, this item of clothing just isn’t safe enough for us.

“A decent girl,” says the future rapist, “wouldn’t have been in a mixed-sex carriage late at night.” It’s time to end this constant curtailment of women’s freedoms. A decent man would start by naming the problem – male violence – and dealing with that. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.