For a “fair” financial system, the banks must give something back

The leaders’ economy debate overlooked society’s most disadvantaged, and their relationship to the b

If this election has a buzzword, it is undoubtedly "fairness", which, along with "change", has been co-opted by all three main parties.

Last night's leaders' debate focused on the economy, covering banker's bonuses, regulatory reform and reducing the Budget deficit.

But what does this actually mean for most people? For all the vague talk of helping small businesses and protecting jobs, there was very little discussion of those now sitting at the bottom of the social and financial ladder, who continue to feel the fallout from a crisis they did little to create.

There are two main issues here. First is the plight of small businesses, many of which are struggling to obtain credit. Just a few months ago, it was reported that RBS, 84 per cent owned by the taxpayer, had failed to meet its target of increasing lending to businesses by £16bn.

The Better Banking campaign points out that some 25,000 businesses a year with viable propositions find it impossible to access credit. Small businesses in the UK have the highest rate of failure of all the OECD countries, largely because of undercapitalisation.

This is not "fair", and if economic growth is to be ensured, lending to small businesses must be a priority. The three main parties have all made nods towards this, but it remains to be seen whether they will go far enough.

Second is an issue that has largely been ignored across the board. David Cameron spoke last night about protecting the "frail" members of our society and Gordon Brown pledged to create jobs, while Nick Clegg argued for a tax system that is "fairer" to those on low incomes.

But what about the millions of people whose income is too low to pay any tax? Between five and seven million people have no access to credit because they don't have a bank account, or any credit history.

These people are disenfranchised, and at risk of falling into a cycle of debt. In January, the Financial Inclusion Centre said 100,000 families had borrowed £29m in total from illegal moneylenders over Christmas. The average amount borrowed was £288, but the average repayment was £820.

Even apart from such illegitimate loans, these families lose an extra £1,000 each year on average, through not being able to set up direct debits or flexible billing arrangements.

The 2010 Budget stated that banks would be legally obliged to provide a basic bank account to all UK citizens, to begin to redress the balance between banks and society's most disadvantaged members. It remains to be seen whether this will be upheld in the emergency Budget published after the election.

The Better Banking campaign is urging the party leaders to implement a series of measures: full disclosure on lending to small businesses, incentives and obligations for banks to take social responsibility, capping the amount that can be charged for credit, and reinvesting 1 per cent of banks' profit for public benefit.

Labour has adopted some of these promises in its manifesto, and the other parties must follow suit. The deep-seated sense of injustice felt by much of the electorate will not disappear, as disadvantaged people and local communities continue to suffer while banks return to profit. From this perspective, splitting banks up, or temporarily capping bonuses, all seem like distant, token measures.

As the banking crash painfully illustrated, the financial sector has roots running deep into every section of our society. The only way that long-term "fairness" can be ensured is if a more reciprocal relationship is created, in which the banks nurture the society that bailed them out.

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.