The nasty world Vickers missed

In his banking review, John Vickers said there isn’t enough competition among high street banks. He

Doorstep lending and loan sharking is causing misery for thousands of people across the country right now, but a small credit scheme is fighting back in east London and it has had some good news.

Fair Finance, based in Stepney, has raised £1m for its loan book from Société Générale and BNP Paribas so it can offer loans to poor families that are at the mercy of doorstep lenders and loan sharks – no collateral required.

It was set up five years ago by Faisel Rahman to provide funds to those typically rejected by the banks. They typically borrow up to £500 for items such as a new oven or school uniforms.

Fair Finance runs repayment over about a year and charges an annual percentage rate of 44 per cent. It helps customers set up bank accounts and encourages the reporting of loan sharks to the police. Its default rate is just 7 per cent and the company now employs 12 people.

This system of microlending is similar to that of the Grameen Bank, started in Bangladesh by the Nobel prizewinner Professor Muhammad Yunus, now sadly battling opponents of his own after being forced to retire as Grameen's head.

The problem in the UK is that people rejected by banks as being too high a risk resort to doorstep lenders, who bring the cash to your door but charge up to 2,500 per cent. This is big business.

There are two problems at work here. The Competition Commission has warned that there aren't enough lenders prepared to take on the high-risk market (otherwise known as "poor people"). And loan sharks are flourishing because enforcement rules aren't tough enough.

But the Labour MP Stella Creasy has been steering a private member's bill through parliament. The Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill was parked in February; however, it will return in October. Here's more about the whole issue in detail.

Trading Standards officers across the country want the bill to become law so that they can work with the police to take on the worst offenders they know by name. Doncaster has been doing some great work this way.

But, on this issue as usual, the anti-regulation-more-red-tape brigade can't see the wood from the trees.

Trading standards officers are council officials, so it would be a big help if the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, backed the bill. Think it through and there's an efficiency saving here which also prevents people falling into deeper problems.

But will Pickles get involved? He may need a little gentle persuading. So why don't you email him and try a bit of "nudge" behavioural change?

Getty
Show Hide image

How to think about the EU result if you voted Remain

A belief in democracy means accepting the crowd is wiser than you are as an individual. 

I voted Remain, I feel sick about this result and its implications for what’s to come. But I’m a believer in democracy. This post is about how to reconcile those two things (it’s a bit unstructured because I’m working it out as I go, and I’m not sure I agree with all of it).

Democracy isn’t just fairer than other systems of governance, it’s smarter. It leads to better decisions and better outcomes, on average and over the long run, than countries that are run by autocrats or councils of wise men with jobs for life. It is simply the best way we have yet devised of solving complex problems involving many people. On that topic, if you’re not averse to some rather dense and technical prose, read this post or seek out this book. But the central argument is that democracy is the best way of harnessing ‘cognitive diversity’ — bringing to bear many different perspectives on a problem, each of which are very partial in themselves, but add up to something more than any one wise person.

I don’t think you can truly be a believer in democracy unless you accept that the people, collectively, are smarter than you are. That’s hard. It’s easy to say you believe in the popular will, right up until the popular will does something REALLY STUPID. The hard thing is not just to ‘accept the result’ but to accept that the majority who voted for that result know or understand something better than you. But they do. You are just one person, after all, and try as you might to expand your perspective with reading (and some try harder than others) you can’t see everything. So if a vote goes against you, you need to reflect on the possibility you got it wrong in some way. If I look at the results of past general elections and referendums, for instance, I now see they were all pretty much the right calls, including those where I voted the other way.

One way to think about the vote is that it has forced a slightly more equitable distribution of anxiety and alienation upon the country. After Thursday, I feel more insecure about my future, and that of my family. I also feel like a foreigner in my own country — that there’s this whole massive swathe of people out there who don’t think like me at all and probably don’t like me. I feel like a big decision about my life has been imposed on me by nameless people out there. But of course, this is exactly how many of those very people have been feeling for years, and at a much higher level of intensity. Democracy forces us to try on each other’s clothes. I could have carried on quite happily ignoring the unhappiness of much of the country but I can’t ignore this.

I’m seeing a lot of people on Twitter and in the press bemoaning how ill-informed people were, talking about a ‘post-factual democracy’. Well, maybe, though I think that requires further investigation - democracy has always been a dirty dishonest business. But surely the great thing about Thursday that so many people voted — including many, many people who might have felt disenfranchised from a system that hasn’t been serving them well. I’m not sure you’re truly a democrat if you don’t take at least a tiny bit of delight in seeing people so far from the centres of power tipping the polity upside down and giving it a shake. Would it have been better or worse for the country if Remain had won because only informed middle-class people voted? It might have felt better for people like me, it might actually have been better, economically, for everyone. But it would have indicated a deeper rot in our democracy than do the problems with our national information environment (which I accept are real).

I’m not quite saying ‘the people are always right’ — at least, I don’t think it was wrong to vote to stay in the EU. I still believe we should have Remained and I’m worried about what we’ve got ourselves into by getting out. But I am saying they may have been right to use this opportunity — the only one they were given — to send an unignorable signal to the powers-that-be that things aren’t working. You might say general elections are the place for that, but our particular system isn’t suited to change things on which there is a broad consensus between the two main parties.

Ian Leslie is a writer, author of CURIOUS: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends On It, and writer/presenter of BBC R4's Before They Were Famous.