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

Junior doctors’ strikes: the greatest union failure in a generation

The first wave of junior doctor contract impositions began this week. Here’s how the BMA union failed junior doctors.

In Robert Tressell’s novel, The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, the author ridicules the notion of work as a virtuous end per se:

“And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order.”

Tressell’s characters are subdued and eroded by the daily disgraces of working life; casualised labour, poor working conditions, debt and poverty.

Although the Junior Doctors’ dispute is a far cry from the Edwardian working-poor, the eruption of fervour from Junior Doctors during the dispute channelled similar overtones of dire working standards, systemic abuse, and a spiralling accrual of discontent at the notion of “noble” work as a reward in itself. 

While the days of union activity precipitating governmental collapse are long over, the BMA (British Medical Association) mandate for industrial action occurred in a favourable context that the trade union movement has not witnessed in decades. 

Not only did members vote overwhelmingly for industrial action with the confidence of a wider public, but as a representative of an ostensibly middle-class profession with an irreplaceable skillset, the BMA had the necessary cultural capital to make its case regularly in media print and TV – a privilege routinely denied to almost all other striking workers.

Even the Labour party, which displays parliamentary reluctance in supporting outright strike action, had key members of the leadership join protests in a spectacle inconceivable just a few years earlier under the leadership of “Red Ed”.

Despite these advantageous circumstances, the first wave of contract impositions began this week. The great failures of the BMA are entirely self-inflicted: its deference to conservative narratives, an overestimation of its own method, and woeful ignorance of the difference between a trade dispute and moralising conundrums.

These right-wing discourses have assumed various metamorphoses, but at their core rest charges of immorality and betrayal – to themselves, to the profession, and ultimately to the country. These narratives have been successfully deployed since as far back as the First World War to delegitimise strikes as immoral and “un-British” – something that has remarkably haunted mainstream left-wing and union politics for over 100 years.

Unfortunately, the BMA has inherited this doubt and suspicion. Tellingly, a direct missive from the state machinery that the BMA was “trying to topple the government” helped reinforce the same historic fears of betrayal and unpatriotic behaviour that somehow crossed a sentient threshold.

Often this led to abstract and cynical theorising such as whether doctors would return to work in the face of fantastical terrorist attacks, distracting the BMA from the trade dispute at hand.

In time, with much complicity from the BMA, direct action is slowly substituted for direct inaction with no real purpose and focus ever-shifting from the contract. The health service is superficially lamented as under-resourced and underfunded, yes, but certainly no serious plan or comment on how political factors and ideologies have contributed to its present condition.

There is little to be said by the BMA for how responsibility for welfare provision lay with government rather than individual doctors; virtually nothing on the role of austerity policies; and total silence on how neoliberal policies act as a system of corporate welfare, eliciting government action when in the direct interests of corporatism.

In place of safeguards demanded by the grassroots, there are instead vague quick-fixes. Indeed, there can be no protections for whistleblowers without recourse to definable and tested legal safeguards. There are limited incentives for compliance by employers because of atomised union representation and there can be no exposure of a failing system when workers are treated as passive objects requiring ever-greater regulation.

In many ways, the BMA exists as the archetypal “union for a union’s sake”, whose material and functional interest is largely self-intuitive. The preservation of the union as an entity is an end in itself.

Addressing conflict in a manner consistent with corporate and business frameworks, there remains at all times overarching emphasis on stability (“the BMA is the only union for doctors”), controlled compromise (“this is the best deal we can get”) and appeasement to “greater” interests (“think of the patients”). These are reiterated even when diametrically opposed to its own members or irrelevant to the trade dispute.

With great chutzpah, the BMA often moves from one impasse to the next, framing defeats as somehow in the interests of the membership. Channels of communication between hierarchy and members remain opaque, allowing decisions such as revocation of the democratic mandate for industrial action to be made with frightening informality.

Pointedly, although the BMA often appears to be doing nothing, the hierarchy is in fact continually defining the scope of choice available to members – silence equals facilitation and de facto acceptance of imposition. You don’t get a sense of cumulative unionism ready to inspire its members towards a swift and decisive victory.

The BMA has woefully wasted the potential for direct action. It has encouraged a passive and pessimistic malaise among its remaining membership and presided over the most spectacular failure of union representation in a generation.

Ahmed Wakas Khan is a junior doctor, freelance journalist and editorials lead at The Platform. He tweets @SireAhmed.