Banks tried to hide their bonuses, but now the game is up. What next?

Britain has always valued a sense of fair play. It is time to demand a fair banking system.

2011 was a year of constraint and contrition for the banking sector. Bonus pools were reduced, balance sheets slimmed down and high profile bankers heroically waived their bonuses.

Or so the banks' PR machines would have had us believe. Last Friday, as analysts trawled through Barclays and RBS's annual report and Lloyds' pay statement, a very different picture emerged from that painted by the banks.

Bob Diamond's pay packet for 2011 could be as much as £17.7 million. The head of state-backed RBS' investment banking division, John Hourican, was handed a package worth £7.4 million. And the Chief Executive of Lloyds netted £3.5 million. All in all Barclays, Lloyds and RBS paid out in excess of £90 million to top executives in 2011.

There is a clear injustice in a sector which is implicitly and explicitly subsidised by the taxpayer awarding itself bloated rewards at a time when the public are enduring austerity cuts, a squeeze on real incomes, and rising unemployment.

But the public outrage taps into something deeper. After all, the British sense of fair play has always been premised on there being haves and have-nots.

Public anger taps into the stark fact that the banking system is failing to fulfil some of its basic functions because the industry is grotesquely skewed towards socially unproductive activities that allow a small elite to extract vast wealth to the detriment of the many.

Despite a financial crisis, a £1.2 trillion bailout and ongoing public outcry, it can still seem like there is no viable alternative to business as usual. But it is worth reminding ourselves that this is not universal: the British banking system stands out from its US and European counterparts.

Firstly, the UK banking sector is one of the most concentrated in the world. In the retail sector six large national banks account for 92 per cent of personal current accounts, 85 per cent of mortgages, and 88 per cent of small business accounts .

Secondly, it is one of the least diverse in terms of the types and functions of financial providers. Whereas in the UK, the big four dominate the high street, in Germany a wide range of local and mutually owned banks have a 70 per cent share of the market for loans and deposits.

Thirdly, it is the largest in size relative to our economy. Assets of UK banks are almost six times GDP, compared to the US where they are roughly equal.

These features enabled the City to generate huge profits in the boom years, but they are also root causes of its inability to serve the needs of households and businesses.

The financial crisis exploded the myth that profits booked in the financial sector means wealth for the UK. Figures from the IMF show that despite the fact that, in relative terms, the UK banking sector is six times the size of its US equivalent, it generates the same amount of total tax revenue -- less than a paltry 2 per cent.

Now the long-term effects this British exceptionalism are clear for all to see. We have a banking system unable to allocate credit to viable businesses, provide bank accounts to low-income households, or even keep our money safe.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the UK lags other countries in achieving universal access to financial products and services, with 1.5m adults still lacking a current account. The branch network continues to shrink with a 44 per cent reduction since 1990 leaving more communities unbanked.

And Britain's small businesses struggle more than their European and American counterparts to access credit, with some 370,000 SMEs failing to secure loan finance from mainstream financial institutions in 2011 alone.

But what comes next?

Martin Kettle recently argued that the mood of the nation is to muddle along. The public just want to get back to normal with as little fuss as possible. Whilst it may be true that there is little appetite for a revolutionary overthrow of liberal capitalism, there is clear evidence that there is growing interest in a different way of doing things.

The alternative financial sector has flourished in the aftermath of the financial crisis -- filling the gaps where the big banks are simply unable to provide.

Households and businesses are becoming increasingly dependent on these alternatives. Unfortunately their rise is paralleled -- in fact dwarfed by the increase in doorstop and payday lenders which only goes to demonstrate the size of the unmet market demand.

These alternative institutions are still a tiny part of the financial ecosystem. But the sector is at a tipping point. It now needs to work together to create a narrative which takes it beyond a niche industry. It needs to the let the public know that there is alternative out there, and why its better for them.

That's why we have launched Move Your Money UK, a campaign encouraging people to move their money to ethical, local or mutual financial providers. There is appetite for change. We may not be in a revolutionary moment, but the public are no longer willing to accept business as usual from our banking sector and are looking for something better.

Louis Brooke is a co-founder of Move Your Money UK. Follow the campaign on Twitter @moveyourmoneyuk and Facebook.

Louis Brooke is a spokesperson for Move Your Money UK, a not for profit campaign group, promoting alternatives to the big banks. He is also communications manager for London Rebuilding Society, and co-founder and chairman of educational resource company now>press>play.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn faces a dilemma as Brexit solidifies: which half of his voters should he disappoint?

He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club.

Imagine a man who voted to leave the European Economic Community in 1975. A man who spoke out against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, saying that it “takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”. A man who voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.

You don’t have to imagine very hard, because that man is Jeremy Corbyn. When campaigning for the Labour leadership in 2015, he told a GMB hustings, “I would ­advocate a No vote if we are going to get an imposition of free-market policies across Europe.”

When Labour’s Brexiteers gathered to launch their campaign in 2016, several seemed hurt that Corbyn and his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, were not there with them. “It is surprising, when we voted against the advice of the chief whip on a number of European issues over the last decades, that Jeremy and John, who have always been in that lobby with us, that they would want to lead a campaign that isn’t even asking for a renegotiated position,” said the MP Graham Stringer.

I mention this because since the election campaign started in April, I keep having an odd experience – people insisting that Corbyn is not a Eurosceptic, and that he will use Labour’s new-found strength to argue for a softer Brexit. Others claim that Labour’s current position on freedom of movement (ending it) is the obvious, common-sense – even progressive – choice.

This matters. Look, if the evidence above doesn’t convince you that the Labour leader is intensely relaxed about exiting the European Union, I don’t know what else would. Yet it’s clear that some Labour activists strongly identify personally with Corbyn: they find it hard to believe that he holds different opinions from them.

The second factor is the remaking of Brexit as a culture war, where to say that someone is a Eurosceptic is seen as a kind of slur. Perhaps without realising it, some on the left do associate Euroscepticism with Little Englanderism or even flat-out racism, and see it as a moral failing rather than a political position.

But I’m not impugning Jeremy Corbyn’s character or morals by saying that he is an instinctive Brexiteer. He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club. You can disagree with that premise but it’s a respectable line of reasoning.

Also, the Euroscepticism of Corbyn and his allies will undoubtedly give them an advantage in the months ahead; they are not consumed by fatalism, and the members of McDonnell’s shadow Treasury team feel that the removal of European state aid restrictions can help revive ailing bits of the British economy. They have a vision of what an ideal “Labour Brexit” would be – and it’s not just sobbing and begging Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel to take us back.

We do, however, need a reality check. Now that the necessary humble pie has been eaten, Labour’s unexpected revival at the ballot box means we can begin to treat Corbyn as a normal politician – with the emphasis on the second word. He’s not the Messiah, but he’s not a joke either. He is a charismatic campaigner who is willing to compromise on second-tier issues to achieve his main objectives.

From the general election, we can see just how good a campaigner Corbyn is: he can fire up a crowd, give disciplined answers to interviewers and chat amiably on a sofa. That throws into sharp relief just how limp his performances were last year.

He might have little else in common with Theresa May, but they both looked at the EU referendum and thought: yeah, I’m going to sit this one out. He called on activists to accept the EU “warts and all”; and said he was “seven, or seven and a half” out of ten in favour of staying in it.

For both leaders, this was a pragmatic decision. May did not want to be overtly disloyal to David Cameron, but neither did she wish to risk her career if the result went the other way.

Anyone in Labour would have been equally sane to look north of the border and back to 2014, and remember just how much credibility the party immolated by sharing stages with the Conservatives and allowing itself to be seen as the establishment. By limiting his involvement in the Remain campaign and whipping his MPs to trigger Article 50, Corbyn ended up with a fudge that gave Labour some cover in heavily pro-Brexit regions of the country.

That’s the politics, but what about the principle? I can’t shake the feeling that if Corbyn campaigned as hard for Remain in 2016 as he did for Labour in 2017, we would still be members of the European Union. And that matters to me, as much as left-wing policies or a change in the rhetoric around migrants and welfare claimants, because I think leaving the EU is going to make us poorer and meaner.

That’s why I worry that many of my friends, and the activists I talk to, are about to be disappointed, after waiting and waiting for Labour to start making the case for a softer Brexit and for the single market being more important than border controls. As Michael Chessum, a long-standing Momentum organiser, wrote on the New Statesman website, “Recognising the fact that immigration enriches society is all very well, but that narrative is inevitably undermined if you then choose to abolish the best policy for allowing immigration to happen.”

Labour’s success on 8 June was driven by its ambiguous stance on Brexit. To Leavers, it could wink at ending freedom of movement when they worried about immigration; to Remainers, it offered a critique of the immigrant-bashing rhetoric of recent times. But can that coalition hold as the true shape of Brexit solidifies? Over the next few months, Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest decision will be this: which half of my voters should I disappoint?

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496