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

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.