Welby’s war on Wonga

Are the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plans to take on payday lenders heroic or harebrained?

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks about his desire to compete payday lender Wonga “out of existence” by strengthening credit unions in the UK has got people thinking power has gone to his head.

However, Archbishop Welby could be on to something, if the Church gets its execution right. Just look at the success of Islamic banking to see how religion can be a powerful force in banking. The first question is: why would the Church take on a market leader in its own game from a standing start? The second is whether credit unions are a business the Church should be getting into, given that mainstream lenders steer clear of this sector with a bargepole?

The first answer is pretty simple: the Church loves a fight. Think the Crusades, gay marriage or female priests. Although the latter two show that more recently it’s been internal rather than external conflicts. So Archbishop Welby picking a fight with payday lenders, of which Wonga is the best known, is par for the course. Welby said this could be a “decade-long process”, which again isn’t a concern, since the Crusades lasted 200-odd years. A couple of decades is a cakewalk.

So now to the second question, why do it? Backing credit unions is risky, but could pay off, for several reasons, not least the social good it could generate.  There is little doubt that credit unions represent a small slice of the overall retail /commercial banking, although that is changing. According to the most recent unaudited figures by the Association of British Credit Unions, there are 1,025,438 people in the UK using credit unions, including over 123,000 junior savers. Since 2007, the number of members has increased by almost 50 per cent while the number of credit unions has dropped by 23 per cent. The Department of Work & Pensions say up to seven million people use sources of high cost credit e.g. home credit, pay day lenders and pawnbrokers.

So there is a rising market worth £2bn, with a falling number of competitors – both good and bad news. Good because there’s demand, bad because it’s tough to make money.

A second reason is that the Church has a strong brand to leverage off, a loyal customer base (parishioners) and presumably trust in its overall intentions, something badly lacking from many mainstream retail banks. Thirdly, on the surface, its costs/overheads would be relatively low. It already owns the church halls and properties it’ll operate the credit unions out of – a reason why many mainstream banks have cut back branch numbers. It also has a ready supply of cheap labour. According to Welby, there are plans to encourage church members with relevant skills to volunteer at credit unions. It would need to invest in an easy-to-use and quick technology platform to make the most of its countrywide scale.

Now to the downsides. The main reservation about launching such an initiative is the fact that most financial institutions steer clear of the sub-prime sector because there’s significant risk. Mainstream banks don’t go there because these are high risk loans with a danger of not having them paid back. Although Airdrie Savings Bank has launched its own short-term loan, Co-op is an example of a mutual (so not in itself a credit union) that is clearly not working at the moment. Finally, there is the reputational risk. If Church-backed credit unions were caught up in a PPI-style, or sub-prime mortgage, scandal, it would lose the trust of not only its customers, but its parishioners too – the ultimate death knell for The Church.

So why do it? To provide an alternative for those who can’t get credit from traditional lenders, with a social, rather than profit, motive is a noble cause. I wish them good luck, but with the words from a report by Civitas ringing loudly: "To be effective charities, they must first be effective financial institutions."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Photograph: Getty Images

Nick Moody is the editor - Private Banker International at Progressive Media Group.

 

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.