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.

 

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?

Despite his successes as a candidate, the organisational victories have gone the way of Corbyn's opponents. 

The contest changes, but the result remains the same: Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred candidate defeated in a parliamentary selection. Afzhal Khan is Labour’s candidate in the Manchester Gorton by-election and the overwhelming favourite to be the seat’s next MP.

Although Khan, an MEP, was one of  the minority of Labour’s European MPs to dissent from a letter from the European parliamentary Labour party calling for Jeremy Corbyn to go in the summer of 2016, he backed Andy Burnham and Tom Watson in 2015, and it is widely believed, fairly or unfairly, that Khan had, as one local activist put it, “the brains to know which way the wind was blowing” rather than being a pukka Corbynite.

For the leader’s office, it was a double defeat;  their preferred candidate, Sam Wheeler, was kept off the longlist, when the party’s Corbynsceptics allied with the party’s BAME leadership to draw up an all ethnic minority shortlist, and Yasmine Dar, their back-up option, was narrowly defeated by Khan among members in Manchester Gorton.

But even when the leadership has got its preferred candidate to the contest, they have been defeated. That even happened in Copeland, where the shortlist was drawn up by Corbynites and designed to advantage Rachel Holliday, the leader’s office preferred candidate.

Why does the Labour left keep losing? Supporters combination of bad luck and bad decisions for the defeat.

In Oldham West, where Michael Meacher, a committed supporter of Jeremy Corbyn’s, was succeeded by Jim McMahon, who voted for Liz Kendall, McMahon was seen to be so far ahead that they had no credible chance of stopping him. Rosena Allin-Khan was a near-perfect candidate to hold the seat of Tooting: a doctor at the local hospital, the seat’s largest employer, with links to both the Polish and Pakistani communities that make up the seat’s biggest minority blocs.  Gillian Troughton, who won the Copeland selection, is a respected local councillor.

But the leadership has also made bad decisions, some claim.  The failure to get a candidate in Manchester Gorton was particularly egregious, as one trade unionist puts it: “We all knew that Gerald was not going to make it [until 2020], they had a local boy with good connections to the trade unions, that contest should have been theirs for the taking”. Instead, they lost control of the selection panel because Jeremy Corbyn missed an NEC meeting – the NEC is hung at present as the Corbynsceptics sacrificed their majority of one to retain the chair – and with it their best chance of taking the seat.

Others close to the leadership point out that for the first year of Corbyn’s leadership, the leader’s office was more preoccupied with the struggle for survival than it was with getting more of its people in. Decisions in by-elections were taken on the hop and often in a way that led to problems later down the line. It made sense to keep Mo Azam, from the party’s left, off the shortlist in Oldham West when Labour MPs were worried for their own seats and about the Ukip effect if Labour selected a minority candidate. But that enraged the party’s minority politicians and led directly to the all-ethnic-minority shortlist in Manchester Gorton.

They also point out that the party's councillor base, from where many candidates are drawn, is still largely Corbynsceptic, though they hope that this will change in the next round of local government selections. (Councillors must go through a reselection process at every election.)

But the biggest shift has very little to do with the Labour leadership. The big victories for the Labour left in internal battles under Ed Miliband were the result of Unite and the GMB working together. Now they are, for various reasons, at odds and the GMB has proven significantly better at working shortlists and campaigning for its members to become MPs.  That helps Corbynsceptics. “The reason why so many of the unions supported Jeremy the first time,” one senior Corbynite argues, “Is they wanted to move the Labour party a little bit to the left. They didn’t want a socialist transformation of the Labour party. And actually if you look at the people getting selected they are not Corbynites, but they are not Blairites either, and that’s what the unions wanted.”

Regardless of why, it means that, two years into Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour left finds itself smaller in parliament than it was at the beginning.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.