Ed Miliband's banking reform speech: the full details

In another no-notes speech, the Labour leader will promise to introduce a cap on banks' market share and to create two new challenger banks.

So well-trailed has Ed Miliband's speech on the economy been that it is easy to forget he hasn't actually delivered it yet. That, and George Osborne's announcement that he favours an above-inflation rise in the minimum wage, means Miliband may struggle to command the attention of the media tomorrow. But the speech, which I'm told by a Labour source he will deliver without notes, is an important guide to the narrative he will pursue in the months to come. With average wages likely to outstrip prices at some point this year, he will seek to reframe the "cost of living crisis" as a long-term problem that will only be solved through long-term changes to the economy. Here's the key passage:

This Government thinks it is all going to be OK because this year the forecasts say that average wages will eventually overtake prices. Let’s hope that happens. But I really warn this Government: if they think a few months of better statistics will solve this crisis, they are just demonstrating again that they have absolutely no idea about the scale of the problem or the solutions required.

This cost-of-living crisis is about who gets the rewards, not just the averages: ordinary people or just those at the top? It is about the nature of work and whether it is secure or insecure. It is about the prospects for people’s kids and the quality of jobs. It is about decent homes at affordable prices. It is about a strong sense that this cost-of-living crisis has been coming for a long time.

As expected, Miliband will cite the banking sector as an area that will need to be dramatically reformed if the economy is to deliver sustained increases in living standards for the majority of the country. The intention is to deliver what his chief strategist Stewart Wood calls a "supply side revolution from the left". He will say: "At our Party Conference in September, I talked about how we will reform Britain’s broken energy market.  The big energy firms didn’t like it. But it is broken. And only Labour will put it right.

"Today, I want to talk about another broken market: Britain’s banking system. There can be no bigger test of whether we are serious about building a new economy and tackling the cost-of-living crisis than reforming Britain’s banks.

"Part of the reason we rely too much on low paid, insecure work is that the small and medium sized firms - that could create the good, high paying jobs of the future - can’t get the finance they need.

"Of course, financial services are an important industry in itself. But for an industry that calls itself a ‘service’, it has been an incredibly poor servant of the real economy. Not just since 2010 - or 2008 - but for decades in this country. We need a reckoning with our banking system, not for retribution, but for reform."

Taking inspiration from the US, where banks are subject to a national deposit cap of 10% and a state-level cap of 30%, he will pledge to introduce a legal limit on the market share any one bank can have of personal accounts and small business lending.

If we carry on as we are, we will end up stuck with the same old banks dominating our high street: the old economy. In America, by law, they have a test so that no bank can get too big and dominate the market. We will follow the same principle for Britain and establish for the first time a threshold for the market share any one bank can have of personal accounts and small business lending.

Labour sources insist that the party has no exact figure in mind, rejecting the 25% limit reported by Newsnight on Tuesday, instead stating that they will be guided by three main aims:

1. To improve the price and quantity of lending to small businesses

2. To improve service to all customers

3. To create at least two new challenger banks with significant market shares

Miliband will announce that Labour will instruct the Competition & Markets Authority to report within the first six months after the election on how to implement this plan, ruling on:

  • How many additional branches the big banks will need to sell off and other regulatory changes needed to bolster competition
  • The timetable for the divestment of branches beginning within six months of the report and completed within a five year parliament
  • The maximum threshold for future market shares which would automatically trigger another CMA  investigation if breached - and prevent any merger or acquisition taking place which exceeds that threshold.

He will conclude: "I want to be clear about the difference this will mean: this is not about whether we should have new banks - that is the question this Government is still asking - but about how. It is not about creating new banks that control some tiny proportion of the market. But new banks that have a substantial proportion and can compete properly with existing banks. And we are not asking whether existing banks might have to divest themselves of significant number of branches. We are asking how we make that happen."

"After decades of banking becoming more and more concentrated, Labour will turn the tide. I want to send a message to our small and medium sized businesses: Under a Labour government, you will no longer be serving the banks. Instead, the banks will be serving you: you will have a better chance of getting the support you need to grow your business, employ more people, at decent wages, making profits and helping Britain succeed."

In response, we can expect the Tories and the Lib Dems to reply that they will take no lectures on banking reform from a member of the government that presided over the biggest financial crisis in modern history. To this, Miliband will remind the Tories that they were calling for less, not more, regulation before the crash, while also acknowledging the failings of the last Labour government in this area (as he has done many times before).

But while many in Labour will welcome Miliband's renewed commitment to a transformed economic model, some are disappointed by the absence of a clear "retail offer" in what is his first speech of the new year. With the Tories making landmark pledges such as the guarantee to preserve the triple lock on the state pension and coming out in favour of a large increase in the minimum wage, the pressure is likely to grow on Miliband to offer more doorstep-friendly policies sooner rather than later.

Miliband will say the banking system has been "an incredibly poor servant of the real economy." Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here