The Crewe branch of the Co-operative Bank. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The Co-operative needs to set a higher standard

An open letter to outgoing chief executive Euan Sutherland.

Dear Mr Sutherland,

Congratulations on your resignation! If you do the honourable thing and leave without taking a pay-off, you could save Co-operative members like myself £3.6m in your salary alone over night - an impressively efficient move. 

I know your chair said that your pay-out was what other "comparable companies" offer, but really, most people join the Co-op because it is not a comparable company. At a time when the British public have spent billions bailing out mainstream banks, we kind of wanted something... different?

I know you were also fuming with how your pay was leaked and by the public outrage that has followed - particularly from Co-op members and candidates like myself - but you of all people should know that members are supposed to participate and hold executives to higher standards. That again is kind of the point of being a Co-operative. Plus, we were victorious. It seems that, unlike other banks, members have actually succeeded in removing you when you tried to get paid millions without actually delivering any results. 

Yes, the Co-op needs reform. But our bank didn't fail because it didn't pay its top people enough - it failed because it wasn't co-operative and accountable enough. More transparency and power to members would have dislodged the appalling Mr Flowers long ago. A bigger Co-operative movement would allow a greater and more talented range of board members to choose from. Better worker representation as well as customer representation might help find alternatives to laying off 5,000 staff as in your plan. Similarly, if you'd asked us about boardroom pay in this upcoming survey of yours, and listened, we might not be in this pretty pickle. 

Right now, the Co-op bank - just like all banks and the rest of the country - has a choice. Are we going to carry on with business as usual, handing out huge cheques regardless of success until the next crash, or are we going to fundamentally reform our banking system? It's something George Osborne should think about in the Budget next week, but don't worry, he won't mention it. 

But Co-operators will. Because "The Co-op" is more than just a nice brand. Its a set of ideas and values. We believe in creating a robust and local banking system that is accountable to local people. We believe that participation and shared ownership, not big bonuses, is what leads to better banking. Co-operators work together to be radical, not make isolated decisions to preserve hierarchies between the elites and the rest. We believe it's a time for boldness, not swallowing what failed in 2008.

Of course if you don't believe any of this, then maybe the Co-op isn't for you anyway. But don't worry - sadly you'll still find plenty of banks where you'll fit right in. 

Sincerely,

Rowenna Davis 

Co-operative Labour Candidate for Southampton Itchen

Rowenna Davis is Labour PPC for Southampton Itchen and a councillor for Peckham

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war