James Moore: Not much to show for the £1.4 trillion we gave them
Comment
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
If nothing else, Britain's banks appeared to have learned the value of a bit of fleet-footed PR.
On the day they were called in like so many naughty school children to be read the riot act at No 11 for failing to provide credit to small businesses, up pops the British Bankers' Association with figures that appear to show they have been doing just that.
Some £391m extra was advanced in June, if the figures are to be believed. So why is it that the Bank of England, no less, said the flow of net lending to UK businesses remained negative in May? Well, the banks appear to have learned a few lessons from No 11 in using figures selectively to present themselves in a good light.
The BBA figures only cover lending to businesses with a turnover of less than £1m. They also don't include overdrafts, and that is the key issue if you talk to groups that represent small businesses. Many of their members are being pushed to the wall not so much by cash crises but by cash flow crises. The banks may be offering more loans to the smallest but they are not offering overdrafts and it is overdrafts that small businesses need as bigger businesses engage in the time honoured (and deeply cynical) tactic of delaying payment during tough times.
It is true that the environment for lenders is not easy – Bank of England base rates may be at an all time low but banks' financing costs still do not reflect that. It would also be the height of stupidity to ask them to send good money after bad by lending to companies which have little chance of paying them back.
But, depending on which estimate you believe, the taxpayer has bailed the banking sector out to the tune of £1.4trillion and yesterday's response to the Chancellor's demands was disingenuous to say the least. Having put all that money up, the taxpayer is entitled to expect a little better.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Yes, we the taxpayer have put a lot of money in to "rescuing the banks" but we didn't do it for them, we did it for our own economic reasons. If there is one lesson that needs to be learned it is that they were allowed to get far too big, so big that we couldn't allow them to fail, that has still not been addressed and it really needs to be.
All businesses need to be aware of the "political environment" that they work in, it is not just Defence Contractors however, the priority is for the Banks to rebuild their balance sheets and Parliament to look very carefully at the framework they have operated in, in the past and how that can be improved for the future. If one wanted to be radical one might retain one of these banks that the taxpayer owns and run it for a profit with those profits going to business development funds rather than shareholders but interfering in commercial decisions across the industry, is not appropriate.
Also one must be very frank and acknowledge that this particular Government is desperate for "successes" that they can point to for the all too soon General Election Campaign, these are not the circumstances under which sensible decisions in the longer term interests of the Country are being made as witness Mr Brown's constant denials that a re-elected Labour Government would have to cut public expenditure savagely - "investment" total botox !
It is easy to pick on any group of people who are currently unpopular, Bankers over the collapse, MPs over expenses and so on but projecting blame will not solve the underlying problems. The Banks may have been reckless but so too was Brown as Chancellor, neither saw it coming apparently so its a bit rich for one to blame the other. The Bank's Toxic Loans are matched by the Government's PFI neither seem to have been doing their jobs properly so let us agree, Politicians should stick to politics and Bankers to banking, both seem to have rather a lot to learn about their respective 'businesses'.
I think it better if we had less politics everywhere, I'm tired of dishonest expedient public servants, all repeating government lies; even when everyone knows they're telling lies.
Government, that's what the country actually needs. Less political maneuvering, more actual diligence and respect for the duties of state. We are lacking this, and have instead a dishonest corrupt system which repeatedly simply acts for the dishonest rich.
I for one like the idea that people have noticed this, and would hope the popularity in terms of attacking the corrupt scum who betray this country for their own greed, when they have the duty to govern. I just hope the people who should realise everything int he media is lies, will remember this next election, and vote for anyone who will actually show some intention to serve the masses, not themselves.
In the 'jargon' I hear where you are coming from but must disagree on the broad principle that politics is "the art of the possible" and applies equally whether trying to seduce a young lady as it does to getting elected to Parliament.
"Politics" is part of our daily fare. As a freelance IT Project Manager (in the past), my primary objective was to determine just how good (powerful), the "IT Report at Board Level" was and for good reason.
The Host Company would have signed off on a budget to do something and inevitably, the "something" had been sold to them by someone who technically was an ignoramus and only dreamt it up after talking to the "Diamond Geezer" down the Pub. The problem is that it was my job to deliver the result.
More than this and with only one exception that I can ever remember, there was not a single project that for technical or and more importantly, business reasons, didn't need a certain amount of "redesign" from day one, most often a fundamental one too ! When this happens, you need a good "politician" at Board level to explain what is going on and why, the last thing you need is a servile idiot who can't present the hard facts.
As an IT Project Manager, I estimated my time as 20% technology and 80% the business, my job was to be a 'cross-over', someone who understands the technology and can explain it in simple terms but also, ensure the technology met the needs of the business. It is no different in National and Local politics.
Yes today we have the rotting carcase of a Government well past it's "use by" let alone "sell by date" and an immediate General Election would be the honourable answer with a new Party and Prime Minister determined to "get it right".
But also in fairness remember that at his very best and mostly in his early days, Tony Blair, possibly the "Ultimate Politician" was brilliant in the job - Diana the "People's Princess" was emotional crud but, it caught the moment. Later trying to 'muscle in' on the Queen Mum's Funeral - crass but both he and his awful wife had lost it by then.
We are about to enter an interesting phase in British politics. It is hard to see just how David Cameron cannot be our next Prime Minister but in context of the times and although he may fail, he could be a 21st Century Disraeli and that, will be worth seeing.
If there is a parallel it might be that at its best, politics is a cross between Grand Opera and Stratford Bill, at its worse, it is Celebrity Magazines, Big Brother and Eastenders. Raise a glass to the former and let's leave Gormless Gordon and the Rump Parliament behind, it will get better Guv, honest !
That worked so well in the past, didn't it?