The Good Banking Forum includes a unique range of leading figures from academia, finance, politics, the law, trade unions, consumer and civil society groups that are demanding real reform of the banking sector.

The Forum emerged from the Good Banking Summit, organised by nef (the new economics foundation) and Compass in May 2011. The Forum challenges the limited scope of the Independent Commission on Banking, will mobilise public pressure for ‘Good Banking,’ and is campaigning to break-up the banks as a necessary first step.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Joint letter in response to Vickers Commission

“All eyes will be on the unveiling of the final report from the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) tomorrow but those who want fundamental reform of the banking system may well be disappointed.

 


Anything less than the complete separation of retail and investment banking will ensure that banks remain too big to fail. Taxpayers will remain vulnerable to a repeat performance of the last crash, leaving them liable for the subsequent large scale and unpredictable economic and social damage.

 

Ring fencing retail from investment banking will have the perverse effect of providing universal banks with cheap funding from the retail division with which to bet in the (unreformed) casino and subsidise already inflated bonuses.

 

From the beginning the remit of the ICB was too narrow and they have been unable to address issues fundamental to the creation of safe and useful banking such as nature of credit creation, to the provision of universally accessible utility banking services, tax reform. Moreover, the government have refused any investigation into why the crash happened.

 

Instead of fostering a wide-ranging and open debate around what a good banking system would look like, the process has evolved in to a technocratic conversation between city and regulatory elites. As such the process has been at best opaque and at worst loaded in favour of the banking lobby and not the people.

 

We fear that the process of building a good, equitable and stable system of banking will not begin with the ICB report tomorrow. If so it will be a huge and potentially tragic missed opportunity.”


Ha-Joon Chang, University of Cambridge
Neal Lawson, Co-chair, Good Banking Forum
Andrew Simms, nef fellow
Tony Geenham, Head of Banking, nef
Gavin Hayes, General Secretary, Compass
Caroline Lucas MP, Green Party Leader
Prof Victoria Chick, UCL
Prof Malcolm Sawyer, Leeds University Business School
Prof Geoffrey M Hodgson, University of Hertfordshire Business School
Prof Emeritus Alan Hallsworth, Staffordshire University
Hugo Radice, University of Leeds
Jonathan Perraton, University of Sheffield
Prof Christine Cooper University of Strathclyde
Ben Dyson, Positive Money
Richard Murphy, Tax Research LLP
Howard Reed, Director, Landman Economics
Ismail Erturk, Manchester Business School
Stuart White, University of Oxford
Chris Edwards, UEA
Prof Diane Elson, University of Essex
Paul Moore, Moore, Carter and Associates
James Meadway, Senior Economist, nef
Professor Mariana Mazzucato, Open University
Prof. Giuseppe Fontana, Leeds University Business School
Simon Hebditch, Social Liberal Forum
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Dr Martin O’Neill, University of York
Tim Lines, Green House
Nick Isles, MD, Corporate Agenda
Rupert Read, Eastern Region Green Party Co-ordinator, Chair of Green
House thinktank, and Reader in Philosophy at the University of
East Anglia.
Molly Scott Cato, Cardiff School of Management
Pat Conaty, nef fellow
David H Smith
Tony Curzon Price, Open Democracy
Victor Anderson
Daniel Vockins

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

One Response

  1. Mira says:

    The Independent Commission on Banking released their final report this morning. Read the analysis written by Ben Dyson, Positive Money:

    http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2011/09/independent-commission-banking-final-report/

    Imagine that the government establishes a Commission to report on measures to reduce traffic accidents and deaths on the road, giving them a staff of 15 civil servants, a budget of millions, the opportunity to consult the public and a year to develop some radical reforms. Twelve months later the Commission reports back, but rather than suggesting measures to reduce traffic accidents, the Commission simply proposes that the crash site is cleaned up slightly more effectively, the bodies are removed more discretely, and post-crisis counselling is provided for the victim’s families. No mention of traffic calming, traffic lights or fundamentally re-designing the roads to make them safer; just an assumption that fatal accidents are inevitable and the best we can do is focus on the post-crash clean up.

    This has been the approach of the Banking Commission. Rather than looking at fundamentally changing the nature or structure of banking, they have focussed on what to do after the fatally-flawed banking system inevitably implodes.

    NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

    Read more: http://bit.ly/paBvbf

Leave a Reply