Tough times like these test our character and values as a nation. So even in a recession, we have to act now, both to protect people from the downturn and to prepare and equip ourselves for every future challenge.
Our future lies in low-carbon, high-technology manufacturing and services. Hence our investment in science, green jobs, skills and the digital backbone on which the rest of the economy depends. That is why we reject the idea of cutting spending now. But at root, the competitive edge that we need in the future requires an effective flow of credit through a reformed and more responsible banking system.
I understand and share people’s anger towards the behavior of some banks. But anger on its own does not offer us a solution. Instead, Britain needs to lead the world in reforming and restructuring our banking system.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The basic functions of a bank are very simple — to provide a place where people can keep their savings safe and to provide funds for those who want to borrow to invest. But it is to meet these objectives in a new world that we must make changes both in the banks themselves and their regulation.
Banks must act in the long-term interests of their shareholders and therefore of the economy as a whole, not in the short-term interests of bankers. That has to be the foundation on which a new system must be based. This starts with a rejection of the old short-term bonus culture. So, starting last week with the Royal Bank of Scotland, we are changing the bonus system in the industry — with long-term incentives and claw-backs if future performance is poor.
Another intrinsic part of the foundations must be better governance of banks. Their boards must have the expertise and power to challenge management and they must be able to understand the risks the company is taking.
So David Walker’s review will look at whether board members have the necessary expertise and the right incentives to monitor executives. We also need both better national and global regulation. For example, where banks are speculating, long-term capital requirements will have to be higher. All markets and all jurisdictions that want to benefit from the global economy should play by the global rules. Institutions with global reach should be regulated in a global way, not by a patchwork of national regulators.
But as we design this new regulatory system, we have to be clear as a nation about what we expect from our banks and clear, too, about how people, who depend every day of their lives upon banks, expect these vital institutions to be run. For, distant as the relationship between banker and client has become, the restoration of trust, the most precious asset of all, to the heart of that relationship must now underpin all that we do.
This should not be at the cost of Britain hosting big international banks. There is no room for parochialism or protectionism in our model of the future. Global financial flows and liquid capital markets have brought massive benefits to our economy since the dawn of global trade centuries ago. We are not evacuating, but rather entrenching, our place right at the heart of global commerce, finance and trade.
A central problem we now have to deal with is that in the last year Britain has lost significant lending capacity from both foreign banks and lenders who relied on finance from the global capital markets now frozen over. Alongside thriving international and investment banking sectors, we need to ensure that the UK banking system that emerges over the coming months is refocused on providing strong competitive banking for domestically focused businesses, including start-ups and entrepreneurs, as well as mortgages for those who want to buy a home. In short, we need stronger business banks, mortgage banks and savings banks.
We do not envisage, as some have advocated, a rigid divide in future between “narrow banking” — retail and corporate deposit taking — and investment banking and trading conducted at an international level. But while no one is advocating a retreat to single-purpose, nationally focused banks, we do want to see the reinvention of the traditional savings and mortgage bank in Britain, for loans to be made on prudent and careful terms, not just to people with large deposits, but to first-time buyers and those on middle and modest incomes who wish to buy their home, but who have not been able to save a huge deposit.
We have got to get the balance right between serving homeowners better and encouraging responsibility in the housing market. This is a duty on banks and building societies, but we have also asked the Financial Services Authority to look at how in the future we should control new mortgages for more than 100 percent of house value.
Banks need a clearer focus on making loans to UK businesses so that they can grow and take on more staff. In order to get lending going, we must continue to develop agreements that remove the uncertainty arising from banks being unsure of their losses in return for improved lending conditions for families and businesses.
We need new institutions to support British start-ups, particularly those with innovative, high-growth potential.
We want to ensure that the new banking system that emerges over the coming years meets all these requirements — and becomes the servant of our economy and society, never its master.
Gordon Brown is the British prime minister.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS