If the media was to be believed, the fact that there are people without access to bank accounts in the UK has only just been discovered. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue is real and ongoing. Let's have some facts. A thread....
The Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) has responsibility for monitoring this issue. It issued a report on it earlier this year. The data in this thread all comes from there. fca.org.uk/publications/f…
The number of unbanked adults in recent years was as follows:
Around one in fifty adults are unbanked.
The demographic looks like this:
As ever, it seems to be the young who lose out: it is also especially hard for them to be unbanked, I suspect.
The demographics of those unbanked are further explained as follows:
As the FCA also notes:
"There were higher proportions of unbanked adults in Southern Scotland (6%), Outer London – West and North West (5%), Greater Manchester (4%), and the West Midlands (4%)."
They add:
"There is also a strong link to deprivation, as 3.6% of adults in the most deprived areas of the UK are unbanked, compared with less than 0.6% in the least deprived areas."
So, let's be clear that the problem of being unbanked does not mainly arise from having a bank account closed: it arises because a bank account is not available.
This, however, is not seen as a problem for all those without bank accounts. As the FCA notes:
One-quarter of the unbanked might not want a bank account. About a fifth do. The rest would like the option. What is apparent is that people aren't aware that large banks are legally obliged to offer basic bank accounts. These do not allow overdrafts but do provide payment cards:
It would seem that very little effort is being made to make people aware of this service.
Around 15% of all applications for financial services products are refused, according to the FCA. Those being refused have the following profile, with all the usual prejudices in society obviously present:
Credit facilities were by far the most likely product to be refused:
However, bank accounts were also refused:
A staggering 16% of those who applied for a basic bank account were refused, double the rate for routine accounts.
There were reasons for rejection, of course:
It would appear that potential political bias by the organisation to which the application was made is a very limited issue.
There were much stronger reasons why people felt unbanked. One was because some (mainly older) people have a dependence on branch banking:
Too many of these people are being unbanked by the closure of their branches:
There is also a massive problem with exclusion as a result of banks relying on digital access:
There is also a barrier to data on banking for the same reason:
So, what to suggest?
I think that there are three vital issues to note.
The first is that if access to banking is now a social necessity (and I think it is), then the current situation of those unbanked is unacceptable.
Second, it is apparent that the current behaviour of commercial banks is not addressing this issue. Their focus on supposed efficiency is achieved at a considerable cost to many of their customers, many of whom might be considered the more vulnerable.
Third, when 16% of applications for basic bank accounts are being refused there is no safety net being provided.
In that case there is a need for real reform and this can only come from a state bank that:
• Guarantees basic bank accounts
• Has a wide High Street presence
• Is focussed on providing financial assistance
• Has the goal of achieving inclusion.
Which party will offer this?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Keir Starmer will say the NHS must "reform or die" today. What he is really saying is that to balance Rachel Reeves' books, you might die because he's not willing to raise the funds to deliver the NHS this country needs. How does it feel to be a human sacrifice to austerity?
That, I think, summarises what Starmer will really be saying today.
He's refusing to provide the new money the NHS requires even though he knows, and will say, the Tories underfunded it.
Then he will claim he has no choice about that - which is completely untrue.
As a result, he is deliberately supporting the Tory plan, which was to collapse the NHS.
Would the UK economy really have collapsed as Labour is saying if it had not cut the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners within days of coming into office, whilst announcing more more ‘pain’ to come? Of course it wouldn’t have done. A thread…..
Lucy Powell MP, Leader of the House of Commons, made the absurd claim that cutting winter fuel allowance saved the economy from collapse when taking on television on Sunday morning.
I suspect that she would have said the same of keeping the two child benefit cap in place. Together these policies saved maybe £4 billion. They reduced the well-being of more than 10 million low income people, many living in poverty.
There is literally no need at all for Labour to deliver a painful budget in October. There is a massive capacity to increase taxes on wealth. If Labour wanted to borrow they could. And there are people who want good work.
So, the ‘pain’ is all about Starmer & Reeves’ choice to deliver hardcore neoliberal dogma and not meet people’s needs.
Starmer is worse than the Tories. They at least admitted to their pleasure at imposing austerity. He pretends he has no choice but do it when that’s completely untrue. He’s choosing to undertax wealth, under deliver services, and over deliver misery.
Rachel Reeves told Laura Kuenssberg this morning that the pensions industry had failed the people of this country. Some obvious questions follow as a result. A short thread...
Why, if the pension industry has failed so badly, does she want to force people to pay more it in pension contributions, as seems to be her plan?
Why, if the pension industry has invested so badly for this country, does she think it will start doing better now if she gives it more money?
The most useful thing I think I can do this morning is suggest questions to ask politicians in this election. A thread.
The following list builds on work referenced on my blog, and most especially the Taxing Wealth Report that I published recently. taxingwealth.uk
The list of questions is not necessarily in any order of priority. Themes are repeated quite deliberately because that is necessary when all politicians are evasive.