Ten years after the financial crash, most Britons remain suspicious of calls to be adventurous with public money. Aware that the pre-2008 economy was akin to a high-wire act, they believe lapsing back into the old borrow-to-spend routine will only herald another disaster.
That’s why the chancellor, Philip Hammond, feels secure when he bats away calls to throw off his self-imposed straitjacket and lift austerity. And it’s the reason Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells us in his speeches that he’s tied the hands of bank bosses and that their institutions are safer than at any time in a generation.
That safety-first attitude can be seen in the referendum vote this weekend in Switzerland. The ballot paper asks voters if they want to adopt a system of money backed by the central bank rather than the current crop of high street banks.
It would take all the excitement out of the banking world, stripping it of the red braces and spivvy attitudes that caused so much grief.
Under the plan, an enlarged central bank would guarantee the deposits held in accounts for all individuals and businesses. The private banks would be allowed to manage these accounts, probably for a fee, and run investment accounts on the side. Only the investment funds would be at risk, though a compensation scheme might apply.
What is trickier to ascertain is how such a plan would provide loans to businesses and individuals. In an era when so many things are bought with credit, the implications are huge. Almost 90% of cars are bought with credit. Most furniture is bought with borrowed money, as are, obviously, most homes. Britain’s banking sector, with at least part of its gambling streak intact, is in the vanguard of offering 40-year mortgages and loans with repayments that stretch well into retirement.
The Swiss plan allows private banks to offer loans, though only from their deposits or what they can get from money markets or the central bank. They cannot create money as they do now, putting the central bank in a position of sanctioning all other lending.
And a good thing too, you might say. No longer would the taxpayer be forced to rescue banks and their customers. Lending should be safe and sustainable. Set aside the concerns about an overbearing central bank, and you have a system that neuters much of the wizardry bankers have become famous for.
And yet the Swiss are expected to vote the proposal down. That is partly because there is so little flesh on the bones of the plan that it looks like a leap in the dark – especially when the framework brought in by Carney and friends goes a long way to achieving the same aim.
But more importantly, there is a lack of trust in the state to work efficiently and effectively in the interests of the people. It might seem incredible after the financial horrors created by the banks, but people – and especially those with money – still prefer bankers to politicians.
Those in favour of the Swiss vote believe central bankers can bridge the credibility gap. In addition, a regime of sound money would restrict the funds going into property and foster support for more productive areas of the economy.
But in Britain, like it or not, the economy is driven by consumer spending and fuelled by debt. Worse, much of this spending is based on buying and selling homes. And when it comes to investments, the preference is for get-rich-quick schemes that base their returns on paying little or no tax. Sustainability gets a back seat.
The revelation last week that Scotland’s public sector pensions have invested heavily in private finance initiative schemes run by companies based in offshore tax havens is just the tip of the iceberg. There is little appetite for investing in dull sectors like manufacturing, which offer the prospect of big risks for modest returns. A new system of money won’t change that. If there were an appetite for it, leftwing parties across Europe would be higher in the polls rather than falling apart at the seams.
Even the mildest suggestions in the UK for public investment beyond transport are likely to be ignored by ministers when the polls clearly show most voters don’t trust them to spend wisely. For that reason, plans for a revolution in the financial system, even one to make it safer, spark fear and anxiety.
That doesn’t mean the state is powerless to win back support for public investment. It does mean that change can only arrive incrementally and from the bottom up.
The new combined local authorities in Manchester and Birmingham are on the frontline. They at least have a little money to spend. If they can revive a sense of civic pride with developments that show a high degree of respect for their constituents, then there is a chance to reverse public attitudes.
