Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

David Prosser: Will the world listen to King this time?

Wednesday 21 October 2009 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Outlook Mervyn King is at it again. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic may have resolved not to break up the banks, but the Governor of the Bank of England continues to insist that any reform has not gone far enough if it leaves intact organisations deemed too big to fail. Mr King last night outlined several ways in which the problem might be addressed, but it is clear that he favours a much more aggressive intervention than any government has so far proposed.

The Governor's increasingly strident tone on this issue is entirely justified. For all the talk of outrage about the behaviour of the banks – and the focus on bonuses which, in the grand scheme of things, are a side issue – we have been remarkably reluctant to tackle the central problem head on. For as long as the world has banks whose collapse would pose a systemic risk, the world – that is the taxpayer – must act as their guarantor of last resort. The massive scale of taxpayer support for these institutions over the past two years may have been abhorrent, but if they continue to exist in their current form, the implication will always be that we will provide such support again should it be necessary.

The arguments so far presented for not returning to legislation similar to the Glass-Steagall act repealed in the US 10 years ago do not stack up. Chiefly, the objection seems to be that finance has grown too complicated and international for legislation enforcing a strict separation of retail and investment banking to be practical.

That, however, is a smokescreen. The real reason for the caution is that even after the crisis we have been through, the nerve and will to take on the banks is still not there.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in