It’s the end of the road for carefree consumption
MIKE DAILLY
Do you think of yourself as a consumer? The Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) has just published a booklet telling us why we should. It's not our "business to tell people what to call themselves", say the SCC. Good advice instantly forgotten to give gems such as: "Victims of violent crime may not think of themselves as consumers of police services."
When any organisation has to justify its name something must be wrong. But the SCC's booklet illustrates an important principle - does it matter what we call ourselves? Does thinking of ourselves as consumers, individuals, communities or citizens have an impact on the world we live in?
Personal debt is at an all-time high in the UK. At the end of last year, our personal debt stood at £1.29 trillion, overtaking the US on a pro-rata basis. Most working families are just a couple of wage slips away from financial disaster, having no savings to speak of. Meanwhile, financial institutions offer guilt-free credit while marketing companies fuel a buy-now, pay-later culture. No-one can dispute that consumerism has led to hundreds of thousands of consumers being made bankrupt in the UK over the past decade. There were 107,288 personal insolvencies in England and Wales last year compared with 24,549 in 1998. For the same period in Scotland we had 13,638 personal insolvencies as against 4465.
In stark contrast, UK banks have just declared their best ever profits. The Royal Bank of Scotland had pre-tax profits of £9.2bn, up 16% on the previous year and the highest profit ever made by a Scottish company. How is this possible when bad debts are at an all-time high?
It is no coincidence that as bad debts have increased exponentially over the past decade so have bank charges. The average bank charge for customers in 1998 was £12; by 2006 it had jumped to more than £67 (£39 per item, £28 monthly fee and 30% unauthorised overdraft interest). That's a 558% increase in eight years.
| I believe consumerism has become outdated and morally bankrupt. | |
|
Banks have been recouping their bad debts from other consumers. In my experience, the one in five customers who pay bank charges are generally low-paid, poor and coping with a relationship breakdown, illness or personal calamity. Calling people consumers in this context is meaningless because "consumers" are not treated like for like.
Consumerism is about choice. Even people on a decent wage have no choice. In Glasgow, you have the right to request that your child goes to Jordanhill School, but for that to happen you need to live nearby. The average house price in Jordanhill is around £200,000. That represents an impossible mortgage of £1300 per month for most working families.
Consumerism promises an egalitarian society which it cannot deliver. More disturbing is the realisation that we have reached a point where consumer principles have endangered more than just debtors. The idea that you as an individual have the right to consume whatever you like - whether you can pay for it or not - is all pervading. The right to own a fleet of Chelsea tractors to drive around urban Scotland, guzzling as much petrol as you like, polluting the air as much as you like. It's your right to consume.
But this thinking is no longer sustainable. Carefree consumption has resulted in an overproduction of CO2, and global warming with its promise of worldwide catastrophe. In response to this threat many people now recycle their rubbish and think about how they can off-set or reduce their carbon footprint.
Concern for the environment is now a top political issue which resonates across all sections of society. We have barely scratched the surface of the work that is needed to tackle climate change, but the starting point on any road to recovery is
self-awareness and admission.
If we regard ourselves as consumers we are absolved of any responsibility for our neighbour, community and the wider world. A consumer philosophy justifies financial institutions lending irresponsibly, because they are only meeting market demand. This view of human and corporate relationships is incapable of sustaining the modern world. I believe consumerism has become outdated and morally bankrupt in the 21st century.
In its place we should think of ourselves as citizens.
Chancellor Gordon Brown talks about 21st-century citizenship combining individual aspirations and freedom with a supportive and empowered community. We may disagree on what citizenship means, but if we think of ourselves as citizens we can acknowledge that personal freedom comes with a responsibility to ourselves, our community and the environment.
A leading campaigner on the climate is former Vice-President Al Gore. He draws hope from the Chinese expression for "crisis", which consists of two symbols: danger and opportunity. We have an opportunity to think like citizens.
Mike Dailly is principal solicitor at Govan Law Centre and author of www.bankcharges.info
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Funnyguytom, Glasgow/Edinburgh on 12:45pm Wed 14 Mar 07
Good comment Mike
It’s a funny old world (the western 'civilised' one) where the main signifier and driver of success, well-being and inclusion is the growth, profit of the corporation and the ability/’choice’ of the individual to spend and consume regardless of the consequences that may befall them and others.
I like Mike’s idea of being a citizen and all that being a citizen entails i.e. having regard for you fellow citizen etc. However, I would suggest that before this could take place a constitution of sorts would need to be put into practice. I’m not taking about the individual dogma that is the American constitution, rather a flexible and workable constitution that would have at it’s heart the needs and aspirations of the everyday majority over the wealthy individuals, who seem to drive the political groups of today.
Good comment Mike
It’s a funny old world (the western 'civilised' one) where the main signifier and driver of success, well-being and inclusion is the growth, profit of the corporation and the ability/’choice’ of the individual to spend and consume regardless of the consequences that may befall them and others.
I like Mike’s idea of being a citizen and all that being a citizen entails i.e. having regard for you fellow citizen etc. However, I would suggest that before this could take place a constitution of sorts would need to be put into practice. I’m not taking about the individual dogma that is the American constitution, rather a flexible and workable constitution that would have at it’s heart the needs and aspirations of the everyday majority over the wealthy individuals, who seem to drive the political groups of today.
Posted by: Joe Crawford, Glasgow on 1:27pm Wed 14 Mar 07
The words Social and Economic Justice pervade practically all of New Labour’s policy documents these days. If Social Justice is about who gets what and why, then it becomes impossible to defend bank charges.
Someone who has insufficient funds to meet their financial obligations (usually because they are relatively poor) is charged £30 by their bank, then £30 again a week later for being overdrawn if the money hasn’t magically transported itself into their account. This happens arbitrarily for as little as being 1p over the agreed limit. British banks made just over 4.5 billion pounds last year from people who are in grave financial difficulty. Is this socially or economically just?
An acquaintance, who works for RBS defended this practice by sternly informing me that, “people can’t just go about spending money they don’t have.” Hang on a minute. Banks made record profits last year by spending [bold]other people’s money[/bold] in the most unethical investment portfolios worldwide, throwing the crumbs of interest, to those who are in the fortunate position of not being heavily overdrawn.
The UK economy is defined by the fact that the less money you have the more you pay, both directly and indirectly. This is one of the biggest forms of inequality in Britain and must be challenged at every opportunity. Well done Mike for your sterling work in sunny Govan, and beyond.
The words Social and Economic Justice pervade practically all of New Labour’s policy documents these days. If Social Justice is about who gets what and why, then it becomes impossible to defend bank charges.
Someone who has insufficient funds to meet their financial obligations (usually because they are relatively poor) is charged £30 by their bank, then £30 again a week later for being overdrawn if the money hasn’t magically transported itself into their account. This happens arbitrarily for as little as being 1p over the agreed limit. British banks made just over 4.5 billion pounds last year from people who are in grave financial difficulty. Is this socially or economically just?
An acquaintance, who works for RBS defended this practice by sternly informing me that, “people can’t just go about spending money they don’t have.” Hang on a minute. Banks made record profits last year by spending
other people’s money in the most unethical investment portfolios worldwide, throwing the crumbs of interest, to those who are in the fortunate position of not being heavily overdrawn.
The UK economy is defined by the fact that the less money you have the more you pay, both directly and indirectly. This is one of the biggest forms of inequality in Britain and must be challenged at every opportunity. Well done Mike for your sterling work in sunny Govan, and beyond.
Posted by: Lorraine, Glasgow on 1:40pm Wed 14 Mar 07
What a fantastic article!
Mike is absolutely correct that the word consumer promises choice but does not deliver. To me, this implies that you can be held responsible for your "choices"- ie. being told that it is your fault the bank has applied bank charges to your account. This is despite the fact that you have no choice whether to have a bank account - if you dont have one you wont get paid!
More and more frequently "consumers" are being made to bear all the responsibility, leaving politicians, dodgy loan companies and banks to shrug their shoulders and point the finger right back at you. The goverment care more about profits and big business that the constituents they serve (what a surprise!). The fact that the Scottish Consumer Council subscribe to this ideology is particularly disappointing.
What a fantastic article!
Mike is absolutely correct that the word consumer promises choice but does not deliver. To me, this implies that you can be held responsible for your "choices"- ie. being told that it is your fault the bank has applied bank charges to your account. This is despite the fact that you have no choice whether to have a bank account - if you dont have one you wont get paid!
More and more frequently "consumers" are being made to bear all the responsibility, leaving politicians, dodgy loan companies and banks to shrug their shoulders and point the finger right back at you. The goverment care more about profits and big business that the constituents they serve (what a surprise!). The fact that the Scottish Consumer Council subscribe to this ideology is particularly disappointing.
Posted by: wordjammer, Glasgow on 2:06pm Wed 14 Mar 07
The word "consumer" is one which is apt to describe a purchaser or user of traded goods or services. The problem with viewing patients, pupils, victims of crime etc. as consumers is that doing so says something about how we view that service.
Is the NHS a commodity? Something to be bought and sold, or otherwise traded? Some political parties believe it is. If that's your view, then feel free to call yourself a consumer of health services. If not, then it's misleading (and potentially dangerous) to do so.
If we, or our children, are consumers of local authority education services then doesn't that say something about how we view our schools? As citizens with legal rights and responsibilities we can rely on those rights and live up to those responsibilities in order to ensure the best education for our children. As consumers our "choice" is usually limited to accepting what we are given or going elsewhere i.e. "like it, or lump it".
Having said all that as far as the SCC are concerned, I'm not sure that the name is all that important. The key question is surely this - are they performing a useful service? If not, presumably (as consumers) we are free to choose another organisation to represent our views and interests.
The word "consumer" is one which is apt to describe a purchaser or user of traded goods or services. The problem with viewing patients, pupils, victims of crime etc. as consumers is that doing so says something about how we view that service.
Is the NHS a commodity? Something to be bought and sold, or otherwise traded? Some political parties believe it is. If that's your view, then feel free to call yourself a consumer of health services. If not, then it's misleading (and potentially dangerous) to do so.
If we, or our children, are consumers of local authority education services then doesn't that say something about how we view our schools? As citizens with legal rights and responsibilities we can rely on those rights and live up to those responsibilities in order to ensure the best education for our children. As consumers our "choice" is usually limited to accepting what we are given or going elsewhere i.e. "like it, or lump it".
Having said all that as far as the SCC are concerned, I'm not sure that the name is all that important. The key question is surely this - are they performing a useful service? If not, presumably (as consumers) we are free to choose another organisation to represent our views and interests.
Posted by: Alastair Naughton, Aberdeen on 2:06pm Wed 14 Mar 07
Spot on!!!!!!!!! This morally bankrupt consumerism was of course introduced by Blair's "spiritual" mentor Margaret Thatcher, who infamously uttered that there was "no such thing as society, only individuals and their families." Hence the wholesale sordid grabbing of utilities and companies owned and managed for the public benefit by said "individuals." The idea was that if all individuals acted purely with their own self-interest in mind, then an economic "equilibrium" would occur. And this from someone who had the gall to call herself a Christian! It's enough to make your blood boil with anger. The more I think about it the more I can scaresly contain the rage. On this earth, Christ sought out the disposessed, the lepers, the weak, those who had no voice. This absolute bankruptcy of ideas called consumerism and the selfishness it has spawned will be with us for years to come, until we as a society collectively reject everything it stood for.
Spot on!!!!!!!!! This morally bankrupt consumerism was of course introduced by Blair's "spiritual" mentor Margaret Thatcher, who infamously uttered that there was "no such thing as society, only individuals and their families." Hence the wholesale sordid grabbing of utilities and companies owned and managed for the public benefit by said "individuals." The idea was that if all individuals acted purely with their own self-interest in mind, then an economic "equilibrium" would occur. And this from someone who had the gall to call herself a Christian! It's enough to make your blood boil with anger. The more I think about it the more I can scaresly contain the rage. On this earth, Christ sought out the disposessed, the lepers, the weak, those who had no voice. This absolute bankruptcy of ideas called consumerism and the selfishness it has spawned will be with us for years to come, until we as a society collectively reject everything it stood for.
Posted by: Andy, Glasgow on 2:28pm Wed 14 Mar 07
I agree with wordjammer's sentiments, except insofar as the Scottish Consumer Council is concerned. The public is not free to choose another organisation to represent consumer interests.
The SCC is an unaccountable quango. It's sponsored and funded by the DTI and membership is by appointment by the DTI/First Minister's Office, not 'consumers' (whoever they are).
So if the SCC provides a poor service we can't do much about that.
So it's ironic that the self-appointed champion of consumers has no choice at its core and is unaccountable. I suppose that's consumerism for you!
I agree with wordjammer's sentiments, except insofar as the Scottish Consumer Council is concerned. The public is not free to choose another organisation to represent consumer interests.
The SCC is an unaccountable quango. It's sponsored and funded by the DTI and membership is by appointment by the DTI/First Minister's Office, not 'consumers' (whoever they are).
So if the SCC provides a poor service we can't do much about that.
So it's ironic that the self-appointed champion of consumers has no choice at its core and is unaccountable. I suppose that's consumerism for you!
Posted by: BobH, Glasgow on 11:01pm Wed 14 Mar 07
Crackin' article... I think Martin Evans misses the point in his puny defensive letter.
The word "consumer" is often used to depoliticise people’s relationship to the state and private sector corporations alike. Take the public sector; the idea of "consumers" of social work services or services provided by the NHS is simply ridiculous! Taking the aforementioned services as an example: Nobody chooses to be in a situation where they do not require social work support nor do they choose to be ill thereby requiring the services of the NHS. Once they are in a situation where they need the help of one of these services there is no "choice" exercised at the point of delivery. Politicians and service managers will argue that the term consumer empowers people but it is an empty word The poor are far more likely to need the help of these services than the rich. They are the disempowered and the marginalised, calling them consumers is a form of newspeak which might make the comfortably off feel better and contributes to the overall warm and fluffy illusion that there are not masses of people, poor and excluded, out there being treated as passive recipients of failing, under funded, public services. Rather they’d just have us believe there were just loads of “consumers”, exercising their choice to wait until they are nearly dead for a heart operation.
The title of “Consumer - What's in a name?" is telling in itself. The name is important. Consumer suggests choice when there is none or when a variety of social pressures combine to ensure people consume more than they need or want. It is a word of the free market to divorce itself from responsibility for people making the wrong choices.
As for Martin Evans Point that things are “are unlikely to change as a result of a generalised attack on consumerism”- what’s his organisation ever done for us? Don’t rock the boat too much Martin…your job depends on it! See, you’ve no choice either
Crackin' article... I think Martin Evans misses the point in his puny defensive letter.
The word "consumer" is often used to depoliticise people’s relationship to the state and private sector corporations alike. Take the public sector; the idea of "consumers" of social work services or services provided by the NHS is simply ridiculous! Taking the aforementioned services as an example: Nobody chooses to be in a situation where they do not require social work support nor do they choose to be ill thereby requiring the services of the NHS. Once they are in a situation where they need the help of one of these services there is no "choice" exercised at the point of delivery. Politicians and service managers will argue that the term consumer empowers people but it is an empty word The poor are far more likely to need the help of these services than the rich. They are the disempowered and the marginalised, calling them consumers is a form of newspeak which might make the comfortably off feel better and contributes to the overall warm and fluffy illusion that there are not masses of people, poor and excluded, out there being treated as passive recipients of failing, under funded, public services. Rather they’d just have us believe there were just loads of “consumers”, exercising their choice to wait until they are nearly dead for a heart operation.
The title of “Consumer - What's in a name?" is telling in itself. The name is important. Consumer suggests choice when there is none or when a variety of social pressures combine to ensure people consume more than they need or want. It is a word of the free market to divorce itself from responsibility for people making the wrong choices.
As for Martin Evans Point that things are “are unlikely to change as a result of a generalised attack on consumerism”- what’s his organisation ever done for us? Don’t rock the boat too much Martin…your job depends on it! See, you’ve no choice either
Posted by: Liz McCall, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire on 4:17pm Sun 15 Apr 07
I [bold]am very angry, the Halifax will not come and go with me at all all they seem to want is my money and I have explained my circumstances to them many times ie. I had to take early retirement from work a few years ago because of a drug study I was involved with at the Western infirmiry, because the benefits are a limited amount when I got charged once and there is only the limited amount coming in it is hard to clear this, (but I have noticed that although they will bouce a cheqe if it will make you overdrwn - they will still take your charge and make you overdrawn). The would not give me even a small overdraught to clear the charges until my account was clear of charges for six months - it is just a viscious circle and I feel that the Halifax in no way helped[/bold] .
I
am very angry, the Halifax will not come and go with me at all all they seem to want is my money and I have explained my circumstances to them many times ie. I had to take early retirement from work a few years ago because of a drug study I was involved with at the Western infirmiry, because the benefits are a limited amount when I got charged once and there is only the limited amount coming in it is hard to clear this, (but I have noticed that although they will bouce a cheqe if it will make you overdrwn - they will still take your charge and make you overdrawn). The would not give me even a small overdraught to clear the charges until my account was clear of charges for six months - it is just a viscious circle and I feel that the Halifax in no way helped .
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (8)
