Should I leave the Co-Op Bank?

ColdIron

Anthorn wrote: »

The answer to whether anyone should leave the Co-operative Bank is a definite and emphatic no

I agree on some points in your first paragraph, the rest we can safely dismiss as tribal political cant. You appear to be trying to absolve their behavior by pointing out (some frankly deluded) failures elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right you know

I think the reason most people favoured the Co-op was for its supposed ethical stance. Recent events raise serious questions about this and it looks unlikely to improve in this respect

So I think the answer to whether most traditional Co-op customers should leave the Co-operative Bank is a definite and emphatic yes

Anthorn

ColdIron wrote: »

I agree on some points in your first paragraph, the rest we can safely dismiss as tribal political cant. You appear to be trying to absolve their behavior by pointing out (some frankly deluded) failures elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right you know

I think the reason most people favoured the Co-op was for its supposed ethical stance. Recent events raise serious questions about this and it looks unlikely to improve in this respect

So I think the answer to whether most traditional Co-op customers should leave the Co-operative Bank is a definite and emphatic yes

The question now posed is where are those traditional Co-op customers to go: There are no ethical alternatives for current accounts and only Triodos for savings accounts. If we are to accept at face value the assurance that the Co-op Bank will retain its ethical nature then traditional Co-op customers will be better off staying with the Co-op. It's not a question of who rules but in whose interests they rule.

The rest of my original post is a question of degrees: In 2008 the government pumped billions upon billions into several failed banks and then proceeded to pump billions upon billions into the economy the failure of which was caused by those same banks. And then those banks used some of the free money given to them to pay themselves fat bonuses, essentially reward for failure. The £1.5bn shortfall of the Co-op Bank pales in comparison. It's almost insignificant!

The fact that Mr. Cameron is using the failure of the bank to attack Mr. Miliband and the Labour Party and the repetitive spoon feeding of that to the masses by BBC News is so blatantly obvious that it's laughable!

Anthorn

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Do you mean HBOS ?

Oh yeah that too lol. I've edited my post to correct that error. Thank you for pointing it out.

theEnd

I've been with smile (co-op) for quite a few years. Found them really good, but some of the charges on the credit card are now ridiculous!

antrobus

Anthorn wrote: »

....Let's look at recent events. Why is it that the Co-operative Bank is subject to such invasive attention while in 2008 the numerous failed banks got off so lightly?

What "invasive attention"? The media coverage of the Co-Op Bank's difficulties has been quite meagre compared to the deluge of coverage seen in 2007-2008. The Rev Flowers appeared before the Treasury Select Committee and revealed himself to be something of a twonk and nobody paid much attention. It's only when some individual stepped forward with the evidence that the Rev Flowers was a coke-snorting meth head with a penchant for gay orgies that it became front page news. Sex and drugs, that's what sells papers!:)

Anthorn wrote: »

...compare the Co-operative Bank's shortfall of £1.5bn with the £20.5bn bailout of Lloyds TSB alone!

A useful comparison. After all Lloyds acquired HBOS and discovered that it was pig in the poke in the same way that the Co-Op Bank 'acquired' Britannia and discovered much the same thing. Both deals were completed in 2009. Lloyds was open and honest (relatively speaking) about the scale of losses it discovered at HBOS during 2009; the Co-Op Bank however spent the next 4 years lying to everybody and pretending that everything was all right. Until, of course, rather ironically it was Lloyds that let the cat out of the bag when doing its due diligence on the Co-Op Bank in connection with the Project Verde deal.

That would be the difference.

Anthorn wrote: »

...Lastly while the Tory Government pledges an inquiry into the Co-op Bank's affairs we are still awaiting the promised inquiry into the failure of HSBC 5 years later!

I suspect you mean HBOS but, in any case, are you suggesting that the 'Tory Government' (sic) is delaying the results of an inquiry into how and why a Labour government made such a mess of banking regulation?:)

[Deleted User]

I don`t need to look for an ethical bank, I can make my own ethics eg halifax, I got £100 for nothing at all, just for moving so that has gone direct to a charity of MY choice. I will be getting £5 pm just for being with them and that can go the same way

So far so good re the halifax, outstanding cs so far and I just opened an online savings account with them, it took all of a few seconds:)

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

kittie wrote: »

I don`t need to look for an ethical bank, I can make my own ethics eg halifax, I got £100 for nothing at all, just for moving so that has gone direct to a charity of MY choice. I will be getting £5 pm just for being with them and that can go the same way

So far so good re the halifax, outstanding cs so far and I just opened an online savings account with them, it took all of a few seconds:)

Snap! The RNLI will be better off with my Halifax incentive. I was surprised how quickly it appeared in my new account; only a couple of days and before the actual "switch" date.

Anthorn

antrobus wrote: »

What "invasive attention"? The media coverage of the Co-Op Bank's difficulties has been quite meagre compared to the deluge of coverage seen in 2007-2008. The Rev Flowers appeared before the Treasury Select Committee and revealed himself to be something of a twonk and nobody paid much attention. It's only when some individual stepped forward with the evidence that the Rev Flowers was a coke-snorting meth head with a penchant for gay orgies that it became front page news. Sex and drugs, that's what sells papers!:)

Yesterday on BBC News I counted the same story about the Co-op Bank 6 times per hour. But today it appears to be toning it down but is still repeating the same story in a different way, mainly using Mr. Miliband's statement as an introduction and including the comments about the green aspect of power costs in the same report. The rest of your statement is just spewing the propaganda you've experienced which is not surprising given the contentrated nature of it.

antrobus wrote: »

A useful comparison. After all Lloyds acquired HBOS and discovered that it was pig in the poke in the same way that the Co-Op Bank 'acquired' Britannia and discovered much the same thing. Both deals were completed in 2009. Lloyds was open and honest (relatively speaking) about the scale of losses it discovered at HBOS during 2009; the Co-Op Bank however spent the next 4 years lying to everybody and pretending that everything was all right. Until, of course, rather ironically it was Lloyds that let the cat out of the bag when doing its due diligence on the Co-Op Bank in connection with the Project Verde deal.

That would be the difference.

The facts are that the FSA interviewed Rev. Flowers twice and approved him on each occasion. Enough said, he got the job. The FSA also looked at the acquisition of Britannia and approved that too. Enough said, the acquisition went ahead. The question here is whether the Co-op Bank or the Co-op Group or indeed George Osborne should have questioned the decision of the regulator. Well yes, perhaps they should have but unlikely they would.

antrobus wrote: »

I suspect you mean HBOS but, in any case, are you suggesting that the 'Tory Government' (sic) is delaying the results of an inquiry into how and why a Labour government made such a mess of banking regulation?:)

I'm just stating the facts. The implication is that the promise of an inquiry and the materialisation of it are two different things. Given the sheer number of entities which together likely contributed to the downfall of the Co-op Bank - the bank itself, the FSA, the Co-op Group, The Labour Party and the government itself - any inquiry will likely be toned down. There are too many skeletons in too many closets!

jackyann

Thank you for this debate.
As a Co-operative member since childhood & bank customer since adulthood I am deeply upset by what has happened.
I have decided to stay with the Co-op for the time being and see how it goes. The conversations on here are helpful.
As for being as ethical as one can - we try our best. Everyone is going to have a slightly different take on the best way to be a good member of the community. I am thankful that there are plenty of thoughtful people trying to live decent lives; we need them more than ever!

ColdIron

Anthorn wrote: »

The facts are that the FSA interviewed Rev. Flowers twice and approved him on each occasion. Enough said, he got the job. The FSA also looked at the acquisition of Britannia and approved that too. Enough said, the acquisition went ahead. The question here is whether the Co-op Bank or the Co-op Group or indeed George Osborne should have questioned the decision of the regulator.

I think you'll find that The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was Alistair Darling not Osborne. When speaking at the Treasury Select Committee Flowers, who was not Chairman at the time the Britannia merger occurred in 2009, said that it and other deals were undertaken under pressure from senior government ministers