I've been mulling over last week's Budget and the proposals for the Post Office to provide a wide range of banking services and wondering what their implications really are. Clearly they don't mean very much unless the incoming government decides to enact them (though some of the Post Office bank measures are already in the process of being introduced). But, if the new government were to follow through on the current government's commitments, what would that mean...?

I'm increasingly starting to think that maybe, without quite even noticing it, the aims of our bank reform campaigning may actually have been realised.

Back in May 2009, we set out four problems that we wanted to be addressed through reform of the banking system:

1) We must restore public confidence in banks and the banking system
2) There is an urgent need to tackle financial exclusion which continues to undermine efforts to regenerate deprived communities
3) Problems persist in the availability of finance to community and social enterprises and the range of investment products offered is extremely limited
4) The third sector and local communities need support to maintain their income in the face of increased demand for services and a lack of sustainable revenue streams.

The announcements on bank reform in the Budget, and subsequently on Post Office banking, are remarkably similar in their intentions to our own ambition.

Banking services - including access to a national network of credit unions and CDFIs provided through the Post Office - could provide universal coverage of affordable credit and capital for community and social enterprise. There will be an alternative to the extortionate charges of predatory lenders and loan sharks - that are too often the only source of credit for poor communities. And, as an added bonus, the scheme could help sustain the Post Office network as a focal hub for community life, where people of all backgrounds mix and interact.

In the Budget, the government said it wanted to find ways to get banks to invest in community finance organisations and would look at ways to do this through regulation and taxes. A UK version of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), is the way to achieve this through regulation, and a tax (or levy) could be used to provide a new source of income (both grants and loans) to support charitable activity.
Of course, a commitment to "find ways" is not the same as a commitment to introduce a CRA and a 1% tax on banks' profits. And the government could "find ways" that will fail to deliver (we've seen numerous instances of good intentions being poorly executed over recent years). However, with the expertise that exists within the Better Banking Coalition, we can move quickly to design a system that is ‘fit for purpose'. Then, whoever wins the election, we will be ready with a credible plan to present to the new government to reform banking, tackle financial exclusion and support community-led regeneration.

And when we get to that point, maybe, just maybe, we'll have arrived at our destination.