Share:
The Farage-Coutts affair is a lesson for liberals
The Left was all too ready to amplify false narratives
Dame Alison Rose was doomed from the moment that the NatWest Group board expressed “full confidence” in her as CEO. The context was her own admission that she’d “made a serious error of judgement” in talking to BBC journalist Simon Jack about Nigel Farage’s relationship with Coutts bank.
Sir Howard Davies, the NatWest Group chairman, agreed — adding that the “handling” of Farage’s abrupt cancellation as a Coutts customer “has been unsatisfactory, with serious consequences for the bank”. And yet despite these acknowledgements, he then said that the board “retains full confidence in Ms Rose as CEO of the bank”.
It was a jaw-dropping non sequitur — and if Sir Howard really thought it would go unchallenged, then his judgement ought to be questioned too. Yet this multi-layered farce goes well beyond the NatWest Group. For instance, our national broadcaster has had to apologise to Farage for its part in misreporting the facts of this affair.
The circle of shame also takes in the Labour front bench. Just look at this toe-curling whataboutery from the Shadow Cabinet minister Nick Thomas-Symonds. He seemed less worried about the actual scandal than the fact that the Government intervened on the matter (which as the largest NatWest shareholder it is perfectly entitled to do).
And then there’s the former Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron. Following the revelations of recent days he’s admitted that “now we know what we know […] NatWest/Coutts behaved very badly towards Farage.”
It was big of him say so. Less commendable, however, was his previous tweet on the matter: “Weirdo that I am, I’m hugely tempted to demonstrate my ultra-liberalism and support Farage’s rights here… but I’m increasingly of the view that this is mostly confected nonsense, that he is not a victim and is just playing politics.”
I suspect the reason Farron was so quick to side with the bankers against Farage was because of his “ultra-liberalism”, not despite it. The fact is that this affair has exposed establishment liberalism for what it is. That’s why we’ve seen so many commentators twist and turn on this story, doing anything not to catch a glimpse of their own side in the mirror.
And yet there’s no denying it: many of the accusations levelled at the establishment by the populist Right have been shown to be true. Three in particular stand out: firstly, that cancel culture and the threat to free speech are real. That Nigel Farage’s bank account was terminated because of his political opinions serves as a prime example.
Secondly, that wokeness isn’t some fringe phenomenon, but has sunk deep into our institutions. You don’t get much more established or institutional than Coutts — but that didn’t stop the bank from purging a customer on ideological grounds.
And thirdly, that the BBC can’t be trusted to hold the establishment to account. In this matter, the broadcaster has shown itself all too ready to amplify false narratives — despite its own grandstanding on the dangers of misinformation.
The Farage-Coutts affair is what the American’s call a “teachable moment“. In particular, it is an opportunity for liberals to learn the valuable lesson that not all threats to democracy come from the extremes.
I am obviously delighted to see so much egg on so many smug faces over this affair. Mr Franklin hits the nail on the head with his three points.
The other thing that struck me was hubris. I always thought journalists were taught basic source protection techniques. Yet Simon ‘I’m hardly George Smiley’ Jack sat next to his source at a very public dinner, then ran the story the day afterwards. A cleverer journo would have protected Alison Rose by passing the story to a colleague.
Hubris. Arrogance. Stupidity.
It gives me hope, actually, that this nasty little culture war can be won. Because the other side is as thick as a whale omelette.
YES!
Clearly a coven of bullies has taken over at Coutts and perhaps throughout the NatWest empire.
Normally, bullies – who are by definition nasty creatures – pick on victims who cannot defend themselves or even answer back.
This shameful crew initiated a fight with Nigel Farage: a man who proved his battling stamina through 20 years of being attacked continuously by the media and the political class and the rest of the Establishment, bloodied but unbowed in his successful determination to get the UK out of the EU.
He nowadays has a TV programme of his own which appears in ever-new editions several times a week.
What were the machiavels of Coutts thinking when they sought to mix it with HIM?!
‘STUPID’ hardly begins to describe their conduct.
I have two question regarding this matter: (1) Has anyone in the banking sector or government suffered real consequences for the way Farage was treated? (2) Was Farage reinstated as a Coutts client, or was he only offered, as I have read, an account within the broader NatWest bank?
In other words, “teachable moment” or not, did any of the perpetrators suffer any real damage, and does Farage remain cancelled by Coutts?
If there were no consequences for this glaring (and now undisputed) cancellation, what hope do we have of rolling back the tide of wokeism?
Well, if you consider a 3.5% decline in NatWest’s (the parent company’s) value on the FTSE – then yes, damage has been done.
That’s the equivalent of £600m. Just to add, the bank is still 38% owned by the taxpayer.
Then fine directors 10% of the loss.
Spread it around the boards of NatWest and Coutts (there is some problem with spelling of company name)
Too soon to say. The bank may well have broken data protection law. There could be serious consequences coming to them for that.
Farage could also sue them for libel. I don’t think he’s going to let this one go.
If Chris Bryant MP would like to repeat his Russian allegation outside the Chamber, Farage could sue him as well.
Coutts have confirmed that no Russian money has arrived in NF’s account. After all, they should know.
Can someone explain to me why MPs are allowed to say lies about citizens without repercussions?
I think it should be duty of Commons Speaker to challenge such MP and ask him to provide evidence gor his claims.
If he/she can not, they should be at least banned from a House for a period and force to issue apology.
Great post. None.
Unless any of main culprits are charged, fined personally and their titles taken away nothing will change.
Fines imposed on institutions will not change behaviour of senior directors.
The existence of this purging committee at Coutts (mirrored, I expect, in many other banks and essential services) scares me the more I think about it.
Just as in illness there are pre-diabetic and pre-cancerous conditions here in full view is a pre- Stasi condition.
I comment here at Unherd, also more pungently at the Spectator. I read The Critic, The Daily Sceptic, and the Eugyppius blog – all online. My opinions are well within the cluster deemed so deplorable by Farage’s cancellers.
Well, I am old and no kind of a public figure so they, probably, won’t come for me. But?? And for some others BTL here and on other sites?
It also changes my perspective on the regular wind-up merchants active BTL (more at the Spectator than here). I used to wonder what they got out of being contradicted and insulted daily.( I would never comment at the Guardian and take the abuse). Today I think… wind-up merchants… agents provocateurs perhaps… trolling for angrier and more extreme reactions?
Oh dear! I am getting nuttier with the years. But these are ominous times.
Great comment… more please!
No, you are not paranoid. When I feel like giving young, woke idiots both barrels re climate, gender, BLM, history, overpromoting useless members of minorities etc, they do NOT argue.
They ask where I work. When I say I am retired, they loose interest.
We are in sort of late communism stage, but going in opposite direction (towards Stalinism).
You were no longer killed or even imprisoned but you lost your job and your children were stopped from going to university.
I presume these young activists will bombard your employer through social media to force them to cancel you.
And thirdly, that the BBC can’t be trusted to hold the establishment to account. In this matter,
To a large extent the BBC is the Establishment or at least the Establishment’s public relations team. And also not obviously learning from so many previous “teachable moments”.
The occupants of sinking ships don’t tend to be remembered for their learning abilities.
I am sorry, it is not sinking ship, I am afraid.
I Navy terms you maybe lost cruiser, but battleships and aircraft carriers of woke vermin are still intact.
I voted Remain but was appalled from the out at the treatment by Coutts of Mr Farage. I would have been equally appalled if the victim had been Mr Corbyn.
A Mr Corbyn who, funnily enough, has been cancelled by his new boss for having the wrong political opinions. How democratic!
Different situation.
Political party can decide you are not one of them.
Depriving someone of banking facilities is another matter.
I would, very reluctantly agree.
My problem with Corbyn is that I consider him a traitor to his country.
Always supporting uk enemies (Russia, Hamas, Iran, Taliban, IRA).
An excellent polemic Mr Franklin, well done indeed.
Did anyone notice another banking guru/ gorgon rallying to the defence of the Rose creature, one Frances Coppola?
Truly extraordinary how these cretins, overcome with FDS*, will humiliate themselves in such a way is it not?
Fortunately it is ‘on record FOREVER!
(* Farage delusion syndrome.)
You should read the comments under various FT articles and their latest editorial – almost completely demented remainer/guardian territory.
Thank you, but at my advanced years that might bring on a seizure, which would annoy my Spaniels!
Exactly.
I was censored on here or Spectator for making comments about wilting Rose looks matching her intelligence.
But people on FT are calling for Farage to be killed.
That is OK, allegedly.
Fo you think they care?
They are virtue signalling to their tribe.
They don’t care about BTL commenters on here.
This is level of samizdat.
The modus operandi of liberalism nowadays is to first deny anything bad/wrong is happening and claim anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist nazi conspiracy theorist. When incontrovertible evidence is provided that proves that the liberal denials are untenable they’ll concede it’s been happening all along but that it’s a good thing.
It is amost like there is a standard woke playbook that all these woke-dominated institutions are using for crisis management.
It bogles the mind that woke activist ideology is so overpowering that Rose was willing to sacrifice her 30-year career and risk the survival of her business for a moment of politically correct obeisance,
This reminds of the comments by comedian Louis CK on SNL a few years ago, Wondering at all the horrors facing pedophiles (life sex offender registration, social untouchable, killed in jail) he concludes with the punch-line, “I guess sex with kids must be really, really good.”
“It bogles the mind that woke activist ideology is so overpowering that Rose was willing to sacrifice her 30-year career and risk the survival of her business for a moment of politically correct obeisance,”
But that’s my question: did she really risk anything other than some transient, negative publicity and a half-hearted wrist slap from her board of directors?
Ok, I just read that the NatWest CEO has resigned, so it appears she did suffer consequences for her action. Although it appears the sackable-offence was her communication with the BBC, not the actual cancellation based on Farage’s personal beliefs.
Yes, she was fired because she got caught, not because she did anything wrong.
At the very least she acquiesced in the attempted financial destruction of Mr Farage.
I think that qualifies as
“doing something wrong”, don’t you?
I’m sure like most of us, he does. I think the point he was making was that the board of Nat West clearly don’t think she did, otherwise they wouldn’t have initially expressed confidence in her. It was only because of the reaction to that statement and probably the messages from 10 & 11 Downing St, that they changed their mind about her staying.
Hardly. She will move from this multi million pound job, to another multimillion pound job.
And even if she didn’t work another day in her life, I am sure she is pretty set.
Excellent article. Deserves more prominent billing.
It was astonishing to read that a UK banking customer (in this case Farage but could be anyone) was “anti-semitic” because they observed Grant Shapps (who happens to be Jewish) as a Globalist of the WEF kind…
Well he is a Globalist. He is a Member of the WEF and is positioned well to undertake that as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
(Yes Energy Security & Net Zero – do you see now?)
40-page dossier on Mr Farage’s perfectly lawful views… What is this, the East German Stasi?
Yes it beggars what he is doing in the Conservative Party?? This was the clown that gave away £250 Million of yet more borrowed money to give to predominantly left wing Councils to implement ULEZ and LTNs. And yet he is Sunak’s right hand man.
WEFminster….. Many quislings within the house
By way of background for those fortunate enough not to be involved in financial services, the FCA gives guidance on “enhanced due diligence” for politically exposed persons (PEPs) which Mr Farage would clearly be. The idea behind this is to make your bank/broker check that their PEP clients (or indeed Mr Farage) is/are not receiving back handers from some drug cartel (insert villain of choice here) and is part of standard anti money laundering and anti terrorist financing precautions which all financial companies ignore at their peril. Problem is, if you combine a self interested reading of these regulations, combined with the severe penalties for “tipping off” i.e. letting any genuinely suspect client know that they are subject to official investigation and what you end up with is a convenient cloak of secrecy around your company jogging on a perfectly respectable client just because you don’t like his or her social media profile. I can’t say I’ve seen it done, but being familiar with the regulations I can easily see how people minded like that would feel comfortable that they could use the current regulations to avoid any unwanted scrutiny.
I have posted this before but will do so again as I have never seen those posts (perhaps they had fallen foul of some word speak rules). In a former life in another country I was a Banking Supervisor. The PEP rules were discussed at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) pre-Basle I meetings that I attended in 1987. The PEP rules came out of these meetings. They were aimed at top politician corruption throughout Africa and Latin America where the majority of despots were located at the time. They were certainly not targeting opinions or other wider political matters. In fact the rules were an attempt to democratise banking. Funny eh? The other thing I don’t get (and perhaps this is going on behind the scenes) is that the bank act that we operated under was essentially drafted by the UK (Bank of England actually). One of the most important sections dealt with the inviolable right of the banks to secrecy. The quid pro quo of this was that the banks in turn had to do the same for their clients. Not doing so was an offence that could lead to their licence being pulled. It never came to this in my time but I and the banks I supervised had many heated exchanges. I never saw the situation with Farage and Coutts. Certainly no bank CEO would talk to any journalist. Hell, they wouldn’t talk to me and that was a specific legal requirement. I cannot believe that the UK regulators are not chewing Coutts and Nat West out on an hourly basis over this. Perhaps like I said earlier it is because it is all happening behind closed doors. That’s OK so long as it is happening and the regulators are beating on those banks like a drum. Let’s hope it is. Anyway I do hope Farage sues the banks until they bleed, but only after they’ve returned all the bail out money to the UK taxpayer.
If proof were ever needed in nu britain, that the servants hall had taken over, it it is the customer that now forms the ( rubber) backbone of Coutts , who not so long ago, money or otherwise, would not even been allowed into one of their branches! Interestingly, East Anglia had no Coutts branch until relatively recently ( Cambridge) as the rich, having backed the foundation of Barclays up there, stuck with them, but have now defected to Handelsbanken and/ or Weatherbys.
They aren’t liberals. But those Franklin calls liberals have gifted Farage Brexit, and now NatWest. Blair/Brown in 1998 sought to “rub the Right”‘s nose” in immigration; Cameron ditched his “cast iron” guarantee on a referendum on the supranationalist EU “constitution”; Alison Rose new the rules and broke them unconscionably. There is a pattern here. Arrogance. There is a lot more whence it came.
Non-liberal Neo-Marxists learning lessons?
Author must be joking.
This voke vermin infested most (all?) Of institutions.
They are quite thin skinned though.
.22 ammo would do 😉
Today on UnHerd:
Today on UnHerd
24th September 2023
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe