Senior Tory politicians publicly rallying to Nigel Farage's cause in a grubby attempt to ignite a culture war which they desperately hope will avert electoral armageddon for them next election isn't going particularly well.
The latest Omnisis poll shows no change at all for any party other than a very slight increase for Reform UK
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1682390025680588801
Reform UK is very unlikely to get as much as 7% support next general election but if they did approach that level of support it would have a devastating effect on a Tory Party already on its knees.
So well done Rishi Sunak for further increasing the likelihood of your party getting shafted next general election.
Since NatWest has apparently lost £850m in value today because of this issue and ‘we’ own 39% of it does that mean Farage has managed to loose ‘us’ £250m ?
No - the board of NatWerst managed that through their incompetence. I've worked for a bank. Customer confidentiality isn't something that can just be ignored and the lowliest employee would be out on their arse for breaching it. Alison Rose got the chance to resign and will no doubt pick up a handy pay-off in the process.
I did like one Twitter (or is it X) commentary on this.
In keeping with Government practices, she should resign immediately and then stay in post indefinitely, not turning up to work but using her notoriety to appear on loads of news programs (no, I don't mean news, I mean current affairs talkshows) where she can freely disseminate what she thinks without anyone taking any action against it.
Customer confidentiality isn’t something that can just be ignored
I think I saw that she considered that Farage had put the whole thing in the public domain so there was no longer any confidentiality to protect. Which I thought didn't sound unreasonable.
Maybe he's hoping that a new board means he can get his account back. I hope that never happens. Though it would leave him twisted and bitter.
Oh wait ......
I’m struggling with this one as whilst I agree farage is an odious human being I’m struggling with the banks position on him being too dodgy. After all this is the bank that thinks the king is a good customer and it’s well reported that taking cash in paper bags from dubious Middle Eastern sources is fine by him and presumably the same goes for this bank when his minion paid it in
How is Farage being allowed to push the poor innocent me and dodgy banks closing accounts narratives? Surely the more interesting story is the Farage’s dodgy dealings and we wouldn’t touch him with yours angle?
With hindsight, the bank should have said nothing publicly and left the world to come to it's own conclusions.
I’m struggling with the banks position on him being too dodgy. After all this is the bank that thinks the king is a good customer and it’s well reported that taking cash in paper bags from dubious Middle Eastern sources
The fact that Coutts felt that Farage was more toxic than said king tells you all you need to know - at least we know Charles has accepted cash in brown paper bags. The inference is Farage can't even show that the source of his income could be explained away like that..
It's pretty clear that he seems to be too dodgy, I don't think that's in doubt. The fact that KC3 hasn't had the same done to him therefore everyone else should be let off too is arse about face. KC3 should be held to the same standards, not the standard dropped for Farage.
There's also the aspect that almost no-one is too dodgy for Coutts & Co, as long as you have enough wealth to justify the 'governance' and exposure that holding that account for them brings.
It was made clear as part of the document that he fell below that threshold, once his mortgage closed.
Even if a mistake has been made about holding legal but abhorrent views, you still don't automatically qualify for a Coutts account.
Even if a mistake has been made about holding legal but abhorrent views,
I'm fairly happy that any business should be able to exclude whoever they want, provided it's not based on a protected characteristic.
The fact that KC3 hasn’t had the same done to him therefore everyone else should be let off too is arse about face. KC3 should be held to the same standards, not the standard dropped for Farage.
I agree entirely yet KC can still bank there despite his known behaviour does suggest double standards
KC3's account would be far more valuable though, both in the sense of money and also being 'The Royal's Bank'
Might be double standards but it's also a commercial decision.
Coutts decision was never one based on just politics or finances
it was on a balance of the 2 , once farage had stopped paying his mortgage to them, he was deemed to be no longer worth the hassle
As Ernie pointed out the government only jumped on this because culture war outrage is all they have, relying on the polarization of brexit (and farage is a brexit lightning rod) works to an extent but the cost of living crisis (which brexit has contributed to) trumps it all
the media & Westminster elites going balls deep to save poor victim nige doesn't fix the actual problems the country faces
Kimbers - don't forget that sunak & co also jumped on this because they could as the gov is a 39% shareholder.
They would not have the same direct leverage over most other financial institutions.
I think farage will attempt to monetise this in his self proclaimed capacity as man of the people or however he styles himself.
I think I saw that she considered that Farage had put the whole thing in the public domain so there was no longer any confidentiality to protect. Which I thought didn’t sound unreasonable.
Rule #1 in Financial Service is never to disclosure a customers information to anyone not authorised to receive it. This is drilled into everyone repeatedly.
The fact the CEO disclosed this to a journalist at a charity event just beggars belief and demonstrates an incredible lack of judgement. The board then released a statement in supported of an untenable position shows yet more woeful lack of judgement.
PRA will be be popping round for a chat with the chairman (if he is still in position) before the week is out.
Howard Davies had stated his intention to stand down by July 2024.
I doubt if he will bow to pressure to accelarate the date; he has plenty of friends in high places which should provide some insulation.
He will also be aware of the problems arising from and perception of a disorderly transition.
The PRA are useless so any chat they may have with NatWest will likely be nothing more than symbolic.
None of that is of any interest to farage who will continue to milk this for everything he can get.
How long before he starts making noises about compensation for reputational damage and discriminatory treatment?
I’m fairly happy that any business should be able to exclude whoever they want, provided it’s not based on a protected characteristic.
Political beliefs are a protected characteristic, so the banks in this case are potentially on dodgy ground, and should have done a cya exercise to make sure they had a real reason to boot him out. Which tbf they probably did as he's pretty low-profile these days compared to 5 years ago
Sorry 5lab, political beliefs are not a protected characteristic - from the gov.uk website
Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
Political beliefs are a protected...
I get that... But I don't think the bank said specifically it's his political beliefs.
They did mention potential dodgy Russian money...
That's not really a political thing, that's 'is this customer a potential fraud/money laundering risk?'
Can we as a business keep this customer in good faith given the regulatory requirements of due diligence etc.
Natwest/Coutts have kinda opened themselves up for attack here though.
It would have been far more prudent of them to simply say nothing at all in public, or at least only say things in direct response to what Nigel chose to make public himself. i.e :
'we offered you an account with natwest, what's your problem?'
"Looks like one or two on here were way off the mark."
And continue to be so it seems...
As some Greek philosopher one said, - "Do you hate your enemies more than you love the truth?."
Is no one curious as to what other persons and organisations have had their accounts closed recently?
Or is this just a p***ing competition to see which pound shop Frankie Boyle can come up with the most witty Nigel Farage insult?
As some Greek philosopher one said, – “Do you hate your enemies more than you love the truth?.”
So what is the truth here which you are implying has been ignored?
Is no one curious as to what other persons and organisations have had their accounts closed recently?
I'd be fascinated to know, but the banks aren't allowed to discuss it, so unless they make a fuss like Farage did, we are unlikely to find out.
Unless you have something to share?
According the the Guardian many MPs and others have had accounts refused for political risk
I think what Inkster is saying and unfortunately I agree is that whilst most right thinking individuals dislike our little frog faced fiend and what he has helped do to the country, that doesn’t really counter the hypocrisy from NatWest bearing in mind how many dictators, mobsters, royal nonces and dodgy hedge fund managers still have bank accounts with them.
Badly handled all round really.
"I’d be fascinated to know, but the banks aren’t allowed to discuss it, so unless they make a fuss like Farage did, we are unlikely to find out.
Unless you have something to share?"
Did you catch Newsnight 5 minutes ago? Konstantin Kisin (comedian and podcaster) just came out and explained that the same thing has happened to him.
I wasn't aware of this when I posted my comment 25 minutes ago, which either suggests that soon, others might start making a fuss or that I am in fact a pound shop Nostradamus.
The whole fiasco could be turned into something for good...
I mean.. what does an 'elite' bank like Coutts offer anyone over a standard banks account other than prestige and bragging rights? better interest rates? more favorable returns on certain investment vehicles/mechanisms, free specialist investment/tax advice?
None of these things are particulary desireable for a society as the playing field becomes un-level, favoring the affluent, to the detriment of those less afluent.
But whilst the likes of Farage control the narrative, well, we all know that particular play book!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/sunak-hunt-uk-natwest-alison-rose
It is understood that NatWest was in regular communication with the Treasury throughout the discussions, and that it was notified of the board’s original decision to back Rose before the statement endorsing her was released. There was no pushback from ministers or Treasury officials at that time, they added.
The Guardian has been told that there was a change in position only after the release of NatWest’s statement – even though its contents had been discussed with officials – resulting in the Treasury putting in calls to the bank’s board to voice its lack of confidence in Rose. Without support from its largest shareholder, the board reversed its decision.
“So why intervene in the Coutts-Farage case? It’s about power. The power Farage seems to have over the Tories and the lack of it that everyday workers and customers have.”
So the chief executive of NatWest Group is sacked on the orders of a Tory government, before the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority is allowed to follow the due process, just to keep Nigel Farage happy.
Shocking but maybe predictable. As is the backing they are receiving from the leader of the Labour Party:
In a contrast to the position taken by Labour’s shadow chancellor, the party’s leader, Keir Starmer, expressed sympathy for Farage, saying NatWest had “got this one wrong” and that it was right for Rose to go.
Not only is the Labour leader publicly expressing sympathy for Nigel Farage but he is also backing Tory politicians unacceptable interference with the due process.
Multiple sources accepted that Rose’s days may have been numbered given the importance of banking confidentiality, but her chaotic exit was unnecessary.
An FCA source echoed the concerns, saying the government “should have allowed due process,” noting that NatWest had committed to an independent review of how it handled the former Ukip leader’s banking and confidentiality.
You would have thought that a former DPP understood the supremacy of the due process over kangaroo courts.
Did you catch Newsnight 5 minutes ago? Konstantin Kisin (comedian and podcaster) just came out and explained that the same thing has happened to him.
So who is denying the truth? With your quote from "some Greek philosopher" you seemed to suggest that the truth was being denied.
"So who is denying the truth? With your quote from “some Greek philosopher” you seemed to suggest that the truth was being denied."
Yes I did didn't I....
You might find evidence for that over the last 7 pages of this thread.
It seems like some truths are now becoming apparent that had previously been occluded.
That truth was being occlused owing to a collective wallowing in schadenfreude, rather than a converstion about the ethical matter in question.
So you can't give any specifics then. Just a general accusation that the truth was being denied without providing any evidence. Which I imagine would be relatively easy if, ironically, it was true.
Nigel Farage claims that Couttes has closed his account and another 10 banks have refused him an account. He claims it is due to his political veiws although he also admits that he hasn't satisfied Couttes wealth criteria for years.
I don't think any of those claims by Farage have been seriously challenged on here.
that doesn’t really counter the hypocrisy from NatWest bearing in mind how many dictators, mobsters, royal nonces and dodgy hedge fund managers still have bank accounts with them.
NatWest have offered him an account, just not one in their prestige arm.
The fact others with 'dodgy' backgrounds are - doesn't sit right but presumably they have a better balance of value to risk.
Hypocritical - maybe. It's a bank for the very rich, why are we surprised they are ethically bankrupt!
Not only is the Labour leader publicly expressing sympathy for Nigel Farage but he is also backing Tory politicians unacceptable interference with the due process.
I'm not sure he has expressed sympathy for Farage, everything is being spun here. Though his lack of (reported) clarity reinforces the impression that he's a useless weather vane.
The CEO was sacked for leaking customer information. Any bank employee would be. She didn’t have to quit because they'd declined Farages business, which is the spin being put on it.
The sooner someone calls out the government and press spin and sticks to the facts, the better.
The PRA are useless so any chat they may have with NatWest will likely be nothing more than symbolic.
Not true in my experience. Conversations between FI’s and PRA on conduct risk are not symbolic and can have very severe consequences for the bank.
So, Farage’s boss at GB news is involved with a hedge fund that has been shorting NatWest stock for months and after yesterday’s fall in share price earned a few million quid. Strange coincidence or just lucky perhaps.
Edit:Reading a bit more most likely just lucky but having thought before that nobody gained from this whole affair it does appear there are winners after all
I’m not sure he has expressed sympathy for Farage
I was just using a term used by the Guardian as I know that what the Guardian claims to be true is rarely challenged on here.
I get it. We all hate Farage.
However - banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies - which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
Farage is an opportunist, yes, but he's aware of the above and and is exploiting the opportunity to create noise about banking overreach. Whilst I doubt his motivations are anything other than selfish and self-serving, the bigger picture is that he's actually doing us all a favour - which is why parliamentarians are getting involved.
Holding abhorrent views cannot be a barrier to holding a bank account. (As opposed to being abusive to staff members). If the reasons for this aren't immediately clear and obvious to you then you're having a hard life (and making everyone's life around you harder) by being unconsciously incompetent every minute of the day.
🙂
However – banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies – which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
He is allowed an account, just not the poncy one he wanted
However – banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies – which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
One more time for those at the back. Natwest DID offer him an account, just not the exclusive fancy pants Coutts account. Just as they would not offer me, or 95% of the rest of the population a Coutts account.
which is why parliamentarians are getting involved.
Involved? They are interfering with the investigation being carried out by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. And this is a government that believes in self regulation and light touch for financial services.
I'll remind you of the situation. 10 banks have refused Farage an account one bank, the NatWest, has offered Farage an account, the chief executive of that bank has been sacked by the government because Farage isn't happy.
How is that doing us/me a favour?
@ernielynch - the answer is in my post. Maybe try to understand why the denial of banking services for holding views people don't like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
The fact that this is actually a topic of discussion now is the favour.
Eff Farage. But banks need bringing in line on this. (And I don't hate banks, I work in one and am well aware of the legislation they work under).
denial of banking services holding views people don’t like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
Yes it is, luckily that's not happened here
Yes it is, luckily that’s not happened here
That's arguable given apparently 10 (or so) banks turned him down. But again, eff Farage - there's plenty of stuff coming out of the woodwork that shows it's clearly happening.
Maybe try to understand why the denial of banking services holding views people don’t like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
Banking has nothing to do with democracy, they are pretty much the poster child for capitalism, this whole issue was a simple solution the bank did a cost benefit analysis, the lack of any financial benefit of having Farage as a customer against the negativity of having him as a customer, they do these decisions all the time, they aren't some 'woke' organisation that are doing some press on this, they didn't even mention it, it has all been Farage, even today i read him going on about 'how do i pay my gas bill', well you take the Natwest account they offered and they'll transfer all your bill payments over, the muppet is trying to glean as much press as possible for this.
That’s arguable given apparently 10 (or so) banks turned him down.
It's not, the bank he banks with now have offered him a bank account. He just wants a special bank account for special people - being as he is, Y'know; a man of the people, an ordinary bloke....
@argee:
Banking has nothing to do with democracy
I refer the honourable gentlemen to my original post.
It’s not, the bank he banks with now have offered him a bank account. He just wants a special bank account for special people – being as he is, Y’know; a man of the people, an ordinary bloke….
*sigh* Still talking about Farage? Oh well.
Two points:
- Ten banks turning him down indicates smoke, potentially fire. But who cares, it's Farage.
- All of the other stuff coming out is absolutely screaming fire. < This is all I care about.
If you need this issue to be about Farage, then fine. But you seem to be steadfastly ignoring the actual important stuff.
Edit: To be clear - the important stuff being that banks are factoring in the views that people hold before offering them banking services. This cannot be allowed. If we legislate on this then they won't be able to hide behind "reputational damage". Banking is a fundamental service in a modern economy, not just a voluntary thing you interact with. You choose your brand, but we should legislate their terms of business.
