Don't Vote Labour (Part 8)

EU Returns Agreement; 'Debanking'

EU returns agreement

In Autumn 2023 Starmer said he would seek a returns agreements with the EU that would involve us taking a certain number of irregular migrants from the EU. When he said this, the Tories made a big deal of it suggesting he would accept the quotas regularly imposed on member states. This prompted a lot of Labour figures denying a quota would be involved. To be accurate, by its very nature a returns agreement will be two way, and we are not (no thanks to Labour) members of the EU. However, given Starmer's record on the EU, the policy hardly fills one with confidence.

'Debanking'

In June 2023, Coutts bank - a subsidiary of NatWest - moved to close Nigel Farage's business and personal accounts. This was, according to the BBC financial correspondent Simon Jack, because Farage's total balance had dropped below the required sum of £1 million. Jack had spoken to the NatWest CEO, Dame Alison Rose, and she had told him this line. Uncritically he believed her and the BBC put out the story on 4th July. However, this was incorrect. The real reason was that Farage had been deemed politically undesirable and a danger to the reputation of the bank. A subject access request by Farage proved this, and unearthed a forty page internal report detailing why he was such a reprobate.

This included him being described thus: "The values NF actively and publicly promotes/champions do not align with the bank's... deliberately using extreme, hatful [sic] and emotive language, (often with a dose of misinformation) - at best he is seen as xenophobic and pandering to racists, and at worst, he is seen as xenophobic and racist. He is considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter..."

News articles and media appearances were used to back up these poorly articulated claims. Baseless allegations of Farage having 'ties' with the Russian state were cited, which were taboo because of the Ukraine invasion. These had been mainstreamed in March 2022 by the Labour MP Chris Bryant, using Parliamentary privilege to announce Farage had earned money from Russia Today. Bryant said he had earned over £548,000 from media appearances, implying a lot or all of this was from RT and demanding government sanctions upon him. However, Farage said he had only received around £5,000 for two appearances in 2016 and 2017, five years before the Ukraine invasion. Bryant later had to apologise for ‘inadvertently’ misleading Parliament, something he is often accused of (ironic as he has been chair of the Commons Committee on Standards). In fairness to the Coutts report, it did acknowledge the lack of evidence 'redacted Labour MP' had offered.

The report also noted that there was nothing currently wrong with the sum in Farage's accounts: "He meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for economic retention". It also dismissed the notion of him being involved in financial crime: "we have identified no direct or specific issues from the data collected so we have discounted this risk".

Simon Jack and Allison Rose would later apologise for spreading the £1 million threshold story, admitting on 24th July it was incorrect. Rose had acted unethically by giving confidential client details to Jack. She had also not told the truth, quite possibly for political reasons. Farage did what he does best and caused a massive stink about what he dubbed 'debanking' (a pun on 'debunking'). He mounted a fierce campaign against Coutts and NatWest, encouraging other figures to come forward and expose similar ill treatment by their banks.

The Conservatives, in one of those few things they've got right, stepped in and defended Farage. It's important to note that the UK government still has a 38% stake in NatWest after bailing it out in 2008. Jeremy Hunt wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority on the matter, as well as the wider issue of banks closing peoples' accounts for political reasons. Labour, however, said barely anything until there was a chance to bash the government. On July 26th Rose was pressured into  resigning by NatWest and later that month Coutts offered to reinstate Farage's accounts.

An apology from the BBC was not enough. Fake news being what it is, the lie had gone around the world twice and accepted as truth in some quarters. Labour's friends in the liberal media were convinced (or pretending to be) it was all one of Farage's 'grifts'. An FCA investigation into the wider 'debanking' scandal concluded (unconvincingly) that no banks had closed accounts for political reasons - only because of things like suspected criminal activity and racist abuse from customers. However, it did not examine Farage's case because technically his account was not closed. Emily Maitlis, increasingly partisan and unhinged since leaving the BBC, took to Twitter to claim otherwise. In an attack on Jeremy Hunt she wrote: " 'No  one should have their bank account closed because they're not politically correct' - says the chancellor - ignoring the findings of the report by financial authorities who reported last month that this was NOT the reason behind the Farage Coutts closure". We can reasonably assume that some of Emily's fellow travellers in the Labour Party were similarly misinformed.

Much of Labour would choose the wrong side once Alison Rose resigned. They did not opt for the private citizen being wronged by a corporation, which despite the victim being Farage had implications for every private citizen in the country. No, they plumped for the unethical banker instead. Shadow minister Nick Thomas-Symonds interviewed on Sky, said: "Well it's astonishing, isn't it...to see last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, under pressure from outside, weighing in so quickly against a business leader like Dame Alison Rose". The previously mentioned hot-shot Darren Jones asked 'Why intervene in the Coutts-Farage case? It's about power. The power Farage seems to have over the Tories".

Rachel Reeves went even further, alleging bullying and sexism against Rose: "I don't like, some of the frankly, what I see as bullying attitudes towards her. She's the first female chief executive of NatWest. She took over at a time when that bank had real big problems. 'It seems to me [she] has done a good job turning that bank around". She added snidely that if she was in the Treasury instead of Hunt she would be spending her time on the cost of living rather than "picking a fight with banks on behalf of Nigel Farage". De-whipped Diane Abbott also (predictably) played the victim card, Tweeting: "Sole woman sacked from leadership of NatWest in the overblown row".

It was extraordinary for Labour figures to miss the point so spectacularly, and to miss the chance to make capital on a politically neutral issue. They took this position just because the victim was Nigel Farage. If it were somebody of their politics, and the government were defending the banks, they would have raised merry hell.

In fairness Starmer had not been so unwise. He prevaricated for some time, his spokesman refusing to make any comment because it was too early to tell if Farage's politics had been the reason for the account closure. This was said on 9th July. Shadow minister Alex Norris took a similar line. Eventually on 26th July, once Rose had resigned, Starmer admitted: "NatWest got this one wrong. And that's why Alison Rose had to resign." He also said when pressed: "He [Farage] shouldn't have had his personal details revealed like that. It doesn't matter who you are, that's a general rule". Backbenchers Barry Gardiner and Lloyd Russell Moyle also supported Farage's position on the issue, seeing the dangerous implications of what had happened.

Private individuals losing access to a bank account, and the fact nobody has a guaranteed right to have a bank account, is a real worry. Without a bank account you cannot live your normal life. Farage was arguing for the state to guarantee one in the instance somebody is left without - something along the lines of a Post Office account. As well as banks, we've seen Paypal, Patreon and other such businesses refuse service to individuals or groups because of their politics. This dramatically affects the ability to raise money or make a living. People have also lost their jobs over their political opinions. All of this is part of a wider culture of 'cancellation', political persecution and censorship we have seen increasing over the last decade. It is clear that Labour does not intend to address this atmosphere, as they, their backers and their pet causes stand to benefit when they get their hands of the levers of power.