Not everyone can afford to bank at Coutts, an exclusive bank, nor is everyone entitled to an account there. But Nigel Farage is not just anyone. He is arguably the most influential British politician of his generation. It is questionable whether Mr Farage’s role has been to the benefit of public life, but if not, the detriment does not disqualify him from access to financial services. It is possible to despise the xenophobic strain of nationalism carried into the political mainstream by Ukip, while accepting that its former leader has civic rights.
Mr Farage was, reasonably, aggrieved to learn that Coutts had factored his political opinions into a decision that he was no longer entitled to their services. His wealth had also dipped below the commercial threshold of eligibility for an account – a factor that may also rankle. But by far the strongest grievance is the way Mr Farage’s story found its way to the ear of a BBC journalist via Dame Alison Rose, chief executive of NatWest, which owns Coutts. Worse still, the information was incomplete. The political component in the decision was only revealed in documents obtained and published by Mr Farage.
The boss of a large bank – of which the state owns 38.6% – should not have shared information about a high-profile politician’s private finances with a journalist, without a compelling public-interest reason. Schadenfreude at Mr Farage’s disqualification from the Coutts club does not pass that test. Dame Alison has resigned and there has been political pressure for more NatWest scalps. A serious error of judgment demanded accountability at the top, although more egregious failures, whether in banking or at other state-owned companies, have met with lesser retribution. Frenetic ministerial agitation against Dame Alison, the first woman to run a big UK bank, speaks to a vindictive impulse in this case that is out of proportion to the offence. Purging corporate bosses in the middle of the night to appease the fury of a maverick populist is not the behaviour of a mature government.
This mess could have been averted by more thorough checks of the original story. The BBC’s failure on that front put Dame Alison in an impossible position. It also gives credence to Mr Farage’s claim to victimhood at the hands of a snobbish establishment. There is some resonance to that depiction, but it is partial. The episode illuminates a wider question about “politically exposed persons” (PEPs) whose custom is considered onerous for banks. The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, says he was refused an account at Monzo bank on this basis. It is an opaque feature of the industry. Most politicians who fall foul of PEP judgments prefer discretion, but Mr Farage is adept at turning any publicity to his advantage.
Scrutiny of this dark recess of finance is necessary, although the volume of outrage is revealing about Conservative priorities. Many ordinary people are routinely refused banking services, without any reason given. Hundreds of thousands have no access to a local branch. Ministers’ righteous indignation may better be focused on their plight.
But the Coutts episode reveals the enduring hold that Mr Farage has over the Tories, and their fear that he could still cause electoral mischief by reclaiming the allegiance of Brexit supporters. He was done a disservice; the wrong has been righted. But Mr Farage will not move on when there is limelight still to hog and a Conservative party too craven to shine it elsewhere.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
