De-banking scandal gives Nigel Farage's political career new lease of life

An allergy to elitism

What they seem not to have considered was Farage's fame, not to mention his tenacity and his relish for the fight when it comes to faceless institutions. A man who vanquished the equally faceless bureaucrats in Brussels was not going to lie down and take a kicking from a bunch of bankers.

Farage has an allergy to elitism. There is nothing that annoys him more than a snobbish attitude to the little man. 

By using a subject access request, Nigel was able to obtain the dossier the bank had prepared on his case, and exposing the comments made therein proved explosive.

Although the BBC had received from an unnamed source – as we shall see, from the chief executive of NatWest Group herself – confirmation that the issue was purely financial, the dossier revealed a host of other reasons why the bank considered Farage a reputational risk.

They read like the jottings of his very own recording angel. He is said to be a 'disingenuous grifter' and it is hinted, darkly, that he has had connections with Russian money. But beyond the pecuniary level, there is a long list of political misdemeanours.

The dossier finds that the values he: "actively and publicly promotes or champions do not align with the bank's. Particularly given the manner in which he states (and monetises) those views – deliberately using extreme, hateful and emotive language … at best he is seen as xenophobic and pandering to racists, and at worst, he is seen as xenophobic and racist."

All this, the dossier concludes, puts having Mr Farage as a customer "at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."

'Woke' agenda

Now, it is fair to say that Coutts were not expressing a view of Farage that conflicts with that shared by his many enemies.

Those who are on his side, however, were quick to identify a 'woke' agenda on the part of whoever compiled the dossier – that is to say, a 'liberal' standpoint that opposes the demonising of refugees by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, for example, along with the support of Black Lives Matter.

Read more: Are British immigrants becoming vessels for racism?

Unsurprisingly, an unpopular government intent upon prosecuting a 'culture war' (for want of more positive policies) in the long run-up to a General Election, seized the issue with great vigour. The prime minister himself intervened.

It is worth noting that the government no longer has a majority share in NatWest, to which Coutts belongs. As of May, its share has dwindled to 38.6%. This did not prevent Rishi Sunak from expressing his dismay at what had happened. 

Coutts face backlash

A further complication to the story was the assurance received by the BBC from its 'unnamed source' that this was a routine financial matter, nothing to see here. As it turned out, this 'fact' was divulged in conversation by none other than the CEO of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose.

Not only was the information untrue, but it breached a golden rule of banking: that a bank strictly maintains the confidentiality of its clients.

Rose, after receiving the support of her board, has since resigned, followed by the top man at Coutts. So far, the chairman of NatWest, Sir Howard Davies, has clung on, claiming he was about to retire anyway and that his presence will help restore stability to the situation.

There are doubts whether he will be able to last as long as he intends under the present barrage of recriminations and controversy.

Sir Howard Davies

The whole affair has opened a proverbial can of worms, and it's not the kind of can that can easily be kicked down the proverbial road.

The obvious question arises why it should be permissible for banks to behave in this way, effectively penalising clients for their political views.

The perceived unfairness and lack of transparency revealed by the dossier have led others to query the right of banks to, well, de-bank.

Ironically, one of these is Gina Miller, a notable opponent of the very exit from the European Union so close to Farage's heart. Her small political group, the True and Fair party, was itself de-banked by Monzo without explanation.

Only later did they claim that the account had been opened in error, as they do not do business with political parties. Nine banks had already turned Miller down when she tried Monzo. The Guardian reported that she feared for democracy if banks could refuse their services in this way.

Sexism row?

Aside from the epidemic of de-banking, there is now the question of whether a man in Alison Rose's place would have been summarily thrown out of the top job at NatWest.

Anne Francke, who has worked hard to improve women's opportunities in the financial sector, thinks not: "Rose is an active advocate of inclusivity and purpose in UK business. She lent her name to the government-commissioned Rose review, which examined how to get more women into business. She demonstrates the kind of forward-thinking leadership the UK should be looking to develop and celebrate."

Instead, says Francke, "this sorry affair has me worried about the message we are sending to women looking for a seat at the top table."

The issues thrown up by de-banking — such as privacy, gender equality, freedom of speech, and transparency – are multifarious. The loss of Alison Rose —and the whole fiasco that has unfolded after Nigel Farage first began to question the behaviour of his bank — is indeed a pretty sorry affair.

A good deal of the blame lies with sloppy attitudes to confidentiality and the reckless choice of an adversary. After the financial crisis of 2008, no one needed further evidence of the lack of mastery the 'masters of the universe' were capable of. It now appears their incompetence extends to public relations.

Restored clout

However, despite a blow to its shares of £1 billion following this scandal, NatWest has just posted a profit in the first half of the year that amounts to £3.6 billion.

It is yet to be seen if the career of Sir Howard Davies will be prematurely terminated, but it seems unlikely – given the raised costs of borrowing and the banks' persistent refusal to reward their savers accordingly – that banking profits will suffer much in the foreseeable future.

They would do well, however, to beware of populists like Nigel Farage. Just when they may have thought he was yesterday's man, he has demonstrated that he still has clout with the right and has not lost his mojo after all.

By attacking his credentials, they inadvertently gifted Farage a new 'crusade' (his word) against the Establishment, and far from feeling their barbs, he emerged clad in chainmail, the shining sword of free speech in his hand.

The champion of the little man is a colossus once again.