There was a question in Parliament, at PMQs. The question came from the former business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg. It was a question about that most important of national issues: Nigel Farage’s bank account.
Farage’s account was recently shut by the high-end bank Coutts. He claims he has documents in which the bank says his views “do not align” with their values. Farage is raging. He’s claiming all manner of dark goings on.
He has some well-placed allies. As well as Rees-Mogg taking up parliamentary time, in the midst of a period of financial turmoil for millions of people and a potentially catastrophic environmental change, to ask a question of the PM on behalf of a pal, there was also public support from Home Secretary Suella Braverman. She tweeted about ‘sinister’ forces.
Barely a heartbeat ago, Braverman insisted the “system is rigged” against the British people. That was when Appeals Court judges ruled the plan to deport people to Rwanda was unlawful. If Braverman keeps talking in this kind of hyperbolic language she runs the risk of not being taken seriously…
- What is financial inclusion and why does it matter?
- PO boxes for homeless people will help fight financial exclusion
- Exclusive: Suella Braverman claims to have contributed to a legal textbook. The author says she didn’t.
The idea of the Coutts decision showing some sort of establishment bias against Farage is laughable.
His vocal supporters are the establishment. He is the establishment. And it’s not as if Coutts, which until recently was always prefixed as the Queen’s bank, is for those who are not part of the wealthiest or most influential in society. Ultimately, as Coutts is a private organisation it’s free to make up its own mind according to its particular rules of membership and engagement. Isn’t that freedom to operate the sort of thing Nigel Farage likes anyway?