A synergy of stupidity

"An unspoken class war is developing on Britain's streets between the well-off eco-zealots and the hard-pressed workers trying to earn a crust."

A synergy of stupidity is gripping the UK. Don't get me wrong. The ordinary folks remain the pragmatic types that hold the kingdom together at times of strife. No, the rot is in the institutions, in the mindset of the so-called elites and the authoritarians at the extreme end of the climate change movement.

A recent four-week stint back in the shire provided ample evidence to stir my disquiet. Let's dip into a confluence of events which reveals much about the foolishness at play.

In 2019, alarm bells should have rung as Dame Alison Rose took over as the NatWest Chief Executive. NatWest owns Coutts, the private bank for kings, queens and the super-rich. Renowned for its discretion, Coutts built a formidable standing.

Rose took the bank in a different direction, leaving its reputation in tatters. An advocate of the environmental, social and governance movement, she committed the most spectacular career suicide. It's a tale of folly, outright lies and the dangers of mixing questionable values with business.

On appointment, Rose gave an opening statement declaring her commitment "to tackle climate change". Odd. I'd have thought her prime concern was her customers and shareholders. But no. Rose comes imbued with a doctrine which includes debanking people with values that don't align with those she touts.

Soon Nigel Farage, Brexit campaigner and former politician was in her sights. Coutts shut his account earlier this year. Farage is something of a marmite character, but you cannot deny his ability to grab an issue and run with it.

When Farage made a fuss, someone leaked to the BBC that he didn't have enough money to qualify as a customer at this exclusive bank. This assertion proved an outright lie.

Smelling blood in the water, Farage submitted a “subject data access request" obliging the bank to hand over all information they held on him. What came back was incendiary. Coutts had compiled a 40-page dossier of newspaper cuttings on Farage's public statements. Further, they’d collated unproven rumours about his activities, and the minutes of meetings in Coutts proved a revelation.

The bank described Farage as having "xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views", noting his friendship with Donald Trump. They concluded that Farage stood "at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."

In short, Coutts dropped Farage because his lawfully held opinions didn't tally with their values. Then in a futile attempt to shut down the matter, Rose gave a grovelling apology to Farage and sought to move on.

But, it soon came to light that Rose had briefed a BBC journalist — probably over drinks at a dinner — spinning the lack of funds subterfuge. The BBC proved more than willing to take the bait and didn't do any due diligence on the story before headlining it. Rose was then forced to admit she'd leaked confidential client information to the BBC. More grovelling followed, while the NatWest board expressed their support for Rose.

But the government was less than impressed. NatWest is thirty nine per cent owed by the taxpayer, who bailed out the bank in 2008. As the largest share holder, public resentment against the bank was already simmering— this episode added heat.

Soon the government made clear it had lost confidence in Rose. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, "It wasn't right for people to be deprived of basic services like banking because of their views."

A midnight board meeting saw Rose out the door. Peter Flavel, CEO of Coutts, followed her.

And yet, Rose has done a tremendous public service. Her actions, and the tenacity of Farage, exposed that banks are ghosting customers for political reasons. More stories emerged of campaigners of various hues denied bank accounts under vague 'politically exposed persons' guidance. Along the way, the banks have become enforcers of the cancel culture, joining the British police in a significant mission drift.

With the underhanded conduct of the banks now open for all to see, the calls for reform are building. Still, it was pleasing to see cross-party support for the right to banking services. Sure, if banks suspect something unlawful, action is justified. But debanking someone because you disagree with them is not acceptable.

This leads to the following example of mission creep. In recent weeks, the UK nightly news fielded endless images of distraught holiday makers fleeing fires. As Europe baked in a heat wave, various Greek islands burst into flames. Or that is the impression given. A closer look revealed isolated fires. No doubt it's distressing for those caught up in events. Still, something else was at play here as the news media relentlessly drove the climate change message.

A scientist popped up after each fire report to immediately assert climate change was a factor. That arson was the cause of several of the fires didn't get much mention. Plus, never mind that the Romans recorded annual fires in the Greek islands centuries ago. Once again, cause and effect is set aside as news outlets pursue an agenda.

This portrayal fed calls for more action on carbon emissions. And as these calls gather pace, a conflicting set of priorities emerges.

Most notable is the ultra-low emission zone Labour London mayor Sadiq Khan imposed on the capital. This initiative lost his party a by-election in Boris Johnson's former seat. The proposal to charge people £12 per day for driving older cars on London's roads discriminates against the poorer residents, who tend to own older cars. And these are the working-class folks who'd usually support Labour.

So sensing public sentiment is turning against climate change measures, both the Conservative Party and their Labour Party opponents are talking down climate issues.

Meanwhile, middle-class eco-zealots are busy stopping people from making a living or getting to the hospital by slow marches all over London. The cult of "Just Stop Oil" (JSO) engages in acts of civil disorder to force home their message. Even so, like Dame Rose, they've shot themselves in the foot because their activities create resentment and outright hostility from the majority.

As a result, an unspoken class war is developing on Britain's streets between the well-off eco-zealots and the hard-pressed workers trying to earn a crust. Have the elites learned nothing from Brexit?

While the police are slow to react and appear willing to allow disorder, ordinary citizens are taking on the zealots. I'd be more inclined to listen if JSO presented a viable, comprehensive alternative to oil that didn't damage people with low incomes.

And as I've already pointed out, switching to renewables has disadvantages. Blanket proposals to drop oil are risible and not viable unless JSO intends to damage the economy irreparably.

A quick look at the eco-zealot profiles reveals most are well-off and better shielded from the impacts of their proposals. So like all cults, they are not too worried about harm to others as long as they can wrap themselves in the mantle of self-defined righteousness.

I'd challenge JSO to live a month without any oil-based products to prove that their proposals are workable and that they accept the consequences.

For certain there is a perplexing debate around the science of climate change that is hard to follow. Nonetheless, if something is happening, the so-called ‘canaries in the mine’ — the JSO crew —are draining public support with their arrogance and disdain for ordinary folks.

Lastly, even if you accept JSO’s demands and Britain drops oil, so what? The real challenge is elsewhere in the world in countries that will not tolerate the dictates of these misguided ‘holier than thou’ activists.