Always watching … so you don’t have to

 

What is wrong with the Westminster MSM chief editors? The Silly Season cannot be the sole reason for their front pages today focussing on the sad death of a rock star. I excuse BBC ‘staff’ for grasping at that straw since it means the grave error of one of their own, Mr. Jack, can be kept out of the limelight. Without further ado, here’s the usual compilation of the front pages: “Newspaper headlines: ‘Nothing compared’ to superstar Sinéad O’Connor” (link).

Poor lady: her death is being abused as a cheap excuse by the MSM to disengage from the NatWest scandal. It also means that the astonishing remarks by Labour shadow secretaries can be buried even deeper inside their usual guff. I shall keep at it as far as I can because this is not just about Nigel Farage, this is not just about NatWest. It is not even simply about ‘woke capitalism’, as described in  ‘SpikedOnline’ (link).

If you’re now bored – sorry: I’m doing this to have a record because this scandal might be the first step in a people’s revolt against the powers given to institutions which were benign as far as we knew and which have now become monsters run by administrators for the profit and glory of those administrators. Clearly, it’s not just the NHS where this is the “business model”.

This “business model” is beloved by the Left, so let me draw your attention to an article in The Times. It is indicative of Labour and of the ongoing campaign by this paper to heave Starmer into No 10. I was wondering when we’d hear a peep from Labour. After all, they can’t all have gone away on foreign holidays and the NatWest Scandal has been ‘in the news’ for quite a number of days. So what kept them so quiet?

Well, it seems that Starmer was hiding until after Dame Alison Rose had resigned, only speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live ‘after the fact’, saying:

“NatWest got this one wrong. And that’s why Alison Rose had to resign.” Asked if he felt sorry for Farage, he said: “Yeah, he shouldn’t have had his personal details revealed like that. As a broad principle, nobody should be refused banking because of their political views.” (link, paywalled)

Did he have anything to say before yon Dame quit? No. Well, clearly he knows that nobody would be able to accuse him of any ‘wrong speech’ until after a problem has resolved itself without any initiative by him.

Now let’s hear from the Shadow Chancellor Ms Rachel Reeves. Her comment is a perfect example of why Labour will do nothing at all, at best, to deal with the ‘woke’ culture in our institutions, overlooking and excusing any wrongdoings:

“In an interview with Channel 4 filmed shortly before Rose quit, […] Reeves said: “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 that Alison Rose has done a good job turning that bank around.” (link, paywalled)

The “bad government” bullied poor little Dame A.R. into resigning! That’s terrible! Her having broken one of the fundamental banking laws, to keep affairs of clients private: nah, Dame A.R. was a good girl and only resigned because she was bullied. Moreover, according to the DM’s report (link), Madame Reeves even hinted that yon Dame was a ‘victim of sexism’.

That’s two of the ‘victim’ cards being played. I’m sure Ms Reeves regrets that she couldn’t have played the ‘racism’ card as well. Keep this  in mind: a Labour government will excuse any wrongdoing when these cards are being played. Finally, there’s Mr Thomas-Symonds, shadow trade secretary, who spoke on Sky News, questioning:

“[…] why No 10 and the Treasury had put pressure on Rose while being “slow” to act against ministers embroiled in scandals. He told Sky News: “It’s astonishing, isn’t it, to see 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. When you think about the situations we’ve had in government, whether it’s with Nadhim Zahawi, whether it’s with Gavin Williamson, whether it’s with Dominic Raab, when the government certainly hasn’t been holding itself to that same standard.” (link, paywalled)

I’m delighted by this shadow secretary’s  scintillating display of intellectual and political prowess! Note that the names he throws around are those of former ministers. As far as I know none of them was the CEO of a bank which disregarded a fundamental principle of banking, dropping private, sacrosanct information into a willing journalist’s ear. 

Moreover, what is this ‘pressure from outside’ of which he speaks? Doesn’t he know that government owns a chunk of NatWest? That they have a duty of care towards those shareholders, ultimately we, the tax payers? Would he have been happy to keep poor, bullied Dame A.R. as CEO?

Why isn’t he, why isn’t Ms Reeves or indeed Starmer screaming about the exorbitant salaries of Dame A.R. and the Board Director who rakes in £730,000 p.a.? Does it even matter to them that NatWest shares dropped by £800m yesterday, in the wake of this scandal (link)?

Why is it that all those Labour shadow this-and-that are so extremely relaxed with CEOs of institutions paid for with our, the’ hard working families’, taxes? Have they now adopted ‘Animal Farm” as their latest political manual?

That’s all I have for today. I’m delighted to record the attitude of Labour’s top politicians: a warning of the future awaiting all of us who are not denizens of the Westminster swamp. Have a good day.