In the murky corridors of power where money talks louder than morality, it seems the UK’s bankers are once again flexing their overstuffed wallets. Enter Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and City Minister, a role that essentially makes her the referee in the gladiatorial arena of UK financial services. Only problem? It’s starting to look like she’s cheering for the wrong side.
As City Minister, Siddiq holds a crucial portfolio, overseeing everything from banking to fintech, pensions to sustainable finance. In theory, she’s meant to balance the scales – protecting both the industry’s integrity and the interests of the everyday consumer. But recent rumblings suggest that the scales are tipping dangerously in favour of the fat cats.
Take the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) controversy. The FCA proposed publicly naming companies under investigation, a move that would shine a light into the darker corners of financial misconduct. But Siddiq, following "industry concerns," urged the FCA to backpedal. Why? Because, apparently, bankers don’t like being held accountable. Shocking.
Let’s not forget, these are the same bankers who gave us the 2008 financial crisis. The same bankers who lied through their teeth while they rigged Libor, sold dodgy mortgages, and gambled with public money like they were in a Las Vegas casino. Now they’re worried their reputation might take a hit? Cry me a river.
Bob Diamond’s Crocodile Tears
Of course, the banking world has its defenders. Step forward Bob Diamond, the former Barclays boss whose name remains synonymous with everything wrong in finance. Speaking recently, Diamond decried Britain’s post-crisis “get the f—--s” attitude towards banks, claiming it left the UK economy weaker than its US counterpart.
“We suffered biblical justice,” he wailed, conveniently forgetting that his own bank’s actions helped write the Old Testament of financial sins. Diamond’s argument? The US went easier on their banks, and now JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are thriving. Yes, Bob, because nothing screams economic health like letting the fox run the henhouse.
Diamond, branded the “unacceptable face of banking,” resigned in disgrace back in 2012. But like a bad penny, he’s still hanging around the City, now running a broker firm. And he’s not alone in his crusade to roll back the clock on regulation.
Risk vs. Reward (or Lack Thereof)
TheCityUK, a financial services lobby group, recently warned that too much regulation is stifling economic growth. “We’re regulating for risk, not growth,” lamented Miles Celic, its chief executive. Translation: Let us take bigger risks so we can make bigger profits – and never mind if the whole thing crashes down on the public’s head again.
Consumer advocates, like the Financial Services Consumer Panel, are rightly pushing back, reminding anyone who will listen that protecting the public should be the primary objective. But who’s listening? Siddiq? Starmer’s government? Or the bankers who fund their campaigns?
Whose Side Are They On?
The UK government, past and present, has a habit of cosying up to the City, whether it’s by bailing out failing banks with taxpayer money or quietly dismantling bonus caps to keep the financiers happy. And now, with Siddiq urging the FCA to soften its stance, it’s hard not to wonder if she’s more interested in protecting the system than the people it’s supposed to serve.
Bankers lie. They lied before the crisis, they lied during the crisis, and they’re still lying now. Yet they act outraged at the idea of accountability, crying foul at the very suggestion that their actions might be scrutinised.
And while they count their bonuses, the rest of us count the cost – in stagnant wages, vanishing pensions, and a system that feels rigged against the average person. Isn’t it time our elected officials started working for us, not the bankers who already have more than enough?
The next time Siddiq speaks up for the financial sector, maybe someone should remind her who put her in office. Here’s a hint: It wasn’t Bob Diamond.
Tulip Siddiq: Defender of the City or Just Another Suit in the System?
Ah, Tulip Siddiq. Our Economic Secretary to the Treasury and City Minister, caught live in action at Parliament defending the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with all the passion of someone who’s read one too many briefing notes from industry lobbyists. If you had high hopes she might champion the people who actually voted her in, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
In this riveting parliamentary display (watch from 11:44:50, if you’re feeling masochistic), Siddiq does what so many before her have done: dances the delicate line of sounding like she’s protecting the public while firmly keeping her back to the voters and her arms wrapped around the City.
The FCA, she assures us, is doing its job. And who does that job benefit? Oh, the banks, the insurers, and everyone else making money hand over fist in a system designed to shield their bad behaviour from public scrutiny. You’d think after the countless scandals – PPI, Libor rigging, mis-sold mortgages – someone might pipe up and ask, “What about the people left picking up the pieces?” But Siddiq? Not so much.
Who’s Defending Whom?
MPs, like Siddiq, are meant to serve the public – the very people who put them in office. Yet here she is, defending a regulator that seems more concerned about industry discomfort than public protection. The FCA’s proposal to name companies under investigation was a golden opportunity for transparency. But no, the poor bankers cried foul, and suddenly Siddiq is out here urging a rethink.
Let’s get this straight: the City – the same “City” that brought the global financial system to its knees in 2008 – is worried about reputational damage. The same City that cried wolf about over-regulation while pocketing bonuses bigger than the GDP of small nations. And instead of calling them out, our City Minister is making sure they have a comfy seat at the table.
MPs: System Stooges or Public Protectors?
Should MPs defend the system or the public? It’s a question as old as democracy itself. Ideally, the answer is both – because a system that doesn’t serve the public isn’t fit for purpose. But defending the system should never mean defending the players who abuse it. That’s where Siddiq seems to falter.
When did we decide it was okay for our representatives to prioritise the feelings of corporations over the lived realities of voters? What about the victims of financial misconduct? The people stuck in payday loan cycles, misled into untenable debt, or scammed out of pensions? They don’t have lobbyists whispering in their ears or campaign donations to dangle. They only have the vote – and it’s starting to look like that doesn’t count for much.
Tulip, Time to Bloom
Let’s give Siddiq the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she genuinely believes her softly-softly approach will lead to a fairer system. Maybe she thinks keeping the City sweet will somehow trickle down to the rest of us. But here’s the thing about trickle-down economics: it’s mostly a myth. The riches rarely leave the top floor.
If Siddiq really wants to leave her mark, she could start by remembering who she’s there for. The bankers don’t need her help. They’ve got armies of lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants to do that for them. The people – her constituents, the victims of financial exploitation – need her voice.
Until then, we’re left with more of the same: a system where MPs defend the indefensible, regulators regulate with their hands tied, and the public foots the bill.
So, what do you think? Should Siddiq stick to her script, or is it time she started fighting for the people who put her in office? Spoiler: I know which side Bob Diamond’s rooting for.
Comments