
Once again, the UK Government has rolled out the red carpet for City bankers, putting their profits ahead of voters, taxpayers, and basic consumer protections. If you thought the 2008 financial crisis was a lesson learned, think again. The same reckless cheerleading for deregulation that once brought the global economy to its knees is back—this time dressed up as a "growth agenda."
Let’s start with Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Party—the so-called "champions of the working people"—has decided it’s good politics to join the Conservative Party in cosying up to the City. Reeves' recent call for regulators to "tear down" red tape, coupled with Starmer’s demand for a bonfire of financial rules, shows a staggering level of naïveté. Who knew the path to Number 10 was paved with mortgage defaults and consumer harm?
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) isn’t fooled. Its chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, has called for politicians to define just how much consumer harm they’re willing to tolerate in the name of economic growth. Yes, you read that correctly: we’re now openly discussing "acceptable" levels of harm to the public. On mortgages, Rathi warned that relaxing lending standards could result in more defaults and repossessions. In plain English: ordinary people losing their homes. But hey, if it boosts GDP, who cares, right?
Meanwhile, the Government is pressuring the FCA to cut anti-money laundering requirements—because who needs financial integrity when we can have "investment" and "risk-taking"? The FCA’s warning: expect a rise in fraud. But don’t worry, fraud is just a side effect of "competitiveness," isn’t it?
The regulators, for their part, are caught in an impossible position. Rathi himself admitted, "One or two things are going to go wrong here," as if it’s a minor inconvenience rather than a harbinger of systemic collapse. And when the FCA resists—or even dares to underwhelm the Government with its suggestions—regulators face the axe, as demonstrated by the sacking of Marcus Bokkerink, the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). His crime? Failing to sufficiently prioritise "growth" over fair competition and consumer protection. Clearly, fairness is now an outdated concept.
The Government’s obsession with deregulation is so transparent it’s embarrassing. Reeves and Starmer want regulators to "weave" growth into their very DNA. But at what cost? Relaxing lending standards and slashing rules on anti-money laundering might give the illusion of economic vitality in the short term, but it’s a dangerous game of Russian roulette with the economy. Have we forgotten that "light-touch" regulation was the darling policy of the pre-2008 era? Because it sure feels like we’re re-running that horror show.
Let’s also not ignore the farcical idea that these deregulation measures will somehow trickle down to the average voter. Banks and corporations will celebrate their boosted profits, while regular people bear the brunt of defaults, repossessions, and higher exposure to financial crime. As always, the most vulnerable pay the highest price.
And what’s the Government’s response to criticism? Replace anyone who questions their reckless agenda. Bokkerink’s ousting is a stark warning to regulators: toe the line or pack your bags. His interim replacement, Doug Gurr, an ex-Amazon UK boss, signals where this is heading. Amazon is hardly a bastion of fairness and consumer-first policies, is it?
Ultimately, the role of regulators is to protect the public. That’s their job. Not to bend over backwards for politicians chasing short-term growth targets or for City bankers demanding more freedom to act irresponsibly. But when regulators dare to push back, they’re dismissed as obstructive or out of touch. The reality is they’re doing exactly what they’re meant to do: safeguard consumers, ensure fairness, and prevent financial chaos.
The Government’s growth-at-all-costs mantra is reckless. It prioritises fat-cat bankers and corporate interests over the public good, ignoring the hard-learned lessons of 2008. Reeves and Starmer might want to re-evaluate who they’re actually working for: the voters who trusted them, or the bankers who fund their campaigns. Because right now, it’s clear which side they’re on—and it’s not the one with the public.
Comments