Separating the Wheatley from the chaff

Martin Wheatley is to head the FCA.

On Wednesday Martin Wheatley, who will head up the FCA (the new incarnation of the FSA), made a stirring speech championing the consumer.  At last there appears to be someone with the guts to challenge the "weeds" that have propagated at the FSA.  The biblical reference "to separate the wheat from the chaff" from Matthew 3, means to separate things of value from things of no value; and the serial failings of the FSA has proven they have no value when it comes to consumer protection.

But let us not rejoice just yet, for while Mr Wheatley's speech is excellent news, the FCA will be judged on its actions, not just its words. We have now seen years of procrastination and dithering from various regulators, including the IMA and the FSA and we urgently need statutory guidelines to ensure full transparency that will lead to vastly improved investor and saver outcomes.

Whilst his comments suggest he intends to show strong leadership and tackle hidden charges and fund fund fees at the FCA, Martin Wheatley is not going to have an easy job and is going to be heavily interventionist if he is to succeed. The industry is only just beginning to step reluctantly in the direction of giving greater transparency.  There are very mixed messages still circulating in the industry, causing yet more confusion for savers and investors. The most recent example being the IMA’s Annual Asset Management Report, issued this month, which stated that “investment clients are paying fund fees of a fraction over 0.3 per cent across the board”. This completely ludicrous claim puts efforts to regain consumer trust in financial products and the financial services sector back several years.

In my view, strong, clear leadership, a single industry standard on transparency of fees and charging, and a standardised method of reporting all costs and fees via one single total cost of investing number are essential steps to ensure consumers know the full price they will pay for investment products prior to purchase. 

However we also need to address other anti-consumer practices (which we have been highlighted by the True and Fair Campaign) including the failure to give full disclosure to consumers on where their money is invested; closet index tracking by active funds; fund mislabelling and mis-classification and conflicts of interest in stock lending.

There is much to do to improve the shockingly low standards of investor and saver protection in the UK.  Change is long overdue and must come soon, otherwise we risk further alienating savers and investors and damaging the financial services industry, and the UK economy. Martin Wheatley’s comments are extremely welcomed but we urge stakeholders to keep a watchful eye out for early action from the FCA to honour this pledge to give genuine transparency.

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Private LLP and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

 

Martin Wheatley. Photograph: Getty Images

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Direct and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.