"The Intruders" hand bottle of Bollinger to Barclays for "innovation in interest rate manipulation" (Video)

The group gatecrashed Investment Banking Awards in Mayfair to present the fake prize.

The Intruders, the group of tax justice campaigners who gave an "award" to HMRC boss Dave Hartnett for "services to corporate tax avoidance", have released a video of their latest stunt. Gatecrashing the Investment Banking Awards, members of the group handed Barclays a bottle of Bollinger champagne for "innovation in interest rate manipulation".

The award, a reference to the promise from a Barclays trader of a bottle of Bollinger in exchange for LIBOR manipulation, went uncollected. The group got a better reception than they did first time round, when they were told "you will depart immediately before we set the dogs on you," and called "Trespassing scum" by Robert Venables QC.

Watch a video of the whole event here:

The Intruders mission statement hints that they plan to be in it for the long haul:

Behind the closed doors of Mayfair hotels and Oxford colleges, the wealthy elite that caused the economic crisis celebrate their continued success over champagne and cosy dinner parties. Meanwhile, the rest of us face falling living standards, a bleak job market and decimating cuts to public services.

The wealthy elite believe they are unaccountable, that they are free from the consequences of the crisis they caused. They are wrong. The Intruders are here to crash the party and expose the excess and hubris of the people that got us into this mess.

Two members of the group onstage at the Investment Banking Awards. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.