Barclays raises the stakes in banking reform

Bob Diamond warns that Barclays could leave the UK if it is unhappy with the coalition's banking ref

Bob Diamond, the man once described by Peter Mandelson as "the unacceptable face of banking", has warned that Barclays could leave the UK if it is unhappy with the coalition's eventual banking reforms. Sky News's business editor Mark Kleinman reveals that Diamond told the bank's shareholders that "It's no longer a question of whether Barclays wants to stay in the UK but whether the UK wants Barclays."

So, why the confrontational language? Well, there's just over a month to go until the Vickers Commission delivers its final report on banking, and the commission is likely to recommend that banks' high-risk investment arms should be ring-fenced from their retail operations. This reform, endorsed by George Osborne in his Mansion House speech, would (in theory) allow investment banks to fail without needing to be bailed out by the state.

At the time, it seemed as if Osborne had hit upon a neat compromise, one that was acceptable to both the banks and the Lib Dems. But it's no longer looking so simple. Vince Cable, for instance, used a recent speech to make it clear that he still favours a full Glass-Steagall-style separation, while the banks are increasingly anxious that any reform will make it harder for them to raise capital. Now, added to this combustive mix, is Diamond's threat to move Barclays' headquarters abroad.

Of course, Diamond's threat may be an empty one (and the government should call his bluff) but that won't stop it being taken seriously by the Treasury. Having declared that Britain is "open for business", Osborne will be desperate to avoid anything that suggests the reverse is true. The $64,000 question is whether he can do so, while simultaneously appeasing the Lib Dems. Cable, who has long believed that the banks require "fundamental surgery", has said that he will only accept a ring-fence on the condition that it can be "as effective as a full separation" and that it can be introduced at "a lower cost". Should Vickers fail to pass these tests, it's likely that the Business Secretary, emboldened by his victory over Rupert Murdoch, will consider all responses, up to and including his "nuclear option". Osborne will need all of his guile and cunning to identify a solution that all sides are prepared to tolerate.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.