After what just happened to Chris Lucas, who'd be a banker?

Banker bashing is our new national sport.

Another week, another banker is on the podium. This week it’s the former Barclays’ finance director, Chris Lucas, who has just announced his retirement having joined the Bank in pre-recession in 2007.

Suddenly a flurry of questions surrounds him: Was he involved in the Libor scandal that forced his boss, Bob Diamond, to go?  Perhaps the current investigation into a suspicious loan to Qatar has something to do with it? Did Lucas leave on his own account or was there a gentle nudge by those seeking to clear out the Barclays "old guard"? (Mark Harding, Barclays Group General Counsel also announced his retirement having joined in 2003.) 

We simply don’t know yet. But so far all clues look innocent: apparently Lucas wanted to go two years ago, citing health reasons. He even waived his 2012 bonus because of the Libor scandal and insiders consider it unlikely he will part with a "golden handshake".

So why the tirade of questions? Is the retirement of a finance director really that interesting or perhaps banking needs a new villain? We want another Bob Diamond, another Fred Goodwin or Stephen Hester who we can point at and say, “You’re the problem”. Bored of the old banking stories, here is a something potentially new. Barclays has recently been beset by woes and the spotlight is on those walking out of the board room.    

While banker bashing has become endemic, a national sport, it is discouraging a generation from (what was) considered the top job. This scrutiny weighs heaviest on those, like Lucas, at board level. After announcing Lucas and Harding’s retirement, Barclays said, “Chris and Mark have agreed to remain in their roles until their successors have been appointed and an appropriate handover completed. The search for these appointments is now underway”. A job in banking anyone?   

Another week, another banker is on the podium. Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.