July 20, 2023 - 11:30am
Following reports that Nigel Farage was denied access to his Coutts account because of his political opinions, Britain’s poshest bank finds itself at the centre of an escalating row. Reportedly claiming that the politician didn’t “align with their values”, Coutts have decisively found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. According to the latest YouGov polling, published on Wednesday, 62% of Britons believe that banks should not be allowed to “remove customers who have personal or political beliefs that don’t align with the bank’s values”. Only 15% felt that they should.
What’s more, the bank has managed to rile up the Government. Andrew Griffith, a Treasury minister, fired the first warning shot: “The privilege of a banking license in a democracy should imply a duty not to ‘debank’ because you disagree with someone’s views.” A few hours later, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak weighed in: “No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.”
Big talk is all well and good, but whether Sunak intends to do anything about it is another matter. Banks are currently free to terminate customers without explanation — and Farage is not an isolated case. To combat this, Downing Street should press the industry for a voluntary code of conduct. This should be followed by legislation to enshrine customer rights in law.
The problem goes deeper, though. On this issue and others the banks have forfeited our trust. We therefore need the option of cutting the cord altogether. Within a few years, that might just be possible — but there’s a catch: it would rely on the Bank of England pressing ahead with its plans for a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). It doesn’t exist yet but this digital version of the pound is already known, unofficially, as “Britcoin”.
Many commentators have attacked the concept in the belief that it would give the state the ability to monitor and control people’s financial transactions, but the state can already do this through our existing bank accounts. In theory, we could go off-grid by restricting ourselves to physical cash but, as Farage himself points out, that’s less than practical: “Without a bank account, you effectively become a non-person.”
As things stand, almost all of us are dependent on access to banking services. Even if the state never abuses this power over our lives, there’s evidently no guarantee that the banks won’t overstep the mark. However, if we were able to hold cash in electronic form in a basic account managed by the Bank of England, then we could bypass the commercial banks while still being able to participate in the digital economy.
It’s not yet clear exactly what form Britcoin will take or whether the Bank of England will implement the idea at all. If it does go ahead, those of a libertarian bent should not condemn the proposal out of hand. Instead they should fight for a Britcoin that empowers ordinary people.
For a start, there must be no abolition of physical cash. More importantly, every British citizen should have the right to use digital cash free from the involvement of private corporations. After all, the best way to get the banks to behave is to give their customers the ability to cancel them.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI can highly recommend reading the report published on the DT: it does make for quite chilling, and yet comical reading. It’s like they brought in a 6th former who has spent the last 3 years on Twitter to write it. It’s a sad state of affairs when that is the most prestigious bank in the land.
However serious the matter is, it has brought forth some of the best media commentary I’ve read all year. Michael Deacon from the DT was especially on form, pointing out that if Coutts was interested in social justice at all, then – as a bank which only provides services to the rich and privileged – it should shut itself down.
Touché!
A digital currency is a red herring. The government, if they are serious about protecting free speech, should sponsored a resolution at the next AGM to sack Dame Alison Rose and replace her with someone who is interested in Banking for the full range of legitimate customers and not enforcing her and her chums particular values. I am sure there would be sufficient support from other shareholders to achieve this aim.
The behaviour of the bank was one of the most sinister developments of woke ideology and a clear manifestation of the authoritarian nature of the ideology which is out of line with the majority of the country. Sacking other prominent ideologues from government supported organisations for neglecting their job in favour of ideological campaigning would also send a clear message that we have a conservative government willing to support conservative values.
Sadly I fear they don’t have the backbone and are themselves riddled with fifth columnists of the woke brigade.
I tend to agree that a national digital currency would be a case of a cure worse than the illness itself.
I tend to agree that a national digital currency would be a case of a cure worse than the illness itself.
A digital currency is a red herring. The government, if they are serious about protecting free speech, should sponsored a resolution at the next AGM to sack Dame Alison Rose and replace her with someone who is interested in Banking for the full range of legitimate customers and not enforcing her and her chums particular values. I am sure there would be sufficient support from other shareholders to achieve this aim.
The behaviour of the bank was one of the most sinister developments of woke ideology and a clear manifestation of the authoritarian nature of the ideology which is out of line with the majority of the country. Sacking other prominent ideologues from government supported organisations for neglecting their job in favour of ideological campaigning would also send a clear message that we have a conservative government willing to support conservative values.
Sadly I fear they don’t have the backbone and are themselves riddled with fifth columnists of the woke brigade.
I can highly recommend reading the report published on the DT: it does make for quite chilling, and yet comical reading. It’s like they brought in a 6th former who has spent the last 3 years on Twitter to write it. It’s a sad state of affairs when that is the most prestigious bank in the land.
However serious the matter is, it has brought forth some of the best media commentary I’ve read all year. Michael Deacon from the DT was especially on form, pointing out that if Coutts was interested in social justice at all, then – as a bank which only provides services to the rich and privileged – it should shut itself down.
Touché!
Did ‘we’, the long suffering English taxpayers not save these wretched ‘money lenders’ from oblivion back in 2008?
Yet now ‘they’ the sit smugly in their Counting Houses, passing dubious moral judgements on all and sundry. It beggars belief.
If the current Law is adequate to deal with these wretches then Parliament MUST pass new laws.
That is what it is there for astonishingly!
Yes and we still own something like 40% of Coutts aka Nat West
Thank you indeed!
I didn’t know that!
Doesn’t that give HMG a big chunk of voting rights? Couldn’t they use them to oust Dame Alison Rose (who briefed the BBC that Farage had been dropped because he was too poor)?
Off course it does, but sadly HMG is the epitome of a throughly spineless organisation, and thus will do absolutely NOTHING.
Off course it does, but sadly HMG is the epitome of a throughly spineless organisation, and thus will do absolutely NOTHING.
Thank you indeed!
I didn’t know that!
Doesn’t that give HMG a big chunk of voting rights? Couldn’t they use them to oust Dame Alison Rose (who briefed the BBC that Farage had been dropped because he was too poor)?
I wonder if the banks still want whatever portion of my taxes used to bail them out since my views don’t align with theirs?
Or can I elect to bail out banks who employ people whose cultural and political views match my own?
Now I know RBS/NatWest doesn’t, can I have a refund of the 15 years amount of my tax that went towards keeping them in jobs?
Or can I elect to bail out banks who employ people whose cultural and political views match my own?
Now I know RBS/NatWest doesn’t, can I have a refund of the 15 years amount of my tax that went towards keeping them in jobs?
Yes and we still own something like 40% of Coutts aka Nat West
I wonder if the banks still want whatever portion of my taxes used to bail them out since my views don’t align with theirs?
Did ‘we’, the long suffering English taxpayers not save these wretched ‘money lenders’ from oblivion back in 2008?
Yet now ‘they’ the sit smugly in their Counting Houses, passing dubious moral judgements on all and sundry. It beggars belief.
If the current Law is adequate to deal with these wretches then Parliament MUST pass new laws.
That is what it is there for astonishingly!
I’m quite sure the dear old lady of Threadneedle street is capable of blocking my Britcoin account if they don’t like my political views. They seem as woke as the rest of them.
In fact a Britcoin will simply enable the wokerati to detect I’ve spent money on supporting publications like Unherd – which is a sure sign I’m not inclusive enough.
These days referred to as ‘ the old trans-woman of Threadneedle Street’.
In Australia there’s technology with the ability to analyse your bank spending in relation to your carbon footprint. It’s voluntary at the moment for the self righteous but i have no doubt it will become compulsory if the WHO get their hands on policing the ‘climate pandemic’.
These days referred to as ‘ the old trans-woman of Threadneedle Street’.
In Australia there’s technology with the ability to analyse your bank spending in relation to your carbon footprint. It’s voluntary at the moment for the self righteous but i have no doubt it will become compulsory if the WHO get their hands on policing the ‘climate pandemic’.
I’m quite sure the dear old lady of Threadneedle street is capable of blocking my Britcoin account if they don’t like my political views. They seem as woke as the rest of them.
In fact a Britcoin will simply enable the wokerati to detect I’ve spent money on supporting publications like Unherd – which is a sure sign I’m not inclusive enough.
Seriously? You’re suggesting CBDCs as a freedom-loving alternative to our current sad state of banking
Is it not obvious that what we are experiencing currently at the hands of sad wokerati in the banking system is nothing next to the state-wide sanctions, control and cancellations that would happen if a CBDC became our method of transacting.
See what happened in Canada where Fuhrer Trudeau shut down accounts of truckers and their supporters. He had to get the banks to agree to do that (not hard) but with a CBDC he wouldn’t even need that.
In no way is a CBDC an answer to any moral or social problem. It would be like pouring petrol on the flames.
Seriously? You’re suggesting CBDCs as a freedom-loving alternative to our current sad state of banking
Is it not obvious that what we are experiencing currently at the hands of sad wokerati in the banking system is nothing next to the state-wide sanctions, control and cancellations that would happen if a CBDC became our method of transacting.
See what happened in Canada where Fuhrer Trudeau shut down accounts of truckers and their supporters. He had to get the banks to agree to do that (not hard) but with a CBDC he wouldn’t even need that.
In no way is a CBDC an answer to any moral or social problem. It would be like pouring petrol on the flames.
How can an institution whose very existence and purpose is predicated upon exclusivity (Coutts Bank) and thereby excludes over 99% of all people claim to be ‘inclusive’?
How can an institution whose very existence and purpose is predicated upon exclusivity (Coutts Bank) and thereby excludes over 99% of all people claim to be ‘inclusive’?
Some years ago I had a somewhat delayed lunch with a certain famous guitarist rock star, it having been delayed whilst he dropped in at Coutts at 440 Strand, having been erroneously informed that a cheque written out for a Ferrari ” did not have sufficient funds” to be honoured. Said rock star, undid his trousers, and announced to the shocked awaiting customers that, unless he was attended to immediately he would ” drop a log in their f…ing fountain”… over a few rapidly poured glasses of sherry, the issue was resolved in his favour!
Some years ago I had a somewhat delayed lunch with a certain famous guitarist rock star, it having been delayed whilst he dropped in at Coutts at 440 Strand, having been erroneously informed that a cheque written out for a Ferrari ” did not have sufficient funds” to be honoured. Said rock star, undid his trousers, and announced to the shocked awaiting customers that, unless he was attended to immediately he would ” drop a log in their f…ing fountain”… over a few rapidly poured glasses of sherry, the issue was resolved in his favour!
I am not sure the solution to Sainsburys et al refusing to sell somebody food is for the Govt to issue a daily gruel allowance….
I am not sure the solution to Sainsburys et al refusing to sell somebody food is for the Govt to issue a daily gruel allowance….
At one point banks were institutions of the highest discretion, where customer privacy and non-disclosure was the topmost point of integrity for banks acting on behalf of their customers.
Now we have banks acting like, firstly, policeman where every customer and transaction has to be scrutinized as if it might be illegal and they have to check every single customer’s personal details, and now acting like political officers where ‘wrongthinkers’ can have access to their money blocked for being the wrong-side of the powers-that-be.
Mostly this then stems from government departments imposing rules and fines on the institutions so they do what the technocrats demand.
A society where corporations treat you, not as customers, but as subjects acting in loco of faceless government departments is not something that any of us remember voting for.
At one point banks were institutions of the highest discretion, where customer privacy and non-disclosure was the topmost point of integrity for banks acting on behalf of their customers.
Now we have banks acting like, firstly, policeman where every customer and transaction has to be scrutinized as if it might be illegal and they have to check every single customer’s personal details, and now acting like political officers where ‘wrongthinkers’ can have access to their money blocked for being the wrong-side of the powers-that-be.
Mostly this then stems from government departments imposing rules and fines on the institutions so they do what the technocrats demand.
A society where corporations treat you, not as customers, but as subjects acting in loco of faceless government departments is not something that any of us remember voting for.
A bank should not have any values, other than providing banking services.
A bank should not have any values, other than providing banking services.
If you want to avoid capricious de-banking, the last thing you want is any kind of centralised system, let a lone a de facto monopoly such as a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency)!
If Coutts is now run by anti-populist fanatics, make no mistake that the civil service is now riddled with the same kind of elitists with utter contempt for us ordinary folk. Do you really want to grant these people yet more power via a CBDC?
The real solution is a distributed payments system such as Bitcoin.
Don’t get bamboozled by the word “digital”. The “D” is not the key liberation, while the “C” of a CBDC is there to impose its tyranny.
What you want is DT(D)P = “Distributed Trust (Digital) Payments”
If you want to avoid capricious de-banking, the last thing you want is any kind of centralised system, let a lone a de facto monopoly such as a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency)!
If Coutts is now run by anti-populist fanatics, make no mistake that the civil service is now riddled with the same kind of elitists with utter contempt for us ordinary folk. Do you really want to grant these people yet more power via a CBDC?
The real solution is a distributed payments system such as Bitcoin.
Don’t get bamboozled by the word “digital”. The “D” is not the key liberation, while the “C” of a CBDC is there to impose its tyranny.
What you want is DT(D)P = “Distributed Trust (Digital) Payments”
What utter nonsense…
What utter nonsense…
why not groats and ducats? Use deposits at The Bank of Toytown or The Bottle Bank?
why not groats and ducats? Use deposits at The Bank of Toytown or The Bottle Bank?
If a shop welcomed bitcoin, I could use the bitcoin lightning network from my private wallet to purchase something from them directly to their private wallet – even if my bank(s) had blown me away. If I can send satoshis to my brother in Australia with no bank in the middle, I can order goods and services here in my village. I hold btc simply as emergency counter to CBDCs (which are programmable money… that can have expiry dates… as well as restricting purchases… socialists dream…). It might just feed my family one day (soon).
As Jasmine said, remember what happened to the Canadian Truckers… this is real and can happen… If it does, what’s YOUR plan?
If a shop welcomed bitcoin, I could use the bitcoin lightning network from my private wallet to purchase something from them directly to their private wallet – even if my bank(s) had blown me away. If I can send satoshis to my brother in Australia with no bank in the middle, I can order goods and services here in my village. I hold btc simply as emergency counter to CBDCs (which are programmable money… that can have expiry dates… as well as restricting purchases… socialists dream…). It might just feed my family one day (soon).
As Jasmine said, remember what happened to the Canadian Truckers… this is real and can happen… If it does, what’s YOUR plan?
I would sincerely like to see Coutts’s senior executives being paraded in front of the media in White Lives Matter t shirts.
I would sincerely like to see Coutts’s senior executives being paraded in front of the media in White Lives Matter t shirts.
The idea that Coutts got rid of Farage for political or activist reasons is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Their motivation was financial, reputational and snobbery; they thought his name on their books was bad for business, as well as his having not enough money, and that he is an oik. They did offer him an account with the commoners – Nat West. Bit rich of Farage to complain about a business running itself the way it wants to. Probably the ECHR would have supported him. Suck it up Nigel.
Then why was the Coutt’s internal document replete with references to Brexit, Novac Djokovic, Donald Trump etc.? Political and activist reasons are what it was all about.
Reputational damage to brand Coutts. The same reason why Coors f-d up by associating themselves with the trans movement and Dylan Mulvaney – but in the other political direction.
Reputational damage to brand Coutts. The same reason why Coors f-d up by associating themselves with the trans movement and Dylan Mulvaney – but in the other political direction.
Even if I have some sympathy for private businesses having a certain freedom to choose who they have as customers and who not, Coutts have fouled up this process to the maximum extent possible.
Plus, banks aren’t normal private businesses. Having a bank account is basically the means of participating in society. Therefore, the bar to being able to get rid of customers that don’t – I quote – “align with our values” should be very high.
And by that, I mean using-our-accounts-for-criminal-activities high, not this-person’s-views-just-aren’t-fashionable-and-it’s-getting-in-the-way-of-our-virtue-signalling high.
Problem is its not private business – we – the general public own 38.6% if it.
They offered him another account with Nat West, so your participation point is moot. Political affiliation is not a protected characteristic. Right wingers have lead the charge in terms of businesses having the right to refuse – eg the cake maker who refused to a gay client, and SCOTUS’ recent ruling – now you get all upset because it seems to have gone in the other direction. Chutzpah or Cakeism?
But not a business account it would seem. So where is the moot?
Bad argument, mate. Political affiliation is a part of the freedom of speech which is protected. In terms of data protection law, it’s classed as sensitive data and, as such, enjoys extra protection. As the Coutts report acknowledged, Farage has never been subject to either legal or regulatory censure for his opinions, however crudely expressed. It is his right to say such things – why should he have to shift to another bank? As for comparing a bank to a cake maker…sorry, I just chuckled at that. In no way can you compare being excluded from a bank’s services for exercising your lawful right to free speech to having to buy a cake somewhere else because the baker is a bigot.
Dominic genuinely cannot see the difference between a cake-maker and a bank. This is what happens when you wear ideological blinkers. Neither does he realise that if Farage can be treated in this manner so, in due course, can Dominic.
You do not. I can see the difference, it is an economic one, really one of convenience, rather than a vital issue like you are pretending it is. Farage will not have a problem getting a back account, ut bene scis – and neither will the people in general – it is a small and rare issue. In social, philosophical, or political terms, refusing a customer due to sexuality is not so dissimilar from refusing a customer for political reasons – except for the obvious point that one cannot choose one’s sexuality. I have been treated in such a manner many times – I like to think that I my reaction was not that of a whiny small-minded, egotistical grifting poseur.
You do not. I can see the difference, it is an economic one, really one of convenience, rather than a vital issue like you are pretending it is. Farage will not have a problem getting a back account, ut bene scis – and neither will the people in general – it is a small and rare issue. In social, philosophical, or political terms, refusing a customer due to sexuality is not so dissimilar from refusing a customer for political reasons – except for the obvious point that one cannot choose one’s sexuality. I have been treated in such a manner many times – I like to think that I my reaction was not that of a whiny small-minded, egotistical grifting poseur.
You made some good points Katherine, along with others – I submit. And admit – I can’t stand the man, think he’s a narcissistic destructive, grifter whose life efforts are designed first and foremost to get attention – a third rate mind like Trump and Jonhson – but you’re right, this is not a reason to close his bank accounts.
Dominic genuinely cannot see the difference between a cake-maker and a bank. This is what happens when you wear ideological blinkers. Neither does he realise that if Farage can be treated in this manner so, in due course, can Dominic.
You made some good points Katherine, along with others – I submit. And admit – I can’t stand the man, think he’s a narcissistic destructive, grifter whose life efforts are designed first and foremost to get attention – a third rate mind like Trump and Jonhson – but you’re right, this is not a reason to close his bank accounts.
But not a business account it would seem. So where is the moot?
Bad argument, mate. Political affiliation is a part of the freedom of speech which is protected. In terms of data protection law, it’s classed as sensitive data and, as such, enjoys extra protection. As the Coutts report acknowledged, Farage has never been subject to either legal or regulatory censure for his opinions, however crudely expressed. It is his right to say such things – why should he have to shift to another bank? As for comparing a bank to a cake maker…sorry, I just chuckled at that. In no way can you compare being excluded from a bank’s services for exercising your lawful right to free speech to having to buy a cake somewhere else because the baker is a bigot.
Problem is its not private business – we – the general public own 38.6% if it.
They offered him another account with Nat West, so your participation point is moot. Political affiliation is not a protected characteristic. Right wingers have lead the charge in terms of businesses having the right to refuse – eg the cake maker who refused to a gay client, and SCOTUS’ recent ruling – now you get all upset because it seems to have gone in the other direction. Chutzpah or Cakeism?
as snobbery? My dear fellow, those who ” are’ have long since defected to C. Hoare and Co, Weatherbys and/ or Handlesbanken: my old Coutts leather cheque book wallet is 30 years on, now my prayerbook cover, with the aid of glue and scissors!
“Mr Babbington,’ he said, suddenly stopping in his up and down. ‘Take your hands out of your pockets. When did you last write home?’ Mr Babbington was at an age when almost any question evokes a guilty response, and this was, in fact, a valid accusation. He reddened, and said, ‘I don’t know, sir.’ ‘Think, sir, think,’ said Jack, his good-tempered face clouding unexpectedly…’Never, mind. Write a handsome letter. Two pages at least. And send it in to me with your daily workings tomorrow. Give your father my compliments and tell him my bankers are Hoares.’ For Jack, like most other captains, managed the youngsters’ parental allowance for them. ‘Hoares,’ he repeated absently once or twice, ‘my bankers are Hoares,’ and a strangled ugly crowing noise made him turn. Young Ricketts was clinging to the fall of the main burton-tackle in an attempt to control himself, but without much success.”― Patrick O’Brian, Master & Commander
wonderful! I read that paragraph just a fortnight ago… re-reading my favourite series… just wrapping up Post-Captain, what joy!
wonderful! I read that paragraph just a fortnight ago… re-reading my favourite series… just wrapping up Post-Captain, what joy!
Maybe Coutts are trying to court you back?
“Mr Babbington,’ he said, suddenly stopping in his up and down. ‘Take your hands out of your pockets. When did you last write home?’ Mr Babbington was at an age when almost any question evokes a guilty response, and this was, in fact, a valid accusation. He reddened, and said, ‘I don’t know, sir.’ ‘Think, sir, think,’ said Jack, his good-tempered face clouding unexpectedly…’Never, mind. Write a handsome letter. Two pages at least. And send it in to me with your daily workings tomorrow. Give your father my compliments and tell him my bankers are Hoares.’ For Jack, like most other captains, managed the youngsters’ parental allowance for them. ‘Hoares,’ he repeated absently once or twice, ‘my bankers are Hoares,’ and a strangled ugly crowing noise made him turn. Young Ricketts was clinging to the fall of the main burton-tackle in an attempt to control himself, but without much success.”― Patrick O’Brian, Master & Commander
Maybe Coutts are trying to court you back?
You should read the document that was released. It said clearly that Farage did have enough money to qualify for an account.
Alison Rose, the woke CEO of NatWest, then briefed a credulous BBC reporter that the reason for the account closure was because he didn’t earn enough money to qualify. Apparently she told the same lie to another reporter from the FT. This was then repeated and amplified by ex-BBC man Jon Sopel.
Sopel and his new employers, no doubt in mortal fear of Farage suing them for defamation, issued an apology this morning:
I suspect that Farage will get substantial damages from the FT and the BBC and that the arch-Remoaner Alison Rose will be out of a job in the very near future (and possibly bankrupt after Farage’s lawyers finish with her).
Reputational risk? Who knew Farage banked with Coutts until until they outed themselves?
Then why was the Coutt’s internal document replete with references to Brexit, Novac Djokovic, Donald Trump etc.? Political and activist reasons are what it was all about.
Even if I have some sympathy for private businesses having a certain freedom to choose who they have as customers and who not, Coutts have fouled up this process to the maximum extent possible.
Plus, banks aren’t normal private businesses. Having a bank account is basically the means of participating in society. Therefore, the bar to being able to get rid of customers that don’t – I quote – “align with our values” should be very high.
And by that, I mean using-our-accounts-for-criminal-activities high, not this-person’s-views-just-aren’t-fashionable-and-it’s-getting-in-the-way-of-our-virtue-signalling high.
as snobbery? My dear fellow, those who ” are’ have long since defected to C. Hoare and Co, Weatherbys and/ or Handlesbanken: my old Coutts leather cheque book wallet is 30 years on, now my prayerbook cover, with the aid of glue and scissors!
You should read the document that was released. It said clearly that Farage did have enough money to qualify for an account.
Alison Rose, the woke CEO of NatWest, then briefed a credulous BBC reporter that the reason for the account closure was because he didn’t earn enough money to qualify. Apparently she told the same lie to another reporter from the FT. This was then repeated and amplified by ex-BBC man Jon Sopel.
Sopel and his new employers, no doubt in mortal fear of Farage suing them for defamation, issued an apology this morning:
I suspect that Farage will get substantial damages from the FT and the BBC and that the arch-Remoaner Alison Rose will be out of a job in the very near future (and possibly bankrupt after Farage’s lawyers finish with her).
Reputational risk? Who knew Farage banked with Coutts until until they outed themselves?
The idea that Coutts got rid of Farage for political or activist reasons is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Their motivation was financial, reputational and snobbery; they thought his name on their books was bad for business, as well as his having not enough money, and that he is an oik. They did offer him an account with the commoners – Nat West. Bit rich of Farage to complain about a business running itself the way it wants to. Probably the ECHR would have supported him. Suck it up Nigel.