The Government needs to decide whether, and to what extent, ‘inclusivity’ actually transcends politics

Aug 8, 2023 by Jill

by Henry Hill, Conservative Home:

The great de-banking scandal has come a long way since we first wrote about it last month. Heads have rolled at Coutts and NatWest; the Government has pledged to act; Nigel Farage is setting up a national campaign which could yet place more heads in jeopardy. We shall doubtless have plenty of opportunities to return to it.

But at least one aspect of the story has much broader implications worth thinking about, and this is best expressed by the minutes of the Coutts’ reputational risk committee, as reported by the Daily Telegraph in July:

“The committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.”

Coutts clearly believed, or professed to believe, that “inclusivity” was something beyond politics – even when this involved effectively sanctioning somebody for their political views.

They appear to have been wrong, as a matter of law, and the pushback from government will hopefully see the boundaries of the political usefully clarified. But they are not the first organisation in recent times to get caught taking the modern spirit of institutional progressivism to unlawful extremes; one calls to mind the RAF recruitment scandal, for instance.

But whilst it hasn’t (yet?) led to an actual suit, perhaps the highest-profile example is the conduct of the police.

This was most obvious during the pandemic, which offered a stark contrast between the leniency afforded to a Black Lives Matter protest and an anti-lockdown one, despite their being held close together and under exactly the same laws. But even outwith those extraordinary circumstances, it is difficult to imagine an officer who expressed support whilst policing a Pride event being treated the same as one who did the same whilst policing, say, a gender-critical rally.

Did that comparison pull you up short? Does it feel like a false equivalence? Perhaps it did. But should it? “Pride is still a protest”, as Stonewall reminds us, and many of those marching will be expressing positions on matters, such as trans rights, which are very much matters of current controversy. And yet to many (including this city-dwelling graduate) it doesn’t feel political in quite the same way.

Read here