The Times Companion to 2017

by Ian Brunskill

  How, for example, Mr Goodwin’s domineering style extended to designing the company Christmas card. Or how he personally selected the colour of the RBS executive cars — a Pantone 281 Mercedes S-Class — to match the bank’s corporate blue, with their interiors the exact beige of the office carpets. Or how boring banking stuff, such as risk and credit, wasn’t really his thing.

  And, of course, no one can blame the bulk of the 9,000 retail investors in the RBS Shareholders Action Group for caving in at 82p a share: a settlement worth £200 million. Represented by Signature Litigation, they were part of the final 13 per cent of disgruntled shareholders holding out for compo. Four other investor groups have already settled for much less, most at just 41.2p. And the 82p would have been off the table once the case came to trial.

  No, the main reason Fred’s almost certainly off the hook is the actions of the present management, led by the RBS chief Ross McEwan. He’s spent an obscene sum in legal fees, ensuring that hardly anyone could afford to take on the bank: pretty rum for a lender 72 per cent owned by the taxpayer.

  RBS’s legal costs already top £100 million. And they weren’t going to stop there, as the bank gleefully put about. It was ready to spend another £29 million merely on part one of the three-phase trial. So, if shareholders had lost, incurring RBS’s costs in the process, they’d be in for a gargantuan bill. Indeed, RBS’s tactics were designed to deter action from individual investors who still don’t want to settle, such as Neil Mitchell of Torex fame.

  True, the case was complex, apparently involving 25 million documents. And Mr McEwan, who set aside £800 million for the rights issue litigation, must protect the interests of all shareholders. Yet the result is that the biggest failure in UK banking history doesn’t get the proper legal interrogation it deserves, instead having to make do with 2011’s bland report from the now-defunct Financial Services Authority. Moreover, Mr Goodwin emerges as the main winner. No wonder people are cross.

  ELECTION 2017

  Leading Article

  JUNE 10 2017

  THE SLOW DRIVE from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace is supposed to be a ritual triumph. Preceded by outriders and tracked by helicopters, the winner of a British general election seeks leave to form a government from the monarch. It is almost painful to imagine what the Queen might have offered by way of small talk in her meeting yesterday with Theresa May.

  Mrs May has triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. The clock is ticking on a two-year Brexit timetable that was already tight before this week’s election, as more than one European leader noted yesterday. The prime minister understood the need for a large parliamentary majority in the circumstances. Instead she has lost her small majority. The Conservatives’ calamitous showing in the election has left Britain effectively leaderless at a moment when its fate depends on leadership.

  This crisis has been years in the making. Mrs May’s party believes government is in its DNA. Yet it has failed to win a majority in five of the past six general elections and it has left the UK all but ungovernable as a consequence of two extraordinary miscalculations: David Cameron’s decision to proceed with a European referendum and Mrs May’s to call a snap election, against the advice of her chief political consultant.

  She is now fatally wounded. If she does not realise this it is another grave misjudgment. More likely, she is steeling herself to provide what continuity she can as her party girds itself for an election to replace her.

  It is easy for her enemies to be wise after the event, but it is clear that the Conservative Party’s political instincts have, for now, deserted it. This would not matter so much were the country not committed to leaving the EU, and saddled with a Labour opposition under Jeremy Corbyn that has been cemented in place by a campaign that proved as successful as it was irresponsible.

  By their actions, the Conservatives have not yet broken the British system of democracy, but through hubris and incompetence they have managed to make a mockery of it. The task of restoring orderly government to make sense of Brexit is now a national emergency, and it falls to them.

  But in her speech on the steps of Downing Street yesterday, Mrs May showed why she lost her majority. There was no hint of self-awareness, let alone gallows humour, and no attempt to acknowledge the gravity of the predicament into which she has led the country. The omission recalled her failure to admit U-turns on national insurance contributions after the last budget and on social care funding during the campaign. In her determination to stay in control of her message, she has developed an unfortunate habit of insulting voters’ intelligence.

  In her earlier remarks at the Maidenhead constituency count she promised one thing: stability. Her decision to stay on and form a government dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party of Ulster may have been taken out of a sense of duty, but beyond the next few weeks it will not provide a basis for stability any more than the election did.

  The logic leading to Mrs May’s departure from Downing Street is remorseless. She said during the campaign that if she lost six seats she would have lost the election. She has lost 12. In practical terms this means her government cannot be relied upon to assemble a majority for its economic agenda, let alone for the series of bills that will be necessary to make Brexit a reality. Her personal authority is in any case already draining away.

  But Mrs May is not the only leader guilty of miscalculation. The same can be said of Nicola Sturgeon. The prospect of a second independence referendum, with all the uncertainty that threatened, has been shelved. The Scottish National Party has not only lost 19 seats, it has seen the defeat of some of its key figures — the former leader Alex Salmond and its deputy leader Angus Robertson among others. That sends out an unmistakeable signal to the party, and the first minister is right to say that she will “reflect” on the new climate in which it will operate.

  The SNP must now focus on policies of more immediate concern to the people. This election may not have been about the bread and butter issues in Scotland — education, health, social welfare and the economy — since these are matters reserved to Holyrood and this was a UK election. But there is no doubt that this was as much a judgment by voters on the SNP’s role in government in Scotland as it was about Brexit, immigration or the single market. When, at the very outset of the election campaign, Ms Sturgeon announced that a second referendum lay “at the heart of the campaign” she misjudged the mood of the electorate almost as fatally as Mrs May misjudged the mood of the UK as a whole.

  The Scottish Conservatives in particular, ably led by Ruth Davidson, played the referendum card against the SNP and played it effectively. As the campaign progressed, the Nationalists tried to pull back — but they were painted into a corner. The dream they had been able to present in 2015 of a better future as an independent nation has collided with the harsh reality of grim economic figures and a poor performance in government.

  What then should its new role in Scotland be? Over the past weeks the SNP government has had to defend poor results in key areas such as the performance of Scottish schools, waiting lists in hospitals and the performance of an economy that hovers on the brink of a recession.

  Traditionally, and in the past, it has fallen back on the argument that it governs in Scotland with one hand held behind its back: if only it was given the full powers of independence, all would be changed. That position has become less and less tenable as the economic situation has deteriorated. With a substantial deficit on the horizon, there is a growing view that a future Scottish government would face at least a decade of privation outside the UK as it attempted to rebalance the economy. Even its position in Europe is undermined by the election.

  Instead, what the party must now do is turn its attention properly to governing Scotland, and accept that it can no longer claim the dominant position it enjoyed after the 2015 election. It must focus instead on the difficult and often unrewarding business of effecting change and improvement in the domestic issues for which it is responsible. Unless it ch
anges, the party will face a verdict of no confidence from the Scottish people when it comes to the next vote at Holyrood in 2021.

  Meanwhile, for the Scottish Conservatives, and Ms Davidson in particular, this has been a hugely successful election. It can genuinely claim to be the principal opposition party, and what that means is that the political argument in Scotland can be properly joined: the case for a low tax, enterprise economy, with the emphasis on creating jobs rather than simply increasing the public sector burden, can at least be heard. For far too long, politics in Scotland has lacked the central ingredient of a genuine ideological debate.

  Now that debate can begin, especially with the rebirth of Scottish Labour. This too is a healthy development, since the SNP can no longer take for granted the notion that it is the only voice speaking up for the unemployed, for deprived areas and for those on the margins of society. Yet while change is to be welcomed in Scotland, a daunting deadline looms in Brussels. The Brexit talks scheduled to start on June 19 can be delayed, but EU leaders have been united in insisting that the 2019 deadline cannot. The more rushed the Brexit process proves, the less likely it is to yield even an interim agreement. Despite the turmoil at home, the talks need to start soon.

  The prime minister’s decision to stay on is therefore the right one in the short term, but it is untenable in the longer term. Her party needs a new leader. That leader will need an enhanced majority even more urgently than Mrs May believed she did. Britain is in the midst of a prolonged electoral upheaval that will almost inevitably involve another election well before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act requires one.

  Mrs May’s pledge to ensure a period of stability must be her parting gift. If she can start an orderly transition to a bolder, more imaginative, more candid and more optimistic Conservative leadership she will have plucked a victory of sorts from the jaws of defeat. If the Conservatives fail to pick up this gauntlet Mr Corbyn will, and his mission is to take Britain back to the last century.

  SAVED BY FRIENDS FROM ACROSS THE WATER

  Patrick Kidd

  JUNE 10 2017

  THERESA MAY spread out the map of Northern Ireland on the cabinet table. “So let me see if I’ve got this right,” she said to Nickanfi, her double-headed chief adviser. “The green bits are held by Sinn Fein?” Nickanfi nodded and hissed a little. “And the reddish areas belong to our new friends and allies, the DUP, on whom our stronganstable leadership depends?” Another nod.

  Then Mrs May saw a large blue area on the map. “Aha,” she said. “And I suppose this is where all the Conservative MPs are to be found?”

  Nickanfi cleared their throats. “Not quite, prime minister,” they said. “That’s Lough Neagh.”

  It had been a long and difficult night for Mrs May. She had been surprised by the exit poll showing her short of a majority. “But I am stronganstable,” she protested. “The numbers must be wrong. Maybe John Curtice covered up Surrey with his sandwiches. Nickanfi, ring the BBC and demand that they add another 50 to our tally.”

  At her count in Maidenhead the paranoia grew. Was that tall man with the bucket on his head actually Philip Hammond, mocking her? That would be beyond the pail. She won her seat comfortably enough but it was clear that the rest of the party had let her down. They had not been stronganstable. She was surrounded by weaklings and fools.

  Mrs May paid particular attention to the count in Hastings. There had been rumblings on television that she would have to go for this. How could she continue after fighting an election on the question of strong leadership and losing seats? When Amber Rudd clung on, Mrs May told Nickanfi to send the home secretary a message. “Tell her ‘well done’ and to be prepared to go out and resign on my behalf in the morning.”

  In the end, the sacrifice was not needed. The red bits of Northern Ireland agreed to lend a hand. Mrs May went to the palace to tell the Queen that she was stronganstable. “I am determined to go on and on,” she declared. “You certainly do,” Prince Philip grumbled.

  In the car on the way back, Mrs May asked Nickanfi for a speech. “The one marked ‘contrite and humble’?” Nickanfi suggested. “No,” Mrs May barked. “Give me the ‘whopping majority’ one.”

  And so she delivered a speech that gave no indication of the events of the previous night. It oozed stronganstable. “I will now form a government that can provide certainty and lead Britain forward,” she said. “We must fulfil the promise of Brexit.”

  In Brussels, Michel Barnier was wheezing like Mutley, while Jean-Claude Juncker opened a bottle of chilled schadenfreude. Mrs May had taken seven weeks to disintegrate a 24-point poll lead; this renegotiation was going to be fun. “Tell her she can take as long as she needs,” Mr Barnier told an aide. “But remind her that the clock is ticking.”

  At the Evening Standard, George Osborne took a break from flicking V signs at the television to tell his comment editor to up the snark a shade in the leading article. He was going to enjoy tucking into a dish of revenge for lunch, served cold with lashings of May-on-her-knees.

  The prime minister, however, did not appear humiliated. Trying to affect an Elizabeth-at-Tilbury look, she promised to deliver a brighter Brexity future. “That is what the people voted for last June,” she said. What they voted for the day before had already been disregarded.

  US BANNED TOWER CLADDING

  Alexi Mostrous, David Brown, Sean O’Neill, John Simpson, Sam Joiner

  JUNE 16 2017

  THE DEATH TOLL from the London tower inferno was expected to pass 50 last night as it emerged that the United States had banned the type of cladding that allegedly encased the 24-storey block.

  Scotland Yard said that it had begun a criminal inquiry amid calls from MPs for corporate manslaughter charges to be brought. Seventeen people were confirmed to have died in the blaze that swept through the building in the early hours of Wednesday.

  Senior sources voiced fears yesterday that up to 100 people could have died in the fire but later revised their estimates. Grenfell Tower, in west London, was home to about 600 residents.

  The difficulty of matching reports of those missing with the complex process of identifying the dead has hampered efforts to establish the scale of the tragedy. Many of the block’s residents spoke poor English and there is concern that some who are safe have failed to report to the authorities. The police have warned that the ferocity of the blaze means that some bodies will never be recovered.

  The criminal investigation and a public inquiry launched by Theresa May will include the materials used in an £8.6 million refurbishment of the block, which was completed last summer amid warnings from local people that it had become a firetrap.

  Hundreds of aluminium panels called Reynobond are believed to have been fitted to Grenfell Tower by Harley Facades, a small firm subcontracted as part of that refurbishment. Reynobond makes three types of panel: one with a flammable plastic core and two with fire-resistant cores. It is thought that contractors chose the cheaper, more combustible, version for Grenfell.

  A salesman for US-based Reynobond told The Times that this version, which has a polyethylene core and is known as PE, was banned in American buildings taller than 40ft (12.2m) for fire safety reasons. “It’s because of the fire and smoke spread,” he said. “The FR [variant] is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic.”

  The PE version is used for small commercial buildings and petrol stations, he said, rather than for tower blocks or critical buildings such as hospitals.

  Reynobond’s fire-resistant panel sells for £24 per square metre — £2 more expensive than the standard version. A rough calculation suggests that panels covered more than 2,000 sq m on Grenfell, meaning that contractors could have acquired the fire-resistant version for less than £5,000 extra.

  The PE panels conform to UK standards but are rated as “flammable” in Germany.

  Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Newham, Greenwich and Redbridge councils in London are carrying out urgent reviews of fire safety in tower blocks and flats.


  Of the 17 bodies recovered at Grenfell Tower, six were outside and are believed to be those of people who jumped from the building as the flames spread. A further 11 bodies were found inside but investigators have not yet reached the upper floors where some larger flats inhabited by families were located.

  One of the dead was Mohamed Alhajali, 23, who fled the war in Syria and came to London where he lived with his brother in the tower. Among the missing was Mohamed Neda, 57, an Afghan minicab driver, who helped his wife and son to safety then ran back into the building for an elderly neighbour.

  At least 45 people, including ten children, are missing. They include a six-month-old baby, a bride-to-be and entire families.

  One mother, Genet Shawo, said that she had been unable to find her five-year-old son in the thick, black smoke. As they tried to escape, she said Isaac told his family: “I don’t want us to die.”

  Commander Stuart Cundy, of the Metropolitan Police, said that he did not know how many were inside and that the death toll would rise, but added: “I hope it isn’t going to be triple figures. I don’t think it’s inevitably going to be triple figures. For those of us that have been down there, it’s pretty emotional, so I hope it is not triple figures.”

  The casualty bureau has received 400 reports of missing people, but there has been extensive duplication, with one person reported 46 times.

  Nick Hurd, the Home Office minister, said that the public inquiry would “leave absolutely no stone unturned”. Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said it should produce an interim report this summer and that its scope must include “whether the tower block was refurbished in a safe way”.