It seems the Labour government has discovered its true calling: not as the champion of the working class, but as the darling of the banking elite. Despite the fanfare of their election promises to “put voters first” and “put money in their pockets,” Labour has chosen an entirely different strategy: ensuring the City’s champagne glasses are brimming while the pockets of ordinary voters remain as light as ever.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ intervention in the mis-sold motor finance scandal is a masterclass in hypocrisy. For those who haven’t been keeping up, this scandal involves lenders charging commissions without consent—a practice the Court of Appeal deemed illegal. But instead of standing with the millions of consumers owed up to £16 billion in compensation, Reeves is now doing PR for the motor finance giants. Her argument? Ensuring these lenders stay in the market so consumers can continue to “access credit.” In other words: the banks must be protected from the consequences of their own dodgy dealings—at your expense.
Protecting the Powerful, Ignoring the Powerless
Consumer-focused lawyers have rightly called out the Treasury’s intervention as “brazen.” Sam Ward of Sentinel Legal slammed it as an open effort to “shield lenders at the expense of consumer rights and judicial independence.” But it seems Labour isn’t interested in consumer confidence or justice; their priorities lie elsewhere. As Mohsin Patel of Factor Risk Management points out, Reeves’ intervention caters to the lenders who’d rather dodge accountability than pay up.
Labour’s sudden concern for “competitiveness” is rich coming from a party that promised to fight for the little guy. Instead, Reeves’ actions reveal a government that’s willing to bend over backwards for the same financial institutions they once criticised. In her bid to soften the blow of a £30 billion payout, Reeves has delivered a slap in the face to voters who expected her to stand up for their interests.
Judicial Review? Not If It Gets in Labour’s Way
Meanwhile, the government’s crusade against judicial reviews shows just how little regard they have for the rule of law—or public accountability. In the name of “unblocking Britain,” Labour is proposing to restrict challenges to major infrastructure projects. Their idea? If a High Court judge finds a case “without merit,” it won’t even make it to the Court of Appeal.
It’s a bold move, but not in a good way. As Richard Atkinson of the Law Society warns, these reforms risk undermining access to justice. Judicial review exists to hold governments and corporations accountable—a fact Labour appears to find deeply inconvenient. After all, who needs legal checks and balances when you can fast-track the redevelopment of London South Bank’s ‘The Slab’ and call it progress?
The CMA Debacle: Politics Over Principles
And if undermining the judiciary wasn’t enough, Labour has also waded into the murky waters of regulatory interference. The ousting of Marcus Bokkerink, chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, is being described by lawyers as “the most overtly political” intervention in recent history. Bokkerink’s crime? A “different approach” to economic growth—one that clearly didn’t align with the government’s agenda.
This blatant power grab should worry anyone who values independent regulation. As Jacqueline Vallat of CMS warns, it sets a dangerous precedent for political interference in regulatory bodies. Labour, it seems, is willing to sacrifice independent oversight to keep its growth-at-all-costs narrative intact.
Labour’s True Colours
Let’s not mince words: this is a government that has chosen to put money in bankers’ pockets, not voters’. Their interventions in the motor finance case, judicial reviews, and regulatory oversight all point to the same conclusion: Labour has abandoned its pro-consumer, pro-justice stance in favour of cosying up to the financial elite.
While champagne corks pop in the City, voters are left wondering what happened to the party that promised to fight for them. Reeves and her colleagues might dress up their actions as “necessary for growth,” but let’s call it what it is: a betrayal of the people who put them in power.
Labour may still have time to change course, but with every move they make, it becomes clearer whose side they’re really on. Spoiler alert: it’s not yours.
Comments