Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The wrong man has resigned in the scandal over Barclays and Libor. Knowledge of an attempt to manipulate rates would have been way below the pay grade of the bank's departing chairman, Marcus Agius, who steered the bank through the 2008 financial crisis without asking for a taxpayers' bailout. The chief executive, Bob Diamond, by contrast, was directly responsible for Barclays Capital at the time.
Senior management there was aware of the deception, which was designed to calm market jitters about the bank's stability, the Financial Services Authority investigation has found. When Mr Diamond, who has a reputation as a very hands-on manager, appears before the Treasury Select Committee tomorrow, MPs must confront him with the bald alternative that if he did not know about the rate-rigging, he is incompetent – and if he did know, he was complicit.
They should not be deceived by the resignation of Mr Agius, who had been planning to go next year after the emergence of vocal opposition at the last AGM to his proposal to increase Mr Diamond's annual pay package to £17.7m. Mr Agius, an old-style former investment banker, appears to have been too weak to manage the brash Mr Diamond.
The Barclays board remains unanimous that the American should stay because he is a top performer in an industry where making money seems to be the only yardstick. Finding a new chairman is easy; replacing Mr Diamond would be far harder. But this is the wrong judgement. He may be good at banking, but he misjudges its wider implications. Perhaps that didn't matter before; it does now.
Let us not forget that Mr Diamond is the man who gave a hostage to fortune by saying last year that the time for bankers to show remorse was over, when he knew the FSA investigation into Libor fixing was under way. While adept at the technicalities of banking, he would seem to have little grip on the reputational implications of such actions.
If Barclays is to restore its good name, it needs someone with a better grasp of both the politics and the ethics.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments