The SVP is the party of the bonus bankers and the opponent of the bonus bankers.

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

Tuesday evening at the National City Hall. The leader of the SVP parliamentary group, Thomas Eski, stands at the microphone: “The Federal Council and Finma have not done their job. Once again, taxpayers have to bail out a large Swiss bank. The SVP parliamentary group clearly says no to the 109 billion franc guarantee from the federal government.”

It was at 7:37 pm at an extraordinary meeting on the government takeover of CS by UBS. At 8:34 pm Thomas Eski walked to the pulpit for the second time. Now he has opposed the demand that the big banks have more substantial financial reserves. In Eski’s eyes, CS wouldn’t have gained more credibility for such a requirement. And the National Council from the canton of Zug said something else: “Even a ban on bonus payments for systemically important banks would not save Credit Suisse.” With such requirements, you don’t even need to come to him.

Within an hour, Thomas Eski presented himself as a sharp critic of the big banks and their compliant defender.

This is not a random aberration. Rather, it reveals the essence of the SVP business model. SVP is the party of bonus bankers. At the same time, it is the party of those who feel especially betrayed by these bonus bankers who, along with the entire system, tolerates such bonus bankers and even rescues them if necessary. Politics is often paradoxical, and the SVP is a real people’s party, because it easily unites such contradictions.

In this sense, one should also understand Thomas Eski’s statement about the financial market supervisory authority. Today, SVP accuses Finma of not paying enough attention to CS – in previous years, the party successfully defended itself against a strong Finma.

In 2022, senior vice president national adviser Bruno Walliser complained that “Finma decides for itself if it wants to regulate and how.”

In 2021, National Adviser to the Senior Vice President Thomas Matter complained about Finma’s “high and costly terms”.

Quote from the press release of the SVP parliamentary group dated February 17, 2018: “Two initiatives that want to limit the area of ​​responsibility of the financial market oversight body are unanimously supported.”

In 2017, National Adviser to the Senior Vice President Gregor Rutz criticized Finma for “interpreting its mandate broadly and developing new activities without oversight with excessive dynamics”.

In the same year, Thomas Esky spoke out against Finma and stated: “Self-regulation has proven its worth in Switzerland.”

In 2012, National Adviser to the Senior Vice President, Thomas de Courtin, wrote in a postulate: “Finma’s current regulatory zeal is leading to uncertainty in the financial center, which affects the attractiveness of the location and the entire economy.”

And who could Thomas Esky have in mind – the question of price at the end – when he blamed the Federal Council for not fulfilling its tasks on Tuesday? But not his party colleague Uli Maurer? The same Uli Maurer who, in his last days as finance minister, praised CS and said that the bank should just be left alone for a year or two?

In the immediate aftermath of Maurer’s departure from the state government in late 2022, various media reported that the old federal adviser would play a key role in the SVP’s reelection campaign. Maybe it’s no longer needed. Because if politics has learned anything from the 2008 global financial crisis, it’s that such events play into the hands of right-wing parties. They just have the most memorable answer to people’s economic problems. (Though this answer is not “mismanagement” but “immigration”.)

In this regard, Uli Maurer has probably done more for the senior vice president with his inaction on CS matters than if he had taken charge rather than simply left the ailing financial institution to its own devices.

Thomas Esky can be satisfied.

Source: Blick