Labour and the City

Yet another example from Labour revealing its policies to be too similar to those of the Tories for comfort.When the banks pay billions less in tax than predicted by Osborne, Labour`s response is to argue that "its bank bonus tax would have been better at raising more money". They still don`t appear to get it, unlike the majority of the rest of the country, who are keen to make the financial sector pay for the economic problems caused by the 2008 crash.This is the one aspect of populism which Labour should support, and leave the others, immigration caps and welfare cuts, to the right-wing parties.

     Do Labour leaders think the electorate is ignorant of the £375bn of quantitative easing given to the banks, of the fact that this money was not loaned to businesses to kickstart the economy, ignorant too of all the scams, from mis-selling PPI and laundering Mexican drug money to fixing interest rates and manipulating exchange rates, of the huge profits banks make and the huge bonuses paid for "socially useless" work, and for increasing their "efficiency" by sacking staff and paying counter staff little? A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy and to impose a massive bonus tax as well!

    As predicted, the EU`s cap on bonuses have led to a huge hike in many bankers` salaries, with, for example, senior staff at Goldman Sachs in London getting £2.7m in 2012. As a result,  Labour should be considering an income tax rate of around 70%, similar to the one in France, on all earnings over £1m. As Polly Toynbee rightly says,Labour needs to remind voters that "tax is the price paid for civilisation", but that it does not necessarily have to be unfair. Letting banks and accounting firms off the hook definitely is, taxing the rich is not, and the sooner Miliband says so, the better!

 

Labour and tax avoidance

Despite the rhetoric, the so-called determination of the coalition to crack down, the disgust with "morally repugnant" tax avoidance schemes, the coalition has done next to nothing to end what Margaret Hodge frequently describes as an "industry", and the net result is a "tax gap" of at least £35bn.(Independent,19/12/13) It is difficult to believe the government wants the "gap" to be reduced, when it has cut thousands of jobs at HMRC, and uses the tax experts from the Big 4 accounting firms to sit in on Treasury committees, as these are the same firms who make millions every year from their tax avoidance "advice". The recent Greene King case highlighted how one of the four, Ernst and Young, agreed to give such advice, provided it took 8% of the amount of tax avoided! The same firm then signed off Greene King`s accounts.

      The government is content to allow corporation tax to be avoided on a massive scale, as long as the businesses stay in Britain, employing people on zero-hours contracts and rarely paying a living wage. Individuals can squirrel money away in British territories like the Cayman Islands, safe in the knowledge that little, if any, tax will need to be paid. A Tory party, largely funded by the City, is unlikely to run the risk of upsetting what is for them a lucrative "apple-cart"! Labour, though, could and should.

        The news that tax-avoiding Google makes millions out of advertising on its sites and is expanding in this area to ensure more adverts are seen, and the fact that many other tax-avoiding companies had very large adverts over the Christmas period on television and in daily newspapers, suggest a possible opening for a political party determined to close the "tax gap". Why not double the VAT rate paid on all advertising, so doubling the price for each advert? The proviso can be inserted that at the end of the financial year, the extra cost will be repaid to the company paying for the advertising, as long as the correct corporation tax has been paid? If any avoidance scams have been used, like registering abroad, or claiming no profits made in Britain, no repayment.

      To show the electorate that it is not, unlike the Tories,in thrall to the City, Labour could show its determination to return an element of fairness to the tax system, and an early announcement could stop the party leaking votes to Ukip. It could even adopt the Democrats` idea from 1930s America, and award stars (Blue Eagles in US) or such like, for paying correct tax, paying living wages to employees, and other civic-minded activities; the stars could then be used by the companies as part of their advertising campaigns, leaving the consumer to decide whether to buy from them, or not. Labour needs to be clear about which side of the City fence it is on, and the adoption of such policies could prove electorally advantageous!

Labour and tax increases

Jackie Ashley reiterated some really bad news: "old Blairites are being brought back" to advise Milband on Labour`s 2015 election strategy. (Will winning in 2015 destroy Labour for a generation?27/12/13) However, she seemed more concerned about the "queasy prospect" of a Labour government having to raise income tax and "cope with raging public anger".She can rest easy; there will be no "anger" as long as the tax increases are aimed at the people who can afford to pay more, at the people who brought about the crash in 2008, and at the people who have escaped scot-free both the austerity measures and the feeble attempts by the Tories and their Lib Dem poodles to end tax avoidance and evasion. If levels have to be raised to 60% or higher, so be it, but a tax policy based on fairness, which means people on around average earnings or below not needing be targeted at all, seems to me to provide a sound foundation on which to run a successful election campaign, and a government in it for the long haul.

Observer letter:full version

A much better title for Andrew Rawnsley`s article would have been "How ridiculous can British politics get?" (Why all three leaders reach the end of the year sighing with relief,22/12/13)The party leaders may, indeed, be relieved, but it`s shame they should really be feeling.

     We have a  duplicitous coalition  government, with each of its member parties vying with the other for votes, whilst the opposition does nothing, hoping a general policy of silence, allied to one of wait and see, will enable it to scrape through to electoral success. The most recent example of duplicity comes from Vince Cable, who now claims to be concerned for the "social fabric" because of the scale of the public spending cuts, which he and his fellow power-desperate Lib Dems voted through parliament!

      He is merely following the example set by his leader; Clegg`s major u-turn on university fees at the start of the government`s tenure is now being matched by his sudden dislike for Gove`s education reforms which sadly was not apparent when it came to voting in the Commons.How anyone with an iota of liberal political principle can ever think of voting Lib Dem again, after over four years of the most disgraceful abandonment of party principles witnessed in modern times, is beyond me.

     The Tories, whose leaders` deceit appears to know no bounds, seem content now to compete with Ukip for the anti-immigration vote. This doesn`t prevent them from claiming to be the party of the family, despite the immigration law which they sneaked through parliament just before the summer recess,and which is about to,on their own admission, break up 17,800 families. Hardly surprising from the party which is so committed to advancing social mobility, it deemed it necessary to end the Education Maintenance Allowance as soon as it possibly could!

     Meanwhile, the Labour party does as little as possible, largely, it seems, because it can`t decide on the best approach. The new leader, whose first pledge was to ensure his party was different from the others, refrains from adopting policies which would attain that goal; the one exception to this rule, the freeze on energy prices, not only proved so popular with the voters, it seems to have emptied the party`s policy box. Rather than making more pledges which would win ex-Lib Dem votes and those of the increasingly alienated working class, Labour remains quiet. No progressive tax policies which would attack the rich and go down a bomb, as Margaret Hodge`s aggression in the Public Accounts Committee has shown; no original ideas on tax avoidance, and not even pledges to reduce even some of the deplorable coalition cuts; nothing, in fact, which will win them new votes and retain old ones.

     Voters will spend the next sixteen months listening to the parties blaming each other, and watching them behave like out-of-control bottom set year tens at PMQs. Is it any wonder that pantomime buffoons like Johnson and Farage win popularity?

Labour and immigration

Another perceptive article from Peter Wilby. (How Labour can stop itself worrying about immigration, 28/12/13) He is absolutely right to say that Labour`s best bets are to "stay silent" on the issue of immigration,  to repair the "historic bargain" with its "natural supporters", and to show that they are not "on the side of City financiers and international plutocrats".What Wilby doesn`t mention is not only  the urgency of the situation, as those voters need to be convinced before Ukip can spread further its evil propaganda in the build-up to the Euro elections, but the feebleness of Labour`s attempts so far. General statements about childcare and bonus taxes are insufficient, when a list of around six specific policy statements is needed to show clearly the difference between them and the other parties which are clearly in thrall to the City.

  Instead of having a tax system like the present one,which leads to wealth being hoarded, often squirrelled away in tax havens, a progressive tax structure, coupled with stringent laws banning tax evasion, would see the re-appearance of this money, its return to the Treasury, and its expenditure on the people and services which need it the most; if it also means that income tax rates have to rise to 70% or 80% for the richest, or taxes on bonuses to 90% or more, so be it. How many voters really think those earning over £200,000 a year are paying their fair share? Minimum wage mut be raised to at least the living wage, and then index-linked. If Labour politicians became MPs so that they could continue needless Tory policies of enforcing poverty, they need to join up with the Lib Dems, who certainly found doing it easy enough!

Labour and PMQs

The recent news that young people are being turned off politics, and that the turnout in future elections could decrease to 30% or so has much to do with them seeing PMQs, so well described by Donald Macintyre as the "weekly display of raucousness". (Independent,27/12/13) Viewing our elected representatives on all sides behaving like a bottom set year 10 with a supply teacher last lesson on Friday afternoon is unlikely to persuade our economically challenged youth to visit a polling booth on election day. Macintyre is absolutely right to say that Miliband here "has a key role" and "could do much to change the tone", and, in fact, he should see a different approach to PMQs as an electoral opportunity too good to be missed.

      For starters he should be demanding the Speaker insist that all questions are responded to by the prime minister with actual answers rather than political-point scoring, as the rules say should happen. The gladitorial circus of braying could be ended by Labour MPs being told to act with decorum and actually refrain from shouting insults and waving papers; by remaining seated, unless asking a question, their side of the House would make the government benches look more foolish than usual, especially if their questions avoided repetition and overlap.

     The Tories, of course, are quite happy to carry on with unreformed PMQs, as Cameron much prefers to throw insults, rather than having to answer challenging questions about the existence of an economic recovery when there are so many households in debt, increasing numbers of  foodbanks and cases of malnutrition, and the only new jobs are part-time, with zero hours contracts. If Labour is serious in its attempts to woo the younger and disillusioned voters, its behaviour at PMQs, like its policies, has to be markedly different from that of the Tories.

 

No World War One parlour games needed

It may not have been his objective, but Martin Kettle succeeded in proving EH Carr right; counterfactual history, basically guessing what might have happened had events taken a different turn, is little more than a "parlour game", or what EPThompson called "unhistorical shit"! (What if the Germans had won the first world war?26/12/13) Kettle is correct, however, to say that next year the country must "see the war more objectively and thoughtfully" than has been the case in the build-up to the centenary commemorations so far, but this will only be achieved when some basic truths about the war are accepted.

     Like nearly all wars, World War One could have been avoided, had the politicians in power not included amongst them people intent on increasing their own country`s economic power at the expense of that of their rivals.Isn`t that the basic reason for modern wars? The "just cause", as we know from the Iraq war, tends to be added as an afterthought, to persuade the populace. How respected historians like Margaret MacMillan can conclude that "it is condescending and wrong to think" the people in 1914 were "hoodwinked" is baffling; after an elementary education consisting largely of the 3Rs and a smattering of nationalist history, which taught the inferiority of all other races, including that of the increasingly "barbaric" Germans, mainly as they had the audacity to be building a powerful navy at the time, the youth of Britain were conned into volunteering for war by a government promising to have them home for Christmas!

   21st century experience in Britain tells us how governments still use information and data, often inaccurate, to support their own agendas, and it was ever thus in 1914. Wars can be avoided when the people and their representatives know the facts, and are aware of the consequences; Asquith`s Liberal government knew both the likely duration of a war with Germany and her allies, and its basic format, trench warfare leading to a war of attrition. Wouldn`t it be far more preferable for people to be given the facts about the first world war, rather than governments` sanitised and politicised versions? The "parlour games" can come later.

"City" needs re-branding

 The news that the City watchdog allows huge reductions in the many fines it has to impose on the various financial institutions, if they "agree to settle at an early stage", comes as no surprise, especially as the fines themselves are so small relative to the wealth of the companies involved, they have no deterrence effect whatsoever. "Poodle" rather than "watchdog" is the obvious inference!  In fact, the term "City" clearly no longer does the centre of Britain`s finance industry justice, especially with the news that charges for insider dealing, general fraudulent behaviour and malpractice are now approaching the 1000 a year mark. With the country well used to rapacious, mendacious bankers` mis-selling to their customers, fixing interest rates, money-laundering Mexican drug money, and manipulating the exchange market, it appears timely for a more suitable title to be given to what our politicians deem to be the heartbeat of the economy.

     "Dupli-city" would appear to fit the bill; ever since the greed of the banks led to the 2008 crash, we have been repeatedly assured that lessons had been learned, never again would their lust for lottery wins every year in the form of obscene bonuses be allowed to dictate their policies, and that the needs of the customer would be given priority. Banks` CEOs told us how the culture would change, and that earnings would take second place to "ethics", whilst, of course, encouraged by a government opposing the EU`s transaction tax and bonus cap, carrying on regardless. "Auda-city" for having the brass neck is a viable alternative. "Rapa-city" might inspire modern songwriters, so "Preda-city" would be preferable, especially at a time when most people regard what takes place there as "socially useless", and when "predatory capitalism" could well be a hot topic as the general election nears.

 However, in view of the duplicitous behaviour rampant since the crash, the most appropriate name for the City, which would both describe adequately its actions and its need for reform, has to be "Mend-a-city"! Well, it is Christmas!

 

Money needs to be rationed

Zoe Williams`s reminder of the advantages of food rationing, and how one of the reasons for it during the Second World War was to prevent people hoarding, was timely, especially as she admits that the scarcity today is "not of food but of money". (Why rationing could hold the key to today`s food crisis,24/12/13) As this scarcity has "been wilfully created by the government", it can be easily remedied by the same institution, although sadly not by its present incumbents, and the solution is hardly rocket science. Instead of having a tax system which leads to wealth being hoarded, often squirrelled away in tax havens, a progressive tax structure, coupled with stringent laws banning tax evasion, would see the re-appearance of this money, its return to the Treasury, and its expenditure on the people and services which need it the most.

     This is the sort of rationing a Labour party in opposition should be promising, limiting the amount of money and profits individuals and companies can make, to ensure there is sufficient for all; if it means the income tax rates have to rise to 70% or 80% for the richest, or taxes on bonuses to 90% or more, so be it. How many voters really think those earning over £200,000 a year are paying their fair share? If Labour politicians became MPs so that they could continue needless Tory policies of enforcing poverty, they need to join up with the Lib Dems. They certainly found doing it easy enough!

 

letter 14/01/13

Gaby Hinsliff may see "one nation"Labour as "Ed Milliband`s grand wheeze", but "redressing the balance through progressive taxation" sounds good to me. (This working class pride could be a bonus for Labour, 14/01/13) However, if "sending more working-class kids to university" is to be a viable target, surely Labour has to be more pro-active in its opposition to Gove`s reforms? The Education minister, so far, has had an easy ride, without, it seems, having to debate the consequences of his changes. The totally unnecessary replacement of GCSEs with Ebacc, and the accompanying O-level type examination, will produce a system as divisive as the one last seen in the 50s and 60s. Examinations based on essays and memory, rather than understanding, will prove both discouraging and difficult, and many, especially those from working-class backgrounds, will fail, as planned. The government`s refusal to pilot these examinations is a dead giveaway. Within a few years, we will see a return to schools which specialise in producing good results in the "new" examinations, and schools catering for so-called "less academic" students.Yet opposition to the return of grammar and secondary modern schools is muted, as if equality of opportunity was not an electorally popular issue, as if "level playing fields" were not a matter of concern for the "home counties swing voters" too. 

letter 27/11/12

The lack of "revolutionary thinking"  in economics (Big business has corrupted our economics, 27/11/12) is largely explained by the fact that the economies of the major countries are still dominated , either by bankers, or by politicians in awe of bankers.The fear of a country`s credit rating being downgraded by the ex-bankers of Standard and Poor etc dominates, so any consideration for fairness, or even common sense, being applied to economics tends to be ignored. Osborne continues to ignore the IMF`s warning about fiscal multipliers for this very reason. As for the debts of Spain and Greece, what is the point of lending to countries already in debt at interest levels so high failure to repay is almost guaranteed? Wouldn`t low interest rates lead both to economic stimulus and repayment? Wouldn`t it be more sensible for Britain to have loaned Greece some of the £375bn created by QE rather than give it to the banks? Germany`s exaggerated fears of 1923 hyper-inflation being repeated have to be dismissed as a merely selfish excuse for looking after number one.

British economic woes could partly be dealt with by radical policies, ideologically suppressed by the Tories perhaps, but their fear of bankers` wrath is only equalled by that of the Labour opposition, too timid even to moot ideas such as complete tax transparency, a Tobin tax, or a rent cap. Of course, the current "dogma is particularly agreeable to the elite", but the main worry is not the lack of radical ideas but the refusal of all main parties to make a stand against the bankers.Shame on them!

 

Ridiculous state of politics

 

How ridiculous can British politics get? We have a  duplicitous coalition  government, with each of its member parties vying with the other for votes, whilst the opposition does nothing, hoping a general policy of silence, allied to one of wait and see, will enable it to scrape through to electoral success. The most recent example of duplicity comes from Vince Cable, who now claims to be concerned for the "social fabric" because of the scale of the public spending cuts, which he and his fellow power-desperate Lib Dems voted through parliament!

  He is merely following the example set by his leader; Clegg`s major u-turn on university fees at the start of the government`s tenure is now being matched by his sudden dislike for Gove`s education reforms which sadly was not apparent when it came to voting in the Commons.How anyone with an iota of liberal political principle can ever think of voting Lib Dem again, after over four years of the most disgraceful abandonment of party principles witnessed in modern times, is beyond me.

     The Tories, whose leaders` deceit appears to know no bounds, seem content now to compete with Ukip for the anti-immigration vote. This doesn`t prevent them from claiming to be the party of the family, despite the immigration law which they sneaked through parliament just before the summer recess,and which is about to,on their own admission, break up 17,800 families. Hardly surprising from the party which is so committed to advancing social mobility, it deemed it necessary to end the Education Maintenance Allowance as soon as it possibly could!

 Meanwhile, the Labour party does as little as possible, largely, it seems, because it can`t decide on the best approach. The new leader, whose first pledge was to ensure his party was different from the others, refrains from adopting policies which would attain that goal; the one exception to this rule, the freeze on energy prices, not only proved so popular with the voters, it seems to have emptied the party`s policy box. Rather than making more pledges which would win ex-Lib Dem votes and those of the increasingly alienated working class, Labour remains quiet. No progressive tax policies which would attack the rich and go down a bomb, as Margaret Hodge`s aggression in the Public Accounts Committee has shown; no original ideas on tax avoidance, and not even pledges to reduce even some of the deplorable coalition cuts; nothing, in fact, which will win them new votes and retain old ones.

 Voters will spend the next sixteen months listening to the parties blaming each other, and watching them behave like out-of-control bottom set year tens at PMQs. Is it any wonder that pantomime buffoons like Johnson and Farafe win popularity?

Tanya was right

Tanya Gold was right to remind us, in the week when the disgraceful Iain Duncan Smith "slunked out" of Parliament when the debate on food banks was going on, as if they had nothing to do with him, of the fact that "fairness was the terrible lie" of this government.(The wrong kind of poor,21/12/13) Still the duplicity of this government continues unabated, and apparently knows no bounds. Whilst there are more working people classed as living in poverty than unemployed, the coalition has the audacity to claim it represents the interests of the "hard-working strivers". Presumably, outsourced cleaners with three jobs, and carers making over 20 calls a day, need to "strive" harder? The launching of a stealthy assault on low-earners in this month`s Autumn Statement, with more reductions in universal credit is further evidence that these are not so much austerity measures as downright poverty-enforcement, and Lib Dem support for them should ensure no liberal-minded person ever votes for Clegg and his cronies again. The right wing media amuse themselves, as Gold says, by denouncing the actions of the likes of Jack Monroe, whilst approving the government`s deceit; did they not support Osborne when he fought the case against capping bankers` bonuses? .

   Yet more duplicity comes  with Cameron and Clegg competing with each other to be the families` champion, whilst they disgracefully rush through at the end of the parliamentary year a policy which, on their own admission, will split up 17,800 families. Well done, Archbishop Nichols, for raising concerns about these new immigration rules.Spouses being refused entry, or being deported because their partner does not earn £18,600, is wrong on so many moral and social accounts. It is imperative that a duplicitous government, which uses deportation as an electoral tool, should be defeated as soon as possible.  

Labour`s need for aggression

The "clutch of negativity" in the Labour party,brought about by amongst other things, local byelections showing they "may have become vulnerable to Ukip", need not last.(Miliband steps up search for silver bullet,21/12/13) Patrick Wintour reveals, albeit indirectly, a solution for Labour`s woes; according to him, the three most popular politicians in Britain are the two pantomime villains, Johnson and Farage, and Margaret Hodge, whose popularity has increased because of her outspoken attacks on the rich and powerful, and her accusations that they are benefitting at our expense. If losing the vote of "an alienated working class" is Labour`s main concern, Hodge-like aggression is the obvious answer, and Miliband and his advisers should have realised this after their surge in the opinion polls following the conference pledge on an energy price freeze.The same polls may also show that voters "believe the 2010 spending cuts were necessary", but that speaks volumes about the efficiency of the Tory propaganda machine, and the improvements needed to reduce the incompetence of Labour`s.

    Policies based on fairness, which aim to redress some of the inbalance in wealth distribution, should not be ignored for fear of upsetting the "suppering classes" of the south`s marginal seats, as the overall vote-winning impression must be that Labour is on the side of the majority, not the City.

   Adoption of a few of the following ideas will undoubtedly prove electorally beneficial, but only if it happens in the new year, before Ukip can do untold damage in the European elections; adopting them afterwards would be perceived as a panic measure of a party desperate for votes:

    support for the EU`s financial transaction tax

    a sliding scale of income tax, going up to 60-70% for earnings over £200,000

    a tax of at least 75% on bonuses over £100k

    tax havens on British territory to be closed, a policy of total transparency adopted, and tax evaders made to pay up, or face imprisonment

    tax avoidance to be ended, by the re-appointment of the thousands who have lost their HMRC jobs under the coalition, and by the refusal to grant government contracts to companies known not to be paying their fair share. Individual tax avoiders similarly to be refused permission to work for the BBC and government departments, or to represent Britain in any capacity; the slogan here could be "no representation without taxation"! No honours to be granted to tax avoiders, and all previous honours to be returned.

    introduce VAT or a similar tax on all advertisement in the media, totally refundable at the end of the tax year, but only when corporation tax has been calculated, and the right amount paid, with no exploitation of loopholes etc.

   adopt a policy of total transparency with regard to MPs and candidates; all business connections, other jobs, tax records etc to be made public, prior to elections.

   end support for the replacement of Trident, with a promise to pursue an independent foreign policy, and for HS2 and airport expansion in London.

 

          Milband did say, when elected, that Labour would be different under his leadership. Well, better late than never!  Such policies would enable the next Labour government to forget all ideas of continuing Tory-like austerity measures; that in itself is the real "silver bullet" for Labour. A change in culture is needed, andit is not as though the country cannot afford it!

 

New and Improved: no new runways.

At a time when the country needs to be spending taxpayers` money on improving health care and care for the elderly, education, social housing, rail and road transport, and ensuring the less fortunate and low-paid can afford to live with dignity, is it not clear that the whole idea of spending billions on a new runway in London is ludicrous? Whether it can be afforded, whilst new Accident and Emergency centres and new schools can`t, or indeed, whether a new runway is actually needed, appears irrelevant. We are repeatedly informed that massive expenditure on London`s airport capacity is essential to the economy, not only now, but for years to come, but who is feeding us this propaganda? The Heathrow lobby has obviously played a blinder recently, but are we expected to believe that trade deals with emerging countries, or new business contracts, will not take place unless the taxpayer  forks out a hundred billion or so on airport expansion?  Is it true that businessmen cannot use technology like the rest of us, and  Skype their counterparts in Brazil, or video conference potential customers in India? The lack of a third runway, or whatever, does not seem to stop Russian billionaires from buying up property in London, or American bankers manipulating exchange markets in the City, or even foreigh football coaches dominating the premier league.We have already so many incentives for foreign businessmen to work in London, from accountancy firms willing to advise on tax avoidance for around 8% of the amount not paid to the Treasury, and scams like "patent box" which mean their company will only pay 5% corporate tax, to even having a chancellor fighting their cause in Brussels against having to pay a financial transaction tax.They don`t even have to pay a "mansion" tax on their London homes! Is the prospect of less time spent circling London in the air, or two extra flights to Vietnam a week, really going to attract more foreign businessmen, or improve the country`s balance of payments?

      It seems clear that, yet again this government, so "committed to transparency" it tells us, is being influenced by lobbyists focusing on their bonuses, rather than what is best for the country, and the result is the rich benefit at our expense. Apparently 80% of London`s air passengers have no connection with business, but this fact is never discussed; who knew, whilst Heathrow is heavily committed to the UK and European short-haul market, Gatwick airport is seriously under-used?

     An obvious solution, which is far cheaper than any proposed so far, is to divert the short-haul traffic to Gatwick, and free up space for Heathrow to concentrate on expanding business flights to Asian and South American destinations. It would free up government cash,and enable taxpayers` money to be spent on resources benefitting the people who need help most. However, that`s exactly why this idea will not even be on the table.It wouldn`t enable Johnson to gloat over his London achievements, or Cameron to boast about this particular "vanity project", with HS2 being the other, similarly in need of serious revision for many of the same reasons.

    Infrastructure does need government investment, but not on schemes promoted by lobbyists, which only benefit small sections of our society, nearly always the very rich; not on ones, either, which add to, rather than reduce, pollution problems. That other proposal, the one to build a new northwest runway at Heathrow, does have one thing going for it; it would take planes over Eton, making the school almost uninhabitable!

 

 

 

Food Banks and Labour policy

Luciana Berger is right to state " food banks" must not become normalised and part of our culture, and should go the "same way as Poor Law Guardians and the workhouse". She is also correct in saying they bring shame to this country, "one of the richest countries on earth". This last phrase we never hear from fat-cat Tory MPs, no doubt under strict orders not to undermine the so-called reasons for the government`s policies to enforce increased poverty on the majority of people, whilst shrinking the state to levels unprecedented in modern times. However, we do hear it admitted by many Labour MPs, like Ms Berger, so why don`t the Opposition`s policies reflect this view?

     The adoption of a few of the policies below would do wonders for Labour`s popularity, as they would help to ensure a fairer distribution of the country`s wealth, and enable the next Labour government to forget all ideas of continuing Tory-like austerity measures:

    support for a financial transaction tax

    a sliding scale of income tax, going up to 60-70% for earnings over £200000

    a bonus tax of at least 75%

    tax havens on British territory to be ended, a policy of total transparency adopted, and tax evaders made to pay up, or face imprisonment

    tax avoidance to be ended, by the re-appointment of the thousands who have lost their HMRC jobs under the coalition.and by the refusal to grant government contracts to companies known not to be paying their fair share. Individual tax avoiders similarly to be refused permission to work for the BBC and government departments, or to represent Britain in any capacity; the slogan here could be "no representation without taxation"! No honours to be granted to tax avoiders, and all previous honours to be returned.

    introduce VAT or a similar tax on all advertisement in the media, totally refundable at the end of the tax year, when corporation tax has been calculated, and the right amount paid, with no exploitation of loopholes etc.

   adopt a policy of total transparency with regard to MPs and candidates; all business connections, other jobs, tax records etc to be made public, prior to elections.

   end support for the replacement of Trident, and for HS2 and airport expansion in London.

 

Milband said when elected that Labour would be different under his leadership. Well, better late than never! The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act set up workhouses which were to last well into the 20th century, and Labour must ensure their longevity is not emulated by food banks. A change in culture is needed, but it is not as though the country cannot afford it!

 

       

More runways needed?

At a time when the country needs to be spending taxpayers` money on improving health care, education, care for the elderly, education, social housing, rail and road transport, and ensuring the less fortunate and low-paid can afford to live with dignity, is it not clear that the whole idea of spending billions on a new runway in London is ludicrous? The Heathrow lobby has obviously played a blinder; who knew 80% of London`s air passengers have no connection with business? Who knew, whilst Heathrow is heavily committed to the UK and European short-haul market, Gatwick airport is seriously under-used?

 The solution must be to divert the short-haul traffic to Gatwick, and free up space for Heathrow to concentrate on expanding business flights to Asian and South American destinations, although why businessmen cannot use technology like the rest of us is beyond me. Have they not tried skyping their counterparts in Brazil, or video conferencing potential customers in India? Yet again this government, so "committed to transparency" it tells us, is being influenced by lobbyists focusing on their bonuses, rather than what is best for the country, and the result is the rich benefit at our expense. Where have we heard that before?

The only thing going for that new northwest runway at Heathrow is that it would take planes over Eton, making the school almost uninhabitable, but sadly, for that very reason, it has no chance of ever being built!

Concerns over Cameron`s vocabulary

Another day, another example of Cameron`s duplicity. Is there no end to this government`s deception and ingenuity? For years we`ve been inundated with the Tory propaganda machine, aided and abetted by their loyal Lib Dem poodles, repeatedly bleating about Labour being the reason for the 2008 financial crisis. Then we were forced to listen to Gove`s nonsense about the examination system somehow failing pupils, and causing us to lose the global race, whatever that is. Next up, the claim to support the "hard-working strivers", even though paying a living wage and ending zero-hours contracts appear beyond them. This week, Archbishop Nichols exposed the sham that is the government`s claim that families are the bedrock of society, whilst breaking up, on their own admission, 17,800 of them with their inhumane immigration law, which they stealthily passed through parliament just before the summer recess Today we are expected to believe that the war in Afghanistan has been won, despite the fact that the enemy, the Taliban, are thriving in Pakistan, and will return as soon as Nato troops leave, It seems there are another two words, to be added to "tax avoidance", "social mobility",and "equality of opportunity", whose meaning is beyond the Oxbridge posh boys."Mission accomplished"seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

Duplicity + inhumanity= our government

The duplicity of this government continues unabated. Whilst there are more working people classed as living in poverty than unemployed, the coalition has the audacity to claim they represent the interests of the "hard-working strivers". Presumably, outsourced cleaners with three jobs, and carers making over 20 calls a day, need to "strive" harder? However, whether "toil for scant reward" should be the "great issue of the day" is questionable, simply because there are so many contenders for this description. The "launching of a stealthy assault on low-earners" in this month`s Autumn Statement, with more reductions in universal credit is simply appalling, and Lib Dem support for it should ensure no liberal-minded person ever votes for Clegg and his cronies again.

 More deceit with the government playing  the "fairness card", yet Osborne fights the case against capping bankers` bonuses; they support social mobility, yet end the Education Maintenance Allowance, triple student fees and allow Gove`s examination reforms to pave the way for a two-tiered system of education.

   Yet more with Cameron and Clegg competing with each other to be the families` champion, and giving unnecessary tax relief to married couples to encourage "family values", they disgracefully rush through at the end of the parliamentary year a policy which, on their own admission, will split up 17,800 families. Well done, Archbishop Nichols, for raising concerns about these new immigration rules. Spouses being refused entry, or being deported because their partner does not earn £18,600, is wrong on so many moral and social accounts,and it is not enough for Yvette Cooper to call for a "swift review". Labour should be more pro-active on the issue, demanding figures of families broken up so far, asking questions at PMQs, and demanding a Commons debate. Of course, as the Archbishop admits, "concern about levels of immigration is high", but that does not mean inhumane and uncivilised measures have to be taken, or that a duplicitous government, which uses deportation as an electoral tool, should not be defeated,  

Letter to Guardian 14/09/13

Call me old-fashioned, and indeed, "boring", but I found the Rachel Reeves interview on "Newsnight" last week, the most interesting item, not only on the Monday programme, but in the whole week`s output. (MP tells of humiliation at "boring, snoring" jibe,14/09/13) Clearly, I am not the only one who feels that the sincerity she demonstrated, the disgust she has with the coalition`s lack of concern for the poor and less fortunate, and the determination she displayed to improve matters, were heartening, giving us hope that Labour can still come out with the necessary policies to win the next election. Surely it is no coincidence that in the same week as Reeves`s "Newsnight" appearance, we hear of Lib Dems suddenly keen again, as their venerable leader infamously proclaimed last year, to "hardwire fairness" into government policies, with a new concern to "lift living standards for large parts of the workforce"? (Lib Dems to push for minimum wage increase, 14/09/13) Isn`t the purpose of "Newsnight" to inform its audience of current political thinking, and even to stimulate debate? It certainly isn`t to give publicity to a band with a new album in the shops! Reeves should be congratulated for her performance, not least for getting Vince Cable to speak out. Let`s hope Miliband was watching!

Letter not in today`s Observer

Too arrogant to admit his Plan A failed to encourage private investment to stimulate the economy, too proud to confess that reducing the income tax rate of his rich associates was a ridiculous waste of fiscal potential, and that the Leffer curve is a myth devised by right-wing economists, Osborne now has to gamble. Will Hutton is right to state that a "jihad against government" and taking "government consumption" back to 1948 levels is the chancellor`s cunning plan for electoral victory, as he is assuming the welfare state is "held in the same contempt" by the "hard-working" people as it is by the Tory party.(Osborne wants to take us back to 1948. Time to look forward instead,08/12/13) Not that it comes as a surprise. Cameron, at the Lord Mayor`s banquet, made the same speech minus the figures, admitting that he has no intention of "resuming spending once the structural deficit" has been removed. This should provide a wonderful opportunity for Labour, as both Tory speeches illustrate not only the difference between their ideologies, but also the duplicity of this Tory-dominated coalition, whose "economy with the truth" is approaching legendary status; didn`t Cameron insist in 2010 that the cuts were out of necessity, rather than "some ideological zeal"?

        Although the return of Blarites into the election fold does not appear, at first sight, to be encouraging,(Secret memo shows key role for Blairites in election team,08/12/13) Labour should exploit the fact that the Tory aim of "a leaner, more efficient state" will take the country further back to the days of laissez-faire, when the weakest in society were exploited, rather than protected by a welfare state; regulating the power of the banks, energy companies and the like is essential in today`s society. The rights gained by the working people in the twentieth century to equality of opportunity in education, free healthcare, collective bargaining and employment, social housing and all the benefits provided in a fair civilisation, will not exist in Cameronland, and Miliband, Balls and the rest need to say it, again and again. Failure to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.

       Improved ratings in the opinion polls since making the promise to freeze energy prices should signify to Miliband that Osborne has seriously misjudged the situation, and that bold policies like challenging tax avoiders,bankers` bonuses and profiteering companies, are the ones "to capture the popular mood" of an electorate, increasingly disenchanted by expense-claiming politicians and greed-obsessed, irresponsible capitalists. Wouldn`t most voters prefer to see from Labour pledges to increase regulation, make taxation fairer and to retain public-owned assets like the East Coast line, rather than hear yet more about free schools and policies generally too Tory-like for their own good? Disillusionment with politics often increases when parties and policies resemble each other too closely, and the recent statements by Tory leaders provide an ideal opening for Labour; the power of the state does need to be utilised for the good of all its citizens, and not for the benefit of the City`s financial institutions, which is clearly the Tories` preferred option!

 

 

Berni 

change in bonus plans

The chancellor will no doubt be pleased; after all his efforts to launch legal challenges to the EU`s bonus cap, the decision to change the definition of the group of bankers, subject to the limitation to 100% of salary, will allow the return of bonuses the size of lottery wins, for people doing work that is often described as "socially useless". The fact that a partner in one of the Big Four accounting firms, the ones that make money advising firms and individuals on how to avoid paying their fair share of tax, thinks that "these are sensible changes to the rules", not only illustrates how government and City really "are in it together", but also how nothing has been learned since bankers` greed led to the 2008 crash. The risk culture remains, along with government guarantees to use taxpayers` money to support them, if things go wrong.

  Of course, there can be no moral justification for our bonus culture, especially when "millions are still suffering the costs of the economic crisis"; it leads inevitably to a widening of the rich-poor gap, increased house prices with knock-on effects making it impossible for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder,and risks the stability of the economy. Therefore it cannot be correct for our governments to be in cahoots with such financial institutions, especially as their scams have continued unabated since 2008. Mis-selling insurance, fixing Libor rates, laundering Mexican drug money, manipulating foreign exchange markets, breaching sanctions against Iran and Cuba, the list seems endless, whilst failing to kickstart the economy with £375bn of quantitative easing, and CEOs mouthing inanities like "putting ethics above earnings", as Jenkins of Barclays said, all demand action from a political party. Support for a Tobin-like tax is essential, and a proposal from Labour for a nationalised bank in which we can trust, one where profit is not the sole motive, and where excess profits could be earmarked for spending on the NHS, for example. would have the additional electoral benefit for them of dissociating the party from the City. It would make the necessary statement that Labour is fundamentally different from the Tories. Also, it would provide the "competitor" bank the high street needs, and by attracting customers away from the established banks, force them to mend their ways, and start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values and principles, rather than with appetites for obscene wealth.

 

Cameron`s other black book

This is a response to a story that Cameron has a black book with all the examples of Lib Dem blocking Tory policies.

Of course, an alternative version of Cameron`s black book would include such entries as: Lib Dems agree to our austerity plans. Can`t believe it, thought they were liberals;

Clegg can`t see that Gove`s examination reforms will lead to a two-tier system of education. That`s the whole point, the return of grammar schools. He even supported the student fees hike and the end of the Education Maintenance Grant. What`s he like? May as well go ahead with plans to privatise the NHS.

 OMG they`ve even agreed to reducing the top tax to 45%. Can`t believe it. It`s now 2012 and Clegg has just realised  we should "hardwire more fairness into our policies"; bit late for that! Let`s go ahead with plans for a Bedroom tax.

Time to `fess up and prepare for 2015. I`ll admit spending wouldn`t change, even if there was no financial problem, and Ozzy`s Autumn Statement will shrink the state back to 1948 levels.Time to go for that Tory majority and make our differences with the Lib Dems more obvious. What? They`ve even agreed to that? Next thing, Clegg will be wanting to "cross the floor".

Coming to the end of 2013 and Scottie Alexander says his party aren`t "lurching to the right". What on earth have they been supporting us for nearly four years for then?

If indeed such a book existed, it`s clear it would be a lot thicker than the other one Andrew Grice imagined on Friday! Perhaps Labour leaders should be writing it?

letter about grammar schools

Roger Rowe`s views of grammar schools must be challenged, if not repudiated. (Letters, 13/12/13) Of course, he was "given an opportunity", but how many were denied one, and instead, given an education in a secondary modern, because a test at the age of 11 had designated them as having no potential. In comprehensive schools, created in the knowledge that students` intelligence and potential continue to develop after 11, all pupils get an "opportunity".He also says that poor examination results were "not the fault of the schools". Really? In my two-form entry grammar, half were immediately written off and put into the B stream, where the teachers were even less enthusiastic, the subjects, naturally, "less academic", and the results disappointing or worse.

 The sudden laudation of grammar schools is to be expected because it is increasingly being realised that their return is the whole point of Gove`s examination reforms; schools with only 20% of their pupils capable of examination success will be forced to adopt less rigorous curricula, whilst schools with 80% will force out the minority so they can concentrate on topping spurious league tables. Disappointingly, the penny has yet to drop in all political circles, hardly surprising perhaps, when so few of our opposition politicians are able to respond to such Tory propaganda as propounded in this letter, largely because of their education in private schools.

 As for Martin Kettle`s nonsense about "the most memorable teachers" only being employed in private schools, don`t even get me started!

Whatever next?

Whatever next? A government minister has actually suggested that a company, Domino`s,  should offer better pay, in order to avoid the failure of job vacancies being filled by local workers. Can we now expect some further ideas for businesses from the coalition, like perhaps, to treat all employees with respect, regardless of gender and race, develop skilled apprenticeship schemes, encourage collective bargaining, allow workers` representatives on boards, and even pay the living wage? It`s called responsible capitalism, but sadly, like social mobility, equality of opportunity, progressive taxation, ending tax avoidance and evasion, and regulation of the City, it is not something this government takes seriously. We can only hope that Labour does, but with the news last weekend that Blairites are being invited to play a part in election strategy, yet again, we are not holding our breath!

Lib Dems lurching to oblivion!

 Yet more ingenuity from the Lib Dems, with Alexander denying his party have moved to the right. Coming from a Lib Dem coalition minister who has supported  a government, probably to the right of  Thatcher`s administration, in all of its efforts to impose legalised poverty on the majority of British people, the statement that his party is not "lurching to the right" takes some beating! So Clegg and his cronies do not agree with Osborne, who in the Autumn Statement, committed government spending levels by 2018 to be proportionally similar to those of 1948? They disagree, too, with Cameron, who, in the lord mayor`s banquet, stated that he has no intention of "resuming spending once the structural deficit" has been removed, and that his aim is a "leaner, more efficient state"? Back we go then, to the days of 19th century laissez-faire, workers` exploitation and the rich getting richer? Of course they agree, just like they agreed with Gove`s examination reforms, though they couldn`t see that, apart from personal ambition, the education secretary`s aim is the return of grammar schools and a two-tiered system, something Lib Dems are meant to be opposing!

They expect us to believe their role in the coalition has been to rein in extreme Tory measures; what do they take us for? If there is any political justice, the 2015 election will bring an end to this nonsense, and an end to the careers of unprincipled politicians, whose "economy with the truth" is reaching legendary status. A "lurch" into political oblivion would be a very apt and deserved conclusion!

 

MPs giving value for money?

The rise in MPs` pay is wrong on so many accounts, one can only wonder at the crass stupidity of Ipsa`s decision, a verdict given not only because of the decision itself, but because the chairman of the watchdog, Sir Ian Kennedy, actually said that politicians` pay had been suppressed for too long, and that it was "wrong in itself" to do so! Really? Perhaps we should put that one out to tender!

      Ministers will naturally distance themselves from the increase, very generous of them considering, not only their salaries, roughly £80k on top of their MP pay, but also their private wealth.They are not called the "cabinet of multi-millionaires" for nothing! Some MPs, of course, will not dare accept the rise, knowing full well that, as their decisions and legislation have caused widespread poverty, a huge increase in the use of food banks, and now the opening of "social supermarkets", the chance of them being re-elected would be even more remote. However, others will, claiming no doubt such arrogant nonsense as the rise will ensure the entry into parliament of people with special qualities, not reliant on private income. Oh please! What about such people who enter the teaching , nursing or caring professions? Presumably, either their special quality is that they can survive on much less than half the income  MPs currently earn, or that MPs have special qualities, but teachers and nurses don`t?

      Which then leads me to consider another point, the one concerning value for money. If laws were being passed to ensure jobs were available, decent pay was fairly distributed,the country`s finances were safe, fair tax was being paid by everyone, the provision of housing, health, welfare, education and security was made for all citizens, in a civised society, there might be some justification for the rise. However, the one thing the coalition does excel at is propaganda, with the result that the nation is convinced that pay rises, even for MPs, "can so obviously not be afforded financially",according to the Observer editorial, at a time when War On Want reckons the tax gap is at least £35bn a year, the top earners are only asked to pay income tax at 45%, and when trillions are squirreled away in British-owned tax havens. If the MPs were sorting that out, a pay rise might well be justified!

 

Labour needs to worry after Autumn Statement

 It is clear that there are huge differences between what Osborne and the rest of his coalition cronies purport to desire, and  their true aims. A fall in unemployment will speed up a rise in interest rates, so making many "mortgages seriously unaffordable", and were this to happen just before the election, even traditional Tory voters may have second thoughts. Government policy will, therefore, not be focusing on job creation, despite claims to the contrary. More ingenuity comes with politicians since 2010 saying how they didn`t enter politics "to make cuts"; this is yet more economy with the truth for if they are Tories, reducing the government`s role in society, and its commitment to health, welfare and education by cutting grants, benefits and jobs, forms a major portion of their political ideology.Labour should be working harder to expose such duplicity!

      There is more work for Labour in the field of taxation; although the "link between economic growth and personal prosperity" may be broken, Osborne is clearly gambling on his tax reforms winning the votes of the "fabled middle classes".The increase in personal allowance means that, since becoming chancellor, he has increased the "number of 40% taxpayers from three million to nearly four million". Whilst most of these will undoubtedly be worse off financially as a consequence of coalition policies, there is something of a feel-good factor associated with attaining this "career milestone", and this could still persuade many voters to keep faith with the Tories. What is even more worrying for Labour is that the resulting increased revenue from income tax will enable the Tories to "bribe" voters in 2104, with perhaps pledges to increase the minimum wage or employ thousands more nurses, populist policies aimed at increasing "fairness", which Labour should have promised months ago.

 The Autumn Statement was clearly more political than economic, and could yet prove a decisive factor in the 2015 election result. The Tories may be taking government and education back to the 1940s, but until voters can be sure Labour would not do the same, the election is still in the balance.

 

Back to the 40s backdated!

 The fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees with the Office for Budget Responsibilty that accelerating the "pace of spending cuts from 2.3% ...to 3.7%" after 2016 will shrink state services back to a level not seen since 1948 works out very conveniently for the Tories. (Osborne`s austerity will leave living standards lower in 2015, say experts,07/12/13)  By then, Gove`s  reforms will have made necessary a two-tier system of education, just like the one we had back in the 1940s; 30% of pupils will be attending academies focusing on academic examinations, and 70% will be attending schools with a more practical curriculum. They probably won`t be calling them "grammar schools" and "secondary moderns" but that is what they`ll be.They might even be providing free milk, as so many would-be recruits for the armed forces will have failed their medical examinations, and the CBI will have started to complain about the increasing number of days lost to sick-leave.

    Apparently, Osborne thinks long-term growth can be achieved by reacapturing the "pioneering spirit" of the industrial revolution era, so this time it`s the 1840s! I`m sure voters can`t wait for the return of workhouses, massive exploitation of workers, poverty pay, trade unions banned by law, non-existent women`s rights and a total disregard for health and safety issues.

     In view of this, "Back to the 40s with the Tories" sounds a sensible Labour election slogan, but it will only have the desired effect if voters can see that Labour won`t take them back there as well!

 

Back to the 40s

How convenient for the Tories! According to the Office for Budget Responsibilty`s figures, the spending cuts over the next six years will "shrink state services back to a level not seen since 1948", and by then, Gove`s  reforms will have made necessary a two-tier system of education, just like the one we had back in the 1940s. 30% of pupils will be attending academies focusing on academic examinations, and 70% will be attending schools with a more practical curriculum. They probably won`t be calling them "grammar schools" and "secondary moderns" but that is what they`ll be.They might even be providing free milk, as so many would-be recruits for the armed forces will have failed their medical examinations, and the CBI will have started to complain about the health of the workforce.

"Back to the 40s with the Tories" sounds a reasonable Labour election slogan, but it will only have the desired effect if voters can see that Labour won`t take them back there as well!

 

No representation without taxation

Tax Avoidance: “No Representation without Taxation” (written a few months ago)

The recent scandals involving major multinationals like Starbucks and Amazon, and celebrities like Carr and Paxman, have brought the attention and concern of the public to the issue of tax avoidance and evasion. According to a recent document published by War on Want, “as much as £20 trillion is now held in secrecy jurisdictions, better known as tax havens. These allow big companies and rich individuals to hide billions away from the prying eyes of the tax collectors. If this money was subject to tax it could generate as much as £180 billion a year in extra revenue”. Now our faith in the current tax system is to be challenged even more, as we learn that the new head of HMRC, replacing the disgraced Hartnett, famous for the so-called “sweetheart” multi-million pound deals with tax avoiding companies like Vodaphone, is likely to be the highly criticised head of UK Border Agency.

       When CEOs of these “giant corporate parasites” employ accounting firms like Deloitte and KPMG to lower their tax payments, are they worried that the end result could well be the closure of rival firms, and thousands losing their jobs? They must know that by paying relatively next to nothing in tax, they are able to undercut the prices offered elsewhere, and ultimately drive others out of business. Amazon, for example, seems to be intent on clearing all highstreets of retail outlets, just as Tesco and the major supermarkets want to see the end of corner-shops, butchers and fruit and veg stores. Such “economic cleansing”, similar to some of London`s councils foisting off their poor inhabitants to more northerly climes, cannot be tolerated.

       What are people who deliberately avoid paying their fair share of tax actually doing? Aren`t they telling the rest of us that the tax laws are for us, and that if we want a better country, with hospitals, roads, schools and all the trimmings of a modern 21<sup>st</sup> century society, we have to pay for it , because they will not? Of course, they want to enjoy the benefits, share the occasional Olympic-type glory, but when it comes to paying their share, they`ve presumably got better things to do with their money.

       When rich individuals set up their own companies, so that income tax can be avoided and the much lower corporate tax be paid, or even better, when they can borrow from the company and pay no tax, as they have not actually earned anything, they lower the amount of money going into the Treasury`s coffers, and make future tax rises more likely, and cuts to hospitals` and schools` budgets more likely. They clearly are not concerned that such avoidance, losing the government billions every year as it does, will inevitably cause job losses, leading to mortgage and rent problems, depression and despair, and driving thousands more children into poverty.

 The government of course, well aware of the electorate`s disgust, has declared war on tax avoiders; businesses that think they can pay no tax in Britain need to "wake up and smell the coffee", David Cameron famously said, whilst Osborne described all avoidance as “morally repugnant”. However, this mere window dressing is a feeble attempt to hide the truth, which is that the Tories have no intention of stopping what Margaret Hodge, in her role as chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has described as an “industry”. Let`s face it, if they invite representatives from KPMG to advise Treasury committees dealing with corporation tax, they are not going to close loopholes; if they introduce their initiatives, like the Patent Box wheeze, which results in some businesses paying as little as 5% corporation tax, they are never going to change the tax culture of the country.

   So what can a government, or in our case, an opposition party, intent on such change, do? How about some transparency for starters? In this age of modern technology it is possible to make available online the tax details of all individuals and corporations, as various Scandinavian countries have done. This would put moral pressure of sorts on to CEOs and individuals to change their ways, as they see their careers and reputations reaching their rightful conclusions. Now that a General Anti-Avoidance Rule appears to be heading for the statute book, one deterrent becomes more obvious: a few prominent businessmen and “celebrities” in court, with all the associated  press coverage, and some hefty fines, and even some prison sentences, could have a chastening effect.

     One other possibility remains: could there be a better time to remind everyone what being a British citizen entails? Why should tax avoiders, who do their utmost to avoid making their proper fiscal contributions, maintain their right to participate in the democratic process? Why should sports people be allowed to represent us if they contribute next to nothing towards the costs of running their country? "No representation without taxation" sounds a good slogan! Should MPs, judges, councillors and such like be allowed to hold public office if they avoid paying their fair share? Should the taxpayers` funded BBC employ "celebrities" who have formed their own companies for one obvious purpose? Should known tax avoiders appear on the Honours list? Should knighthoods and such like be returned by people since discovered to have been fiddling their taxes?

So much could be done, or pledged, by a political party intent on ending the current culture of tax avoidance. They might make a few enemies on the way, but they would be sure to win many more votes! However, don`t hold your breath. In April last year, the Guardian  reported that Cameron promised the tax details of leading Coalition cabinet members would be made public after the May elections. When he failed to do this, Labour`s silence was deafening.

    

Solution to banking malpractice

There has to come a time when enough is enough, and a political party has to commit itself to take action to remedy the situation. It`s not going to be the Tories! Not content with their excessive greed causing the most serious financial disaster for decades, possibly ever, the banks have continued as normal since 2008, but with  added scams like mis-selling insurance to its own customers, avoiding EU imposed bonus caps by increasing salaries by 35%, "colluding to fix interest rate benchmarks", laundering Mexican drug money, and apparently manipulating the foreign currency markets. They also, of course, failed to use the £375bn, given to them through quantitative easing, to lend to businesses and kickstart the economy, clearly much more concerned with the profits for their shareholders and the bonuses for themselves.How can we be expected to believe managers who condemn the behaviour of wrong-doing individuals in their banks, and distance themselves from the crimes, especially as we remember such hollow-sounding commitments  from CEOs as "changing the way we do business" and "putting ethics above earnings", as Jenkins of Barclays famously said?  Fining them every time a misdemeanour is discovered is the current method of dealing with them, and it`s clearly not acting as a deterrent, with the recent fine for RBS equating to "its revenue for five weeks".

Isn`t the answer not just obvious but essential? A proposal from Labour for a nationalised bank in which we can trust, one where profit is not the sole motive, and where excess profits could be earmarked for spending on the NHS, for example. would have the additional electoral benefit for them of dissociating the party from the City, and making the necessary statement that it is fundamentally different from the Tories. Also, it would provide the "competitor" bank the high street needs, and by attracting customers away from the established banks, force them to mend their ways, and start employing people to run their businesses and investments with decent values.

More Tory cuts and more duplicity to follow

Yet more of the country`s assets are to be sold off, no doubt at knock-down price, for one purpose only, an election victory in 2015 for the Tories. (Morning Star,05/12/13) In their desperation to rise in the polls, and fear that Miliband is out-gunning them on the cost of living issue, there is clearly no limit to what they are prepared to promise, and, similarly what their allies in the City are willing to commit themselves to contribute, as long as they get their election result. The Tories might, as Osborne says, get "massive votes of confidence"  from financial institutions; well they would, wouldn`t they, as it is they who win obscene amounts of taxpayers` money for guessing, sorry advising, the best price at which to sell assets already owned by all of the people to some of the people? Whether the, electorate  will believe the Tories again, any more than they would Nick Clegg, is a different matter.

     We can expect more of the same from the Tories in the run-up to the election; selling off public-owned institutions at low prices, so ordinary small investors` votes can be bought with small profits, leaving the City firms to clean up and make vast profits for years to come. Infrastructure spending from this government will be concentrated on the south, as Tories will see no point in investing in areas where the majority will vote Labour, or even not vote at all. Expect, too, lots of blather about reducing unemployment, but Osborne cannot allow it to fall below 700,000 as it would trigger an increase in interest rates, and therefore the mortgage rates of potential voters.

       Labour must beware of Tory duplicity, as Cameron and Osborne can promise to do anything after 2015; if the election is lost, they won`t have to do anything; if they win, Tory strategy, as we know, is to ignore all the pledges made in the manifesto. Just as they have just done, the Tories` first step after the election will be to erase everything they`ve promised off the internet!.Funny how Keynesian policies like designating £375bn for infrastructure is perfectly okay just before the election, but just after such spending is an anathema. Miliband is leaving himself very little time to woo voters, as soon, all of the obviously populist policies will be in the Tories` manifesto! He could start by making pledges relating to the minimum wage, a progressive tax system, rent caps, social housing  and a state-owned bank.

Pisa League tables

On the one hand, the news that British schools have not improved their position in the Pisa league tables will come as no surprise at all to anyone who has read Fiona Miller`s article on the people who advise political parties in their education policies.(Who has all the big ideas?03/12/13) As the majority of advisers, and members of think-tanks, are privately educated with Oxbridge degrees, they are hardly likely to have the knowledge and expertise necessary to come up with ideas to improve the quality of education in our primary and secondary state schools.

On the other hand, the Pisa results are surprising in view of the dramatic improvements in teaching, the increased enthusiasm of the teachers and the huge increase in pupil effort I have witnessed in over forty years of teaching. Perhaps the constant changes to curriculum, the ever changing "best practice" and the importance attached to Ofsted and their criteria for judging schools and teachers, also changing from one year to the next, might have something to do with it? Not to mention, of course, governments which put the blame for just about everything that goes wrong on their watch on the teaching profession, and Secretaries of State who mis-use data to suit their own political ideologies and to advance their political ambitions! 

 

Osborne`s Autumn Statement

Chris Huhne has made some valid points about the Tories` election plan, especially the idea of stealing " Labour`s lollipops" and the need for the chancellor in his Autumn Statement to "deliver growth".However, whilst indeed Osborne`s "tone will not be triumphalist", the real reason will be that the small economic recovery now underway is not the result of his austerity policies; business investment has fallen by 6% this year, exports have not risen and manufacturing output is 9% lower than in 2008. His Plan A failed to kickstart the economy, his Funding for Lending scheme, giving access to banks to very cheap money yet again, on top of the £375bn of quantitative easing, was originally intended to benefit small and medium sized businesses until it was hi-jacked by the greedy buy-to-rent brigade. It lasted so long unchecked because it resulted in low mortgage rates and house price rises, and their hoped-for accompaniment, a pre-election feel-good factor. The truth is the Tories have been banking on no interference from the Bank of England, and the continuation of low interest rates, until the election, so we can expect yet more emphasis on "efficiency", on Thursday, not only to keep the financial sector on board, but because in Tory-speak, this means job losses, and lower unemployment figures would trigger the Bank of England to raise interest rates.

The failure of his policies will not prevent Osborne from claiming otherwise; the Tories` "economy with the truth" is reaching legendary status, and the chancellor, on the trail blazed by Gove, Duncan Smith and Hunt, will conveniently fail to mention the Keynesian aspect of his financial interference. Government action taken to reduce tax avoidance will be lauded, despite the lamentable General Anti-Abuse Rule raising only a fraction of one percent of the £25bn lost annually. Labour should be prepared for all of this, and get their "retaliation in first", making pledges to raise both the minimum wage and tax-free allowance levels, to introduce a progressive system of income tax and a cap on all private rents, with a commission on the rental system to follow. Obfuscation and prevarication must be avoided, as clearly the Autumn Statement`s purpose is electoral rather than economic.

 

Greene King case unbelievable!

How can anyone take this government, and what its leading politicians tell us, seriously? Osborne actually said on the Andrew Marr Show, in response to the ridiculous "greed is good" speech by his rival for the Tory leadership, Johnson, that the goal should be equality of opportunity, not of outcome, and that "you should give everyone, wherever they come from, the best chance". How could he stop himself from smirking as he said it? Within months of coming to power he and his cronies had trebled university fees and got rid of the Educational Maintenance Grant, and in the meantime have passed no legislation whatsoever to increase equality, or decrease the number of privately educated going to the top universities.Instead, they allowed Gove to drive state education back into the middle of the 20th century.

         Remember how Cameron was going to make Starbucks and the rest of the tax avoiding companies "smell the coffee"? How those corporations must have trembled! The chancellor had already voiced his opinion that such practices were "morally repugnant". Who on earth do they think they are kidding? It is clearly all a pretence, window-dressing, to give the appearance to the public that they are doing their utmost, whilst actually deliberately achieving little so that their friends in the City and in the corporation boardrooms, can continue to fleece the rest of us.Tax experts are already criticising the government`s General Anti-Abuse Rule as it is only likely to raise less than a percentage point of the estimated £25bn avoided in tax every year. (Morning Star,02/12/13)They have done next to nothing about tax havens where trillions are squirrelled away, rather than paid to the Treasury; the British Overseas Territories, according to War on Want, together "rank as the most significant tax haven in the world, ahead of even Switzerland. The reality is that there is no income tax, corporation tax, sales tax, wealth tax or any other direct tax in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands account for 40% of the world`s offshore companies, and Bermuda remains Google`s favourite tax haven".

         The focus now is on Greene King, whose tax avoidance schemes have been described by Tory MP Richard Bacon, no less, as "purely artificial", in their attempts to get their appeal against HMRC upheld; the scheme was bought from Ernst and Young for 8% of the tax saved, and was marketed as "Project Sussex".The fact that Ernst and Young, one of the "Big Four" audit firms, along with Deloitte, Price Waterhouse and KPMG, is allowed to "market" such devices and be paid according to the amount of tax avoided, is deplorable,and in any decent civilisation would be illegal, but there`s worse! The success of the scam depended, according to the QC representing HMRC, on "certain accounting treatments", (Guardian,02/12/13) and Greene King`s accounts were signed off by auditors from, you`ve guessed it, Ernst and Young!

It`s well documented that representatives from this so-called "Big Four" sit on Treasury committees advising on ways businesses can be lured into Britain by schemes such as the "patent box" scam, which result in lower corporation tax being paid, often as low as 5% instead of the required 23%.

       There will be inevitably more of the Tories` "economy with the truth" during this week`s Autumn Statement, how the austerity policies have led to economic recovery, and how tax avoiders are having all looopholes closed, so that fairness and transparency can be restored to their previous dominant positions.Oh yes, and there will be smirking galore!

 

Israel not alone in hypocrisy stakes

John Wight, in his excellent article, was correct to stress the hypocrisy of Israel (Morning Star,28/11/13), with the denial of the same rights it enjoys to its neighbours, and its obvious feeling of superiority over them, leading it to become the "greatest cause of instability in the region". However, can we not expect hypocrisy from our political leaders when the centenary commemorations for the start of World War One begin next year?

       Israel`s insistence that no other rival country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons, and that Syria expose its haul of chemical weapons to international inspectors, could have its parallels in the shape of Britain`s denial of any other country`s right to have a navy anywhere near as powerful as hers; the Tirpitz Navy Laws of 1898 caused Britain no problems until they included the construction of Dreadnoughts for the German navy. These were the early 20th century equivalent of nuclear weapons, battleships so powerful all others were rendered obsolete, and as long as the Brish navy was the only one with them, there was no problem. What followed, of course, was the famous naval race, which hugely contributed to the increased tension and rivalry between the two countries. It certainly brought out the worst in much of the British press, which saw Germany as a "barbaric" enemy, for having the nerve to want the same power at sea as Britannia. The cost of constantly building more ships rose to Trident-like proportions, at a time when the majority of the population lived in poverty.How much of this will be commemorated next year, or will the bulk of the celebratory material be conveniently focused on the Sarajevo assassination and the Balkan conflict? It`s hard to imagine that much attention will be paid to the role of this arms race, and the inevitable hatred brewed by the gutter press in the minds of the young men who volunteered in their thousands, gullibly believing the government when it proclaimed the war would be over by Christmas.

  Similarly, of course, the fact that an empire, gained largely by superior weaponry and an enthusiastic attitude to its usage, gave Britain a huge superiority when it came to trade, raw materials and cheap labour, can be likened to Israel`s encroachment of Palestinian land, which Jimmy Carter sees as "the primary obstacle" to peace.When other nations challenge the right to exploit land which doesn`t belong to them, protests are ignored, and when other countries copy, they are seen as threatening and have to be discouraged. So it was with France first, and then after the Entente Cordiale, with Germany,whose desire for a "place in the sun", like Britain`s, was greeted with horror. Will Britain`s alarmist approach to Germany, because she had imperial ambitions too similar for comfort, be remembered next year, as a major factor leading to the massive slaughter of innocents known as the First World War, or is it on a list of historical facts needing to be replaced?

   Israel rightly deserves to be described as "hypocritical", but she`s far from alone!

Smirking George

What an inspired piece of editing, to have the smirking George Osborne on the same page as the news about the bankers` 35% increases. As if the news wasn`t sickening enough!! Osborne`s friends in the City with their obscene pay rises might possibly think him preferable to the embarrassing Johnson as future Tory leader. After all, he has tried to get the EU bonus cap declared illegal, done next to nothing about their tax avoidance and evasion, and sent none of them to prison for their scams, interest rate fixing, money laundering and mis-selling, whilst at the same time selling them valuable taxpayer-owned assets at ridiculously low prices, and cutting public sector jobs. The fact that his Plan A failed to kickstart the economy, and that his Funding for Lending schemes have had to be reined in by the Bank of England as there was so little being lent to small businesses and house prices were beginning to soar, matter little.What is important is British workers are saying they "are just happy to have a job", even if it`s on a zero hours contract or paid with the measly minimum wage; of course we have a form of "economic apartheid", as we race to the bottom in our efforts to compete in Cameron`s "global race".Cleaners need three jobs to make ends meet, and wonderful carers have to travel between their often 20+ calls a day without pay, many relying on food banks to survive, but employers escape punishment for paying rates below the legal minimum. The Low Pay Commission meet in January and their job should be easy: all employees to be paid the "living wage", inflation-indexed, and any employer failing to obey the law to face criminal prosecution, but, of course, Labour should be committed to delivering all of these already.Failure on their part to do so should be seen as a dereliction of their duty; if their leader doesn`t see that, he`s in the wrong job!

Clegg still digging

Cameron and Osborne resort to U-turns and personal attacks when they know they face a real possibility of election defeat,but they can`t hold a candle to Clegg in his efforts to stave off electoral humiliation. Not content in digging a hole for himself with his attempts to defend the honour of politicians in the wake of criticism from Paxman, he now has the temerity to front the coalition`s attack on Johnson for his "greed is good" speech, Cameron`s patsy to the last. He attacks Johnson for suggesting "we should give up on a whole swath of fellow citizens", without seeming to realise that is exactly what he and his coalition colleagues did by giving their support to Gove`s examination changes, which in the long term will lead to a two-tier system of education! It`s hard to believe the Deputy Prime Minister has not heard of the inferior education provided in the old secondary moderns, hardly centres of  a "culture of opportunity and aspiration",which he pretends to favour, but this is the same man who, after three years of being in  government, declared it was time to "hardwire fairness" into policies! He continues to talk as if the inequality this government has increased and encouraged has nothing to do with him; supporting the living wage is all very well but has he instigated any policy to make it compulsory? "Greed", he says, "brought a banking collapse and misery and hardship", yet for three and a half years he`s joined in with the Tory propaganda blaming the Labour government`s spending and borrowing for causing the problems. That hole gets deeper by the day!