Just because Theresa May stated in her initial
speech as prime minister that she was in favour of tackling the acute problems
of social mobility and British capitalism, does not mean that the message has to
be believed, especially by the Guardian. Your editorial claims that she "sees the value of intervention" and
supports an "activist industrial strategy", but her actions suggest otherwise
(Nudges and requests will fail: it`s time to force change, 20/08/16). The fact
that May has, as Sarah Woolaston says, chosen to put the interests of the
advertising industry "ahead of the interests of children" does not augur well
for the future, and strongly intimates that laissez-faire policies will continue
to dominate, at a time when the situation demands regulation (Theresa May`s
climbdown on obesity is her first big error,20/08/16).
"Kenneth Clarke on the Tory side and Margaret
Beckett on Labour`s" may well "stand out as veterans these days", but their most
recent contributions to political debate do not actually support the argument
for more experience "on the green benches of Westminster" (A place for the
grey-haired on Westminster`s green benches,22/08/16). Beckett attributed the
huge rise in Labour membership, recently, to the desire of young people to join
Jeremy Corbyn`s fan-club, whilst Clarke`s sexist analysis of the qualities of
female politicians is far more likely to appear on tee-shirts than in the pages
of PhD students` political theses!
Your editorial concludes by stating that the likes
of George Osborne should stay on, because "they have much to contribute", but
most constituents would prefer their MPs totally devoted to representing them in
parliament, rather than to amassing obscene amounts of money, by making
after-dinner speeches in America.
The news that the "multibillion-pound industry",
which "provides advice on aggressive tax avoidance", could face financial
penalties in the future is encouraging , but hardly before time (Tax advisers
face heavy fines over avoidance,17/08/16). Can we have assurances that
representatives of "the big four accountancy firms" no longer are allowed to sit
on treasury tax committees, thereby gaining first hand knowledge of fiscal
policy details and regulations to utilise later in their avoidance schemes,
something apparently known as regulatory arbitrage?
An end to rewarding these firms constantly with
extremely lucrative government contracts, and their partners with peerages,
knighthoods and other accolades, would be welcomed also. It is worth remembering
that not one of the Big 4 has been investigated about their obviously
questionable audits of the banks, prior to the 2008 financial crash; they have
been protected by their friends at Westminster for far too long!
No comments:
Post a Comment