Infantile Expansionary Contraction?

Democracy is about elections and we might not always like how people cast their votes but to dismiss their choices as “infantile” strikes me as high-handed — and in the case of the elections recently in Europe mistaken.

In the wake of the elections in four European countries – the UK, France, Italy and Greece — many Conservative commentators have been on their high horse. Of course, on the left their counterparts have been on braying form when some humility may have been in order, after all traditional left parties also bear a fair share of responsibility for the debt disaster that’s struck Europe.

As far as many Conservative commentators are concerned the narrative is this: Europeans displayed an astonishing lack of adult seriousness by either voting for fringe parties as in Italy or Greece or for the traditional left in France and the UK. By voting the way they did they displayed “wishful thinking” and ignored economic realities. Only by backing parties that are supportive of German-dictated austerity would they have shown they were serious.

And the fringe leaders are all lumped together regardless.

Anne Applebaum writing in Slate Magazine, for instance, argues that the fringe parties are “anti-European, anti-globalization, and anti-immigration. Their leaders, in the words of a French friend, want to ‘withdraw from the world.’”

And she added: “Above all, they are anti-austerity: They hate the budget cuts that they believe were imposed on their national governments by outsiders in the international bond market and by their own membership in the euro currency zone. Never mind that those same national governments had created the need for austerity by overspending and over-borrowing, or in some cases—most notably Greece—by funding vast, unaffordable and corrupt state bureaucracies over many decades.”

Well, the budget cuts were in a sense imposed by outsiders and in Italy and Greece the parties most responsible for over-spending and over-borrowing were the hardest hit in the elections – in Greece the two mainstream parties that have dominated politics there for the last 35 years, and in Italy the center-right parties that were in the coalition governments of Silvio Berlusconi.

In the UK, the local elections success of Labor, the party responsible for the country’s economic mess, can partly be put down to a series of poor decisions and cock-ups by the coalition government and to a general feeling in the country that “we aren’t all it together”.

In Italy and Greece, voters turned to fringe parties to express their distrust of the center. The traditional left did well in Italy but not as well as it should have given the circumstances. It didn’t do so because of the scandals that have hit some prominent leftwing politicians.

And it isn’t clear to me that Italian voters who backed the movement of Beppe Grillo, the comic-turned-blogger activist, were expressing anti-European, anti-globalization or anti-immigration positions.

True, Grillo wants Italy to drop the euro and re-introduce the lira, but is that what was uppermost in the mind of voters when they backed the comedian’s Cinque Stella movement? Of the more the more than 20 people who voted for Cinque Stella who I have spoken with in the last few days not one of them mentioned dropping the euro as Italy’s currency. Nor are any of them anti-immigrant and none of them were anti-European.

They say they voted for Cinque Stella to record a protest against many things – from the corruption of the mainstream parties of both the center left and center right to Silvio Berlusconi’s disastrous stewardship of the country and to the fat-cat Italian parliamentarians, the highest paid lawmakers in Europe.

And none of them were that critical of caretaker premier Mario Monti or his efforts to reduce the public debt or implement structural reform, including changes that would open up the country’s rigid labor market.

Monti’s government is a technocratic one and he and his government were not standing in the local elections. Interestingly, despite the pain Monti is causing people with cuts, reductions in pensions, etc, he has high popularity ratings in the opinion polls of more than 50 percent.

While all of my Cinque Stella voters had questions about austerity and the cuts – from the timing of them to where the cuts are being applied – they all accepted that Italy has to reduce its public debt, improve competitiveness and cutback on the country’s bloated public sector.

And why in the world would they vote for Berlusconi’s party or the Northern League, his onetime coalition partners, when they accept change has to take place?

After all Berlusconi implemented scant reform when he had the opportunity to do so and under his rule, Italy grew at an anemic annual rate of one third of 1 per cent and dropped further down league tables for economic freedom and competitiveness and media freedom. Under Berlusconi, there was a resurgence of the Mafia and increased public corruption. During his tenure his coalition partners approved 18 pieces of legislation that sought to protect his own personal business interests and to provide him with legal immunity for wrongdoing. Is that center-right record one that deserved to be rewarded? Would the voters in Italy have shown more adult seriousness by voting for the center-right?

Brendan O’Neill writing in Spiked in an article headlined “Posturing against austerity: an infantile disorder” strikes the same kind of notes as Applebaum, first misunderstanding that the Grillo vote was a protest one and not one aimed at the Monti government and then arguing that elsewhere the leftwing groups that made electoral gains are driven by a desire to avoid reality.

He wrote: “The alarming thing about Hollande and Alexis Tsipras, the comparatively youthful leader of Greece’s Coalition of the Radical Left, is that they are being treated seriously despite the fact that they, too, are a bit of a joke, a comedic interlude in mainstream politics who offer little, if anything, in the way of an alternative.”

Pairing Hollande with Tsipras seems a tad odd. The latter is far to the left of Hollande and has declared the recovery blueprint approved by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as “null and void” while the new French President has talked only of renegotiating the EU fiscal compact his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, signed.

Hollande is an experienced and mainstream politician and arguably his vagueness during the election campaign on the details of what he would do in office is a reflection of political wisdom – he has avoided over-selling presumably in order to try to lower the expectations of his supporters. He has given himself room for maneuver. He has committed to balancing government spending and borrowing by 2017, avoided making commitments to increase public sector employment beyond education and even with his pledge to hire 60,000 additional teachers he has stressed that this will not be done overnight.

In short, it strikes me that voters on the whole in Italy, Greece and France turned to what they had on hand to punish the mainstream parties responsible for the economic mess while at the same time registering as best they could their opinion that the current approach to dealing with the crisis isn’t working. Is that infantile posturing?

Of course, the voters aren’t alone in being critical of the current austerity tactic. They have plenty of fellow-conspirators – to name a few, the International Monetary Fund; the Italian Premier; the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi; the Financial Times economics columnist Martin Wolf; and The Economist magazine – hardly a bunch of leftwing or fringe loonies. They all argue for blending public debt reduction with growth measures.

Take what The Economist wrote in last week’s edition. “Germany will find itself isolated. It has pushed austerity too far and too fast. The myth of an expansionary fiscal contraction, the idea that deficit cutting would boost growth, has been largely dispelled. The latest evidence is that in a downturn the multiplier effect of fiscal tightening can lead to a deeper recession, making it even harder to cut the deficit.”

Or consider what Martin Wolf wrote in a column this week. “The fact that the policy for dealing with it (the crisis) has been such a disaster – sending unemployment figures through the roof and magically increasing budget deficits – only hastens the final act of this drama: the possibility that Greece will default, leave the euro and increase the contagion in Spain and Italy.”

Wolf argues that German Chancellor Angela Merkel will have little choice but to agree to some changes to the fiscal compact and to soften austerity in its current form. “Whether it is renegotiated, modified or supplemented with a growth pact is a matter of words.” And she has little choice not only because the economic realities demand it but the voters fired a warning shot.

 

 

 

 

 


A Labour Breakthrough?

Britain’s Labour Party made big gains yesterday in the local government elections and today party activists are celebrating what they see as a breakthrough for leader Ed Milliband.

And there is much to celebrate for them. Not all results are in from the elections for 128 English councils, 32 Scottish councils and 21 Welsh councils but it looks like Labour will capture more than 700 council seats from the Conservatives and wind up with 39 percent of the national vote.

More promising for Labour, the party has won control also of councils in the south and east of the country away from their traditional heartlands, places like Exeter, Southampton, Plymouth, Thurrock, Harlow, Norwich and Great Yarmouth.

But is this the breakthrough? It is often a mistake in British politics to project from mid-term local elections and assume the same result can be repeated for the national parliamentary contest.

Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair suffered mid-term local election setbacks as prime ministers before going on to win subsequent general elections. In both cases the defeats of the governing parties were severe.

In 1981, two years after losing office to Thatcher, Labour gained 988 seats, with the Tories losing 1,193. In 1999, William Hague’s Tories gained 1,348 seats and Tony Blair’s Labour Party lost 1,150 seats.

In the national contest turnout is higher as are the stakes. Midterm elections are treated by many voters as an opportunity to grumble (1). By a big margin voters still believe the coalition government’s spending cuts are necessary (by 54 percent to 27 percent according to one recent opinion poll).  But they are allowed to express their dislike of the medicine.

The fight now for Labour and the Conservatives is surely going to be over Liberal Democrat defectors. Which side they swing to could well determine the next general election.

1. Re-reading this posting I think “grumble” is too weak a word for how many Brits feel about their plight now. “Shriek”, I think in hindsight, would have been a more accurate verb.

Boycott Young and Rubicam

Maybe British firms should consider boycotting Young and Rubicam for the New York agency’s role in the provocative 90-second commercial broadcast on the 30th anniversary of the sinking of the Argentine warship, General Belgrano.

The advert was apparently dedicated to the memory of the 649 Argentine servicemen who lost their lives in the 74-day conflict that erupted after the Junta launched an invasion of the Falklands.

There’s nothing wrong in the Argentines honoring their dead. But the advert is menacing, coming as it does at a time when Cristina Kirchner, the Argentine president, has been highly aggressive questioning British sovereignty of the islands. As such the commercial dishonors the lives of the 258 Britons who died in the conflict.

The advert shows Argentine hockey star Fernando Zylberberg running through the streets of Port Stanley in preparation for July’s Olympic Games in London. The commercial’s slogan:  “To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil.” At the end of the spot Zylberberg is seen running up and down a British war memorial.

The British Foreign Office has responded by saying that “the Olympics is about sport and not politics. We are also dismayed at the insensitivity and disrespect demonstrated by the filmmakers in their use of a war memorial in the Falklands as a prop.”

Remember that the war occurred because of a Fascistic Junta’s decision to invade. That Junta was responsible also for a “dirty war” in Argentina that left thousands of opponents, and those just suspected of opposition, dead, missing or maimed physically and emotionally for life.

Recall, too, that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British.

So, is this advert something Young and Rubicam should feel proud of? Is it work they should have agreed to do? Would the agency at another time have agreed to produce a similar commercial for German Fascists arguing that they should have, say, sovereignty over the Sudetenland?

Sleight Of Hand Reporting On Murdoch

The Guardian is running a big story today on how U.S. shareholders are “deeply troubled” by the testimonies provided by Rupert and James Murdoch before the Leveson Inquiry.

“U.S. shareholders are said to be worried that the Murdochs’ testimony this week has raised new questions about the management of the company and posed potential threats to other areas of its media empire,” the report claims.

And then it goes on to quote from a “senior policy analyst with Change To Win (CtW), a U.S. advisory group that works with pension funds with over $200bn in assets.”

According to the analyst, Michael Pryce-Jones, the Murdochs’ testimony raised two immediate concerns for shareholders: the future of the firm’s control of broadcaster BSkyB and the ethics of top management.

I am sure some shareholders are nervous about what is unfolding in the UK vis-à-vis phone hacking, public inquiries and the on-going investigation by broadcast watchdog Ofcom. But are they the immediately relevant shareholders?

The Guardian should have explained who Change To Win is? It isn’t just some kind of neutral advisory group. It was founded in 2006 as the CtW Investment Group and, as the organization explains, it “works with pension funds sponsored by unions affiliated with Change to Win, a federation of unions representing nearly 5.5 million members, to enhance long-term shareholder returns through active ownership.”

The leadership council of the Change To Win federation consists of Joseph Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers; James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters; Geralyn Lutty of the United Food and Commercial Workers; Mary Kay Henry of the Service Employees International Union; Arturo Rodriguez of the United Farm Workers of America; Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees Union; and Tom Woodruff of the Service Employees International Union.

So, I think, we can take it that there is no love lost for Rupert M. from such an organization. Does that mean their views should be discounted? Of course not. If the union pension funds have investments in the Murdoch media empire, they have every right to voice their opinion and concerns. But it would have been more honest journalism for The Guardian to explain exactly who Change To Win is and where they might be coming from.

Of course, if the paper had done so, then the story would have been weakened. Maybe that explains the omission. And also why the report glides over as quickly as it can this bit of contradiction: “Nonetheless News Corp shares rose during the three days of testimony, rising 0.7% to $19.76 on Thursday.”

Hmm. In the end, the only important News Corp. shareholders are the top five in voting terms: the Murdoch family and Rupert Murdoch, who control 39.74 percent of the votes in News Corp.; Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud (7.04 percent); Invesco (1.8 percent); Bank of New York Mellon (1.19 percent); and Taube Hodson Stonex (1.07percent).

 

The Digger And Leveson

Day 2 of media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s testimony before the Leveson Inquiry. What a difference in appearance and manner from last summer when he testified before a House of Commons committee. The Guardian described his Commons testimony in July as a “complex performance of shame, wryness and amnesia.”

I saw something else – a man in shock, and an old man at that who just didn’t look like he was altogther there. Was that an act to garner sympathy and wrong-foot his pursuers? Murdoch-haters would say it was, but I am not so sure.

This time round the wryness is still there and so is the shame but the amnesia seems on the whole to have gone. He looks fitter and much more together. And his frankness is appealing, especially when it comes to his relationships with prime ministers.

And he is utterly right about government regulation of the press when he says the laws as they stand now are “perfectly adequate” but “lack of enforcement” is the problem. Do we really want the political elite to have control of what papers say or more importantly don’t say?

But was he convincing on whether there was or was not a cover-up at senior levels at News International of the phone-hacking scandal? He places all the blame with management at the News of the World. But having worked at News International, I find it hard to believe that James Murdoch and other corporate executives were so in the dark. And if they were, then there was monumental incompetence.

Government Subsidies For Local Newspapers?

Government subsidies for the local press? Government encouraged or supported community media trusts? Of course, my American libertarian friends would throw their hands up in horror at such ideas. But UK Conservative MP Louise Mensch is pushing the government to do such things.

Mensch is worried rightly about the consequences of the decline in the UK of the local press and what it means for local government accountability and democracy. She wants a serious review and is calling on the government to introduce subsidies and tax advantages for local newspapers.

And she has a point about trying to create a level playing field for local newspapers. The country is awash with local Pravda-type propaganda newsheets put out by local authorities and financed by council taxpayers. Local newspapers have to compete also with regional BBC television, again funded by the public.

Britain’s local press is dominated by a handful of newspapers groups — Johnston Press, Newsquest and Northcliffe. And they have been slashing away at their properties. Newsquest’s ownership of the Herald Group in Glasgow has been nothing short of a disaster and both the Glasgow Herald and the Sunday Herald are pain shadows of what they once were. Johnstone has failed to revive the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday. Down south there have staff cuts, papers getting thinner or being shifted from daily publication to weekly.

Of course, in these straitened times the big newspaper groups have suffered dramatic falls in advertising revenue and huge drops in profits. But there has been a marked lack of thought and creativity by managements as well.

Citizen journalism isn’t filling the gap.

So would government subsides bring government control? That doesn’t have to be the case. And there are examples of where it has worked — in Italy for instance.

 

 

Osborne — the Master Strategist?

George Osborne – Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer – is meant to be a fine political strategist, the Conservative’s super-hero, all realist and machine politician. Conservative commentator Tim Montgomerie described him once as the coalition government’s “chief executive”, who not only is masterminding the coalition’s deficit and growth strategy but is overseeing the Conservative’s election strategy, he argued.

In an article in The Times, Montgomerie noted that sources had told him that at roundtable meetings involving senior Conservatives and Liberal Democrats heads rise and look to him” and not Prime Minister David Cameron “when anyone makes a controversial statement.”

Well, if Osborne is the man the Conservatives are relying on to maneuver them into a position to secure a majority at the next election, they may find they are banking on the wrong man.

In the past few weeks, he has managed to anger pensioners and the elderly with his so-called “granny tax” and provoke outrage with his proposal to cap how much money the rich can give to charity. It is to say the least pretty extraordinary to have united the charity world in one huge rebellion – and, of course, all those charities will grouse to all their donors about the meanness of the government. The cap would also seem to have undermined totally Cameron’s Big Idea of the “Great Society.”

As master strategist Osborne has been pushing recently a series of measures and airing proposals that seem to be anything but sure-footed and several seem designed to irritate the hell out of natural Conservative voters, an odd way of going about building an electoral majority.

Even small strategies aimed at wrong-footing the Labour Opposition have backfired – this week his wheeze of suggesting that all Cabinet ministers should reveal their tax details backfired when Labour endorsed the idea to the horror of many Conservative politicians and the Tory press.

As Graeme Archer noted in the Daily Telegraph, before long every candidate for public office will be pressured to disclose their tax arrangements. “No one who builds a business and arranges their tax accordingly will want to face the scrutiny of standing for public office, or the ordure entailed in making money and legally reducing the tax you pay on it,” he writes.

So when will Osborne start losing his reputation of being a master strategist?

 

P.S. Bob

My concern about Bob Diamond’s financial plight is growing. As you know, the CEO of Barclays needed the bank to cover his tax liability incurred when he was forced to relocate to London to take up his duties as chief executive.

Well, that’s not quite the spin the bank is using to explain why it paid the U.K. tax authorities £5.7m on Bob’s behalf. As I explained in the previous post, I am really worried about the tax advice Bob has been getting. That is, if we can trust everything we are being told by Barclays.

Pondering more on Bob’s remuneration package and how he’s being employed by Barclays, it has now dawned on me that Bob is alarmed also about how he’s going to make do when he’s retired and no longer a master of the universe.

How do I arrive at that assumption? According to Barclays they don’t actually employ Bob; he’s just assigned to the bank and is, in fact, employed by a Delaware-based company called Gracechurch Services Corporation, admittedly a subsidiary of the bank. Gracechurch is just lending Bob to Barclays, which is awfully good of them.

The Guardian noted that this assignment agreement “appears overly complicated” but Barclays told the newspaper that it employs a number of its bankers this way to allow them to keep continuity of U.S. benefits, particularly for healthcare.

And that’s when it became clear to me. Bob is concerned about his old age. Well, aren’t we all with the ending of final salary pensions and the financial crash ruining our stock portfolios.

So, as I read it, being employed by a U.S.-based company allows Bob to do a couple of things: 1. Continue paying into U.S. social security and securing a waiver in the U.K. on paying national insurance contributions; and 2. Maintaining his Medicare contributions so that it will be there for him when he retires.

It is nice to know that a master of the universe is hedging his bets, so to speak. No doubt the outcry over the pension given to disgraced banker Fred Goodwin, formerly a “Sir” and top dog at the Royal Bank of Scotland, gave Bob pause for thought and convinced him that he might not have the wherewithal to afford great private health insurance when he’s retired. Yes, better to make sure you will definitely get a full pension from the Feds, about $22,000 at the moment, and be eligible for Medicare.

But even here I am not sure Bob is getting good advice, that is, if Barclays is telling the truth. You see, Bob is almost certainly vested in Medicare already – you only have to work for about ten years in the U.S. to reach that status. And, any payments into the U.K. national insurance program could be counted in as U.S. social security contributions, if he were short of the necessary when it comes to his Fed pension.

Barclays mentioning of health care benefits could mean also that Bob was worried about breaking continuity when it comes to private medical cover. Here an explanation is needed for the Brits. In the U.S. you don’t want any break in private health coverage. If there is a break of more than 60 days, when you come to apply to a new insurer for coverage, then they can write out pre-exisiting conditions.

One key aspect of the Obama health care reform would, of course, change that by stopping health care insurers from rejecting an applicant because of pre-existing conditions or refusing to cover those conditions. That will come into effect in January 2014, if the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the health care reform.

But again the advice to Bob was wrong. Barclays could have gone to a U.S. insurer to secure international coverage for Bob that wouldn’t have broken continuity of coverage. Cigna offers such a policy. Also, Barclays could have gone to BUPA or PPP in the U.K.. Several of their policies are recognized by U.S. insurers and would not have jeopardized coverage continuity in the U.S..

Now, of course, I am basing all of this on taking Barclays at face value. Maybe there is more here than meets the eye – as with Bob’s tax situation.

That aside, Bob has managed to get from me lots of counsel for nothing. And I am not going to ask Bob for a salary or a bonus. But I was wondering if he could pay my taxes for me. They will just be a tiny fraction of what Bob got from Barclays

Bob Diamond Should Phone My Tax Accountant

I am very worried for Barclays’ CEO Bob Diamond. I don’t think he’s securing the best tax advice that’s out there, and would like to recommend my own excellent tax adviser, the Alexandria, Virginia-based Braxton Moncure of Ross & Moncure, the accountant of choice of many journalists, foreign and otherwise, plying their trade in Washington DC.

From what I can see in the current brouhaha that’s erupted in London over Barclays helping Bob out by paying his U.S. taxes, he appears to be oblivious, as does Barclays for that matter, to the double tax agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. that protects anyone – peon like me to a master of the universe like Bob – from having to pay tax on both sides of the Atlantic on the same income.

For those of you who have not followed Diamondgate, let me briefly recap. This week, Barclays revealed that Bob had to make do in 2011 on a mere £17m in pay, shares and perks.

Of course, his compensation package underlined for many the scale of multimillion-pound pay deals still being handed out to top bankers.

But what has triggered even more fury is that Barclays paid £5.7m to cover Diamond’s U.S. tax bill. That disclosure came hot foot on the recent news that Barclays has been mired in a row with HM Revenue and Customs over a couple of tax avoidance schemes that were designed to save the bank about £500m.

The news of Bob’s nice tax perk prompted Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott to remark: “The only tax Barclays pays seems to be for Bob on his bonus.”

And some institutional shareholders – including Standard Life, Aviva and Scottish Widows – are threatening to vote against Diamond’s remuneration package at the bank’s annual general meeting later this month.

Their disapproval has mounted since the Association of British Insurers announced that the package possibly breaches corporate governance codes. The ABI is concerned about the scale of the remuneration package given that Diamond himself acknowledges the bank’s performance last year was “unacceptable”. In February, Barclays reported a three percent fall in profits. The Daily Mail has a nice little graph here showing how Bob has profited while the bank’s share price has tumbled.

And the association suspects that the decision by Barclays to pay UK tax authorities £5.7m on behalf of Diamond may fall foul of their guidelines that companies “should not seek to make changes to any element of executive remuneration to compensate participants for changes in their personal status.” Whether anything comes from shareholder ire, who knows. Last year, the ABI and some institutional shareholders protested at the remuneration packages of top Barclays executives but nothing much came of it.

Bob’s UK tax bill was incurred when he relocated from New York to London on his promotion to CEO in January 2011. The bank has an agreement with Bob to compensate him, if he has to pay tax on the same income twice — in the UK and US.

And this is where it gets all very odd. Why did Bob have to pay tax to both the US and UK on the same income? Since 1975 there has been a double tax agreement between the US and UK to prevent double taxation on income and capital gains. That agreement has been added to over the years and with big changes in 2001.

Presumably, using this treaty Bob did not have to pay any US federal income tax. And that may well have happened. But state taxes are not covered by the double-tax treaty.

Barclays has not been clear about what taxes Bob incurred that required him to pay tax twice on the same income, but it is likely that they were New York state and city taxes. The top New York state tax rate is 8.97% and the New York City rate is 12.62%. Capital gains and dividends are taxed as ordinary income. But long-term capital gains may be taxed differently.

But why was Bob paying these taxes? He relocated in January 2011 – U.S. tax years run in calendar years, unlike the UK, which runs April to April.

Under New York state regulations: An individual is a New York resident if one (1) of two (2) conditions is met: 1) If an individual is ‘domiciled’  in New York, such individual is a New York resident. And domicile is defined thus: “Domicile in general, is the place an individual intends to be his permanent home – the place to which he intends to return whenever he may be absent NYCRR 105.20(d).”

2) “If an individual is not ‘domiciled’ in New York, such individual is a New York resident if s/he both ‘maintains a permanent place of abode for substantially all of the taxable year’ and spends in the aggregate more than 183 days of the taxable year in New York. New York Tax Law § 605(b)(1)(B), New York City Admin Code Section 11-705(b)(1).”

So the questions start to multiply. Did Bob spend more than 183 days in 2011 in New York when he had officially relocated to London?

Why has Bob not made a declaration via an efficient accountant to the New York tax authorities that while he maintains a home in New York he doesn’t consider this to be his permanent home? Hence my urging that Bob speaks with my accountant, Braxton Moncure.

As Bob – a dual UK-US citizen – has not apparently, according to Barclays, claimed non-dom status in the UK, which he could easily do, it would be simple, as long as he is not spending more than 183 days a tax year in New York, to prove that he is no longer domiciled in the Big Apple.

So why hasn’t he done so? And whatever the reason, why should Barclays be paying up when Bob could easily get out of the tax liability? And should a man who can’t seem to navigate efficiently an easy international tax thicket be the CEO of Barclays anyway? Or is there more than meets the eye here?

Phone Braxton, Bob!

 

 

Gorgeous George Is Back

Strong stuff as ever in the Daily Mail today from Max Hastings, extrapolating from George Galloway’s upset victory in the Bradford West by-election to argue that the win reflects not just local Muslim sentiment and dislike for Ed Milliband’s Labour Party but a collapse in trust between voters and the political class.

The YouGov poll from months ago that he cites is indeed alarming. Just 24 per cent of respondents believed MPs are capable of “debating issues of public concern in a sensible and considered way.”  And only 15 per cent saw Parliament as “representing the interests and wishes of people like me.” Barely one-tenth of voters (12 per cent) thought politicians capable of understanding their own daily lives.