Prime Minister David Cameron’s criticism of some of the tax arrangements of some of the rich and shameless as "morally wrong" certainly caught the headlines. Perhaps it can be put down (from a Conservative perspective) to the PM going off on one again. it was certainly a bizarre ‘Conservative’ moment - what’s next Japanese whalers endorsing the virtues of Greenpeace? Certainly from where I have been sat, this side of the bridge, ‘Conservative’ and ‘tax evasion’ have been happily juxtaposed for many years in the public perception.
I noticed that David Cameron appears to have rapidly clammed up, after his unexpected outburst. Perhaps he is now engaged in managed withdrawal (aka ‘retreat’) following his condemnation of celebrity tax avoiders yesterday, no doubt after less than coded warnings from Tory donors that his attacks on Jimmy Carr could open a world of tax avoidance related hurt.
After further thought DC may have decided to cut his losses and keep his head down, certainly the PM has declined to criticise the tax affairs of Take That star Gary Barlow (a recent recipient of a gong), happens to possibly involved in a similar tax evasion scheme to the one Carr used to cut his liabilities. No doubt some pretty senior Tories are fearful that Cameron’s comments could lead to an unwelcome media spotlight on the tax affairs of senior party donors and government (and not doubt former New Labour) ministers.
The Daily Telegraph (no great lover of Cameron admittedly) says that DC under mounting pressure to pay back cheap loans of £1.2 million to the Conservative Party from companies registered in tax havens before the last election. One £250,000 loan apparently came from Juniper Trading (which is registered in the British Virgin Islands). It was given in 2004 at 0.25 per cent below the base rate, to be repaid in 2029. Another £950,000 loan was apparently made by the Medlina Foundation, (based in Liechtenstein), at the base rate plus 1 per cent in the same year. Oops!
Now it does seem a bit rich for the Conservative Party to be taking advantage of loans from offshore firms, while the PM slags of celebrities, for using a tax avoidance scheme in Jersey. Most reasonable people accept (by now) that there is a real need to deal on a global basis with the problem of off-shore companies and those individuals who are actively engaged in tax avoidance, tax evasion and / or money laundering. The problem is that the UK is at the heart of the problem as it has consciously chosen not to regulate some of its crown dependencies.
The scale of the off-shore problem takes your breath away. The Cayman Islands; are currently home to some 12,000 corporations and have a population of 50,000, yet are home to 70% of the planets hedge funds. The British Virgin Islands (population 22,000) is home to 823,502 registered companies. General Electric paid no tax in 2010, yet made a $14.2 billion dollar profit. Barclay's has 181 subsidiaries registered in the Cayman Islands and paid little UK tax on its worldwide profits. The Dirty Digger's News Corp has 152 subsidiaries in tax havens across the planet (according to the US Government) and paid no UK corporation tax between 1998 and 1999.
US President Obama was absolutely right to suggest that the governments of the world should jointly tackle the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. The US President was spot on, if we actually tackled the tax havens, the tax avoidance and the questionable dealings of the derivative traders, hedge funds and the off balance sheet trading then we might go so way towards dealing with the consequences of the worldwide financial crash. I suspect that rhetoric aside hell might have a better chance of freezing over before that nice Mr Cameron and the other 18 millionaires in the cabinet actually do anything to close the tax loopholes – were that to happen then perhaps we would all be in it together?
Showing posts with label the bankers friend. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the bankers friend. Show all posts
Friday, 22 June 2012
Monday, 18 June 2012
SONS OF BANKERS AND FRIENDS OF BANKERS…
PLAID is right to call for any banking reform to benefit small businesses. It is very important that the Banking White Paper does not water down proposals for the separation of retail and investment banking interests which will protect ordinary customers money.
That said, few outside the Westminster village will be shocked to discover that the wealthy banking lobby have successfully in persuaded the Con-Dems to relax recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking. These recommendations related to enforcing a separation between retail banks, which hold savers deposits, and investment banks which use investors funds to make money (casino banking).
Plaid also called for an end to credit default swaps for businesses, warning that small companies have been mis-sold complex financial products by banks and then have found themselves in financial difficulty afterwards. A complete separation of retail and investment banking interests should provide significantly better protection for customers and small businesses and should take much of the risk out of banking.
We should never again allow ourselves to be in the situation where private sector investment banker's failures can effectively bring the economy crashing down on the rest of us. Retail banks where consumers, including families and small businesses, deposit their savings need to be protected thus ensuring their long-term sustainability.
All pretty sensible stuff, the bad news is that the banking lobby already appear to have been busy persuading the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to water down the recommendations of the independent commission on banking. The problem is that weakened proposals may not protect small businesses who have been mis-sold complex financial products in recent years and some of whom may never see their money again.
Plaid Cymru has long argued that banks should not have interests and risks which could be to the detriment of the entire sector and to the wider economy. The problem is that when New Labour had their noses in the trough (between 1997 and 2010) the importance of the financial sector grew from 11% of the total economy to more than 18%.
This unbalanced the economy largely because New Labour (and the Conservative Government's before them) turned their backs on the manufacturing sector, something that hit the Welsh economy and our manufacturing sector badly and ensured that an even greater inequality between London and the rest of the UK. This is one of the reasons why the UK was hit so badly when the crash came and has been struggling to recover since.
Interestingly enough a recent poll in the Independent on Sunday (17.06.2012) revealed that 59% thought that George Osborne is out of touch with the public (20% disagreed and 21% didn't know), 25% thought that he is leading the country's economy in the right direction (46% disagreed, 29% didn't know). Some 52% thought he was arrogant (24% disagreed and 24% didn't know) and 48% thought that he had made too many mistakes to be taken seriously (25% disagreed and 26% didn't know).
Additionally 25% agreed that George was doing a good job in difficult times - some 46% disagreed and 27% didn't know. The final poll question asked whether citizen Osborne is too posh to understand the financial pressures on ordinary people – 55% agreed, 23% disagreed and 22% didn't know.
That said, few outside the Westminster village will be shocked to discover that the wealthy banking lobby have successfully in persuaded the Con-Dems to relax recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking. These recommendations related to enforcing a separation between retail banks, which hold savers deposits, and investment banks which use investors funds to make money (casino banking).
Plaid also called for an end to credit default swaps for businesses, warning that small companies have been mis-sold complex financial products by banks and then have found themselves in financial difficulty afterwards. A complete separation of retail and investment banking interests should provide significantly better protection for customers and small businesses and should take much of the risk out of banking.
We should never again allow ourselves to be in the situation where private sector investment banker's failures can effectively bring the economy crashing down on the rest of us. Retail banks where consumers, including families and small businesses, deposit their savings need to be protected thus ensuring their long-term sustainability.
All pretty sensible stuff, the bad news is that the banking lobby already appear to have been busy persuading the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to water down the recommendations of the independent commission on banking. The problem is that weakened proposals may not protect small businesses who have been mis-sold complex financial products in recent years and some of whom may never see their money again.
Plaid Cymru has long argued that banks should not have interests and risks which could be to the detriment of the entire sector and to the wider economy. The problem is that when New Labour had their noses in the trough (between 1997 and 2010) the importance of the financial sector grew from 11% of the total economy to more than 18%.
This unbalanced the economy largely because New Labour (and the Conservative Government's before them) turned their backs on the manufacturing sector, something that hit the Welsh economy and our manufacturing sector badly and ensured that an even greater inequality between London and the rest of the UK. This is one of the reasons why the UK was hit so badly when the crash came and has been struggling to recover since.
Interestingly enough a recent poll in the Independent on Sunday (17.06.2012) revealed that 59% thought that George Osborne is out of touch with the public (20% disagreed and 21% didn't know), 25% thought that he is leading the country's economy in the right direction (46% disagreed, 29% didn't know). Some 52% thought he was arrogant (24% disagreed and 24% didn't know) and 48% thought that he had made too many mistakes to be taken seriously (25% disagreed and 26% didn't know).
Additionally 25% agreed that George was doing a good job in difficult times - some 46% disagreed and 27% didn't know. The final poll question asked whether citizen Osborne is too posh to understand the financial pressures on ordinary people – 55% agreed, 23% disagreed and 22% didn't know.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
A TEST OF CHARACTER?
One judge of character is how you behave when called to make a stand for your friends when they are in trouble. I mention this because oddly enough the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has done some digging that may shed a slightly different perspective on David Cameron's decision to stand up for the City of London, rather than the rest of us. Now it turns out that some of the city of London's biggest banks happen to be involved (or at least behind) some large scale tax avoidance top slicing European countries of some hundreds of millions of Euro's a year. This investigative journalism may go some way to shedding some fresh light on David Cameron's decision to wield Britain's EU veto to protect the Square Mile (and no doubt some of his mates).
Thursday, 8 December 2011
NOT ON OUR BEHALF...
So David Cameron is to travel to Brussels for a major EU summit on the eurozone debt crisis. Both Germany and France are keen to have a new EU treaty which would include measures to stop a repeat of the problems threatening the euro's future. Cameron is under increasing pressure from the anti-Europe wing of Tory MPs who want him to resist moves to strengthen the power of Brussels over EU members.
The PM has pledged to stand up for Britain, he will display some of the tenacious bulldog spirit, etc. Some old same old you might think, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Not quite, in a joint letter, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called for the 17 eurozone countries to have common corporation and financial transaction taxes.
This is something Cameron (“the bankers friend”) is obviously set dead against. Cameron has cleverly hidden the real reason, why and on whose behalf he is actually going to the Brussels summit for, by playing the Tory patriotic card, saying he would fight for the UK national interest in any EU Treaty talks.
Cameron's real concern is the issue of corporation tax and the proposed financial transaction tax – something that could seriously hinder the effective money laundering that goes on in the City of London. The last thing Cameron wants is any bright light shone on the questionable financial practices that operate in and around the City of London. Cameron will be busy in Brussels acting on the banker's and the tax evaders behalf not on behalf of the inhabitants of these islands.
Interestingly enough, the previous New Labour government made much of its light financial regulatory touch, at least until the wheels came spectacularly off the wagon. It's a tad difficult for the Con Dems to make anything positive out of their refusal to take any action over banking regulation (at least until 2019). In the wake of the banking collapse and at a time of real financial austerity when we are all supposed to be in it together, this is pretty rich.
There is a real need to deal on a global basis with the problem of off-shore companies and those individuals who are actively engaged in tax avoidance, tax evasion and / or money laundering. The European transaction tax initiative favoured by France and Germany is long overdue and a small step in the right direction.
What a surprise! it turns out that the UK is at the heart of this problem as it has consciously chosen not to regulate some of its crown dependencies. The scale of the off-shore problem can take your breath away. The Cayman Islands; are currently home to some 12,000 corporations and have a population of 50,000, yet are home to 70% of the planets hedge funds.
The British Virgin Islands (population 22,000) is home to 823,502 registered companies. General Electric paid no tax in 2010, yet made a $14.2 billion dollar profit. Barclay's has 181 subsidiaries registered in the Cayman Islands and paid little UK tax on its worldwide profits. The Dirty Digger's News Corp has 152 subsidiaries in tax havens across the planet (according to the US Government) and paid no UK corporation tax between 1998 and 1999.
So much for all being in it together, if developed countries exchequers lose out then it's significantly worse for developing and underdeveloped countries. Tax dodging costs developing countries around $160 billion dollars per year (Christian Aid). Around $ 1.2 trillion dollars was illicitly removed from poor countries in 2008 (US Integrity Research Centre).
President Obama rightly suggested that the governments of the world actually got together to tackle the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. The US President was entirely correct, if we actually tackled the tax havens, the tax avoidance and the questionable dealings of the derivative traders, hedge funds and the off balance sheet trading then we might go so way towards dealing with the consequences of the worldwide financial crash.
There again, perhaps if that nice Mr Cameron and the other 18 millionaires in the cabinet were to work with other governments worldwide to close the tax loopholes then perhaps we truly would all be in it together? Perhaps not! So over the next few days when Dave (and no doubt the Daily Mail) makes much of standing up for Britain in the Brussels summit its worth remembering that he is actually there on the bankers behalf not ours.
The PM has pledged to stand up for Britain, he will display some of the tenacious bulldog spirit, etc. Some old same old you might think, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Not quite, in a joint letter, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called for the 17 eurozone countries to have common corporation and financial transaction taxes.
This is something Cameron (“the bankers friend”) is obviously set dead against. Cameron has cleverly hidden the real reason, why and on whose behalf he is actually going to the Brussels summit for, by playing the Tory patriotic card, saying he would fight for the UK national interest in any EU Treaty talks.
Cameron's real concern is the issue of corporation tax and the proposed financial transaction tax – something that could seriously hinder the effective money laundering that goes on in the City of London. The last thing Cameron wants is any bright light shone on the questionable financial practices that operate in and around the City of London. Cameron will be busy in Brussels acting on the banker's and the tax evaders behalf not on behalf of the inhabitants of these islands.
Interestingly enough, the previous New Labour government made much of its light financial regulatory touch, at least until the wheels came spectacularly off the wagon. It's a tad difficult for the Con Dems to make anything positive out of their refusal to take any action over banking regulation (at least until 2019). In the wake of the banking collapse and at a time of real financial austerity when we are all supposed to be in it together, this is pretty rich.
There is a real need to deal on a global basis with the problem of off-shore companies and those individuals who are actively engaged in tax avoidance, tax evasion and / or money laundering. The European transaction tax initiative favoured by France and Germany is long overdue and a small step in the right direction.
What a surprise! it turns out that the UK is at the heart of this problem as it has consciously chosen not to regulate some of its crown dependencies. The scale of the off-shore problem can take your breath away. The Cayman Islands; are currently home to some 12,000 corporations and have a population of 50,000, yet are home to 70% of the planets hedge funds.
The British Virgin Islands (population 22,000) is home to 823,502 registered companies. General Electric paid no tax in 2010, yet made a $14.2 billion dollar profit. Barclay's has 181 subsidiaries registered in the Cayman Islands and paid little UK tax on its worldwide profits. The Dirty Digger's News Corp has 152 subsidiaries in tax havens across the planet (according to the US Government) and paid no UK corporation tax between 1998 and 1999.
So much for all being in it together, if developed countries exchequers lose out then it's significantly worse for developing and underdeveloped countries. Tax dodging costs developing countries around $160 billion dollars per year (Christian Aid). Around $ 1.2 trillion dollars was illicitly removed from poor countries in 2008 (US Integrity Research Centre).
President Obama rightly suggested that the governments of the world actually got together to tackle the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. The US President was entirely correct, if we actually tackled the tax havens, the tax avoidance and the questionable dealings of the derivative traders, hedge funds and the off balance sheet trading then we might go so way towards dealing with the consequences of the worldwide financial crash.
There again, perhaps if that nice Mr Cameron and the other 18 millionaires in the cabinet were to work with other governments worldwide to close the tax loopholes then perhaps we truly would all be in it together? Perhaps not! So over the next few days when Dave (and no doubt the Daily Mail) makes much of standing up for Britain in the Brussels summit its worth remembering that he is actually there on the bankers behalf not ours.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
HAS ANYONE TOLD DAVE...
News that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, desires action to be taken in the New Year (after due consultation) to improve transparency and curb excessive executive pay packages in the public sector, should welcomed. The move, is apparently, intended to ensure that public sector workers don’t feel they were bearing the brunt of the cuts while their bosses are not. The Deputy PM indicated that there would be moves to increase transparency and that legislation could be brought forward in the New Year. I wonder if he has told Dave and George yet? I suspect the answer might be not yet, as apparently senior Conservatives are said to be sceptical about the plans and say no government work is under way on implementing them.
Friday, 2 December 2011
AN ACUTE LACK OF FAIRNESS...
I spent the first half of the week on a very intensive training course (complete with an exam - which thankfully I passed) so I missed the strike day entirely. It's literally taken until today for the deprogramming to kick in and to put thought to blog. Wednesday came and went, the Conservatives are feeling good, having a pop at the Unions over strikes for the Tories is like playing to a familiar audience.
The amply rewarded and well-paid card carrying largely Labour dinosaur Union bosses are happy as they got to have a go at a Conservative led Government. The current (New) Labour leader is quietly hoping that the strikes will go away and no one remembers that this whole economic mess originated when New Labour were running the show.
Now to be fair it's a devilishly awkward situation that the party formerly known as New Labour finds itself in. I mean they are trying to sit on the fence and avoid taking an official position, neither for or against the strikes. Fence sitting aside as the dust settle a lot of people who can least afford it are out of pocket at a time of year when they can least afford it.
The anger of public-sector workers who took part in strike action on Wednesday remains understandably undiminished. They are being asked to make significant financial sacrifices to pay for the mess, those responsible for the mess the private finance sector, are definitely not being asked to make the same level of sacrifice and by and large appear to have got away with it and escaped unpublished for their actions.
Understandably public sector, many of whom are not paid very much, are a tad upset that part of their pension, for which they were entitled to plan for many years, is going to be taken away. I have no doubt that the scale of government borrowing requires emergency action, yet any savings from changes to public-sector pensions won't actually come through until some years after this financial disaster has faded into memory.
Apparently the Government has moved some distance towards meeting the unions' objections, apparently by reducing the cuts for those nearing retirement. If this is the case, then serious efforts should be made to get a deal on the table and to sign it. Both the Unions and the Government should accept it an honour it.
Why do the cuts need to be so apocalyptic? Could not saving be made in other areas? Trident perhaps or a couple of aircraft carriers (one of which there are no plans to even use!). The UK Government can manage to find the money to spend on wars and their aftermath, but, not apparently when matters are deemed less urgent.
I wonder if the (subconscious or not so subconscious) motivation for the attack on the public sector workers is more ideologically driven rather than financially driven. It is worth noting that both Cameron and Osborne were heavily involved if not key players (coat holders) for Michael Howard’s thankfully unsuccessful campaign to be Prime Minister.
That thought aside, one financial cuckoo that's coming home to roost is that of PFI – something that the public sector was forced to use by the last Labour Government (and is still favoured by the current government) and for which we will all be paying for many years to come. We will all be paying for a whole raft of Blair’s legacies, including a couple of wars and the London based and largely London beneficial Olympics.
For the next ten years at least, public spending is going to be under severe pressure. Harsh choices will be made and priorities decided; and some changes may need to be made to relatively generous future pension rights of public-sector staff. I don’t necessarily dispute that, but, I question on whose behalf these decisions are being made and what efforts are being made to ensure that we all pay our fair share?
From where I am sat (in the cheap seats) this Conservative Government is the Trade Union leaders' best mate (if not a convenient ally). This is government for the rich and by the rich (for that's how it appears to me) has stood by while the City fat cats continue to be rewarded for failure and to rake in fat bonuses and done nothing.
The Con Dem's biggest problem is the acute lack of fairness, as boardroom pay has raced ahead, and tax evasion and tax avoidance largely goes unpunished. Excessive profiteering by the energy cartel has gone unpunished and those who can least afford are getting hammered. David Cameron and Mr Osborne remain utterly unconvincing as they continue to fail to convince most people that they (of all people) are genuinely "all in this together".
Last Tuesday George Osborne showed that he failed to even consider any idea for public disclosure of tax returns or a ban on honours to those who have already rewarded themselves pretty handsomely. Nothing was done about tax avoidance; and no consideration was given to a "Robin Hood tax" on financial transactions (something that needs to be done on global basis). Rather than criticising the strikers, Cameron might want to take steps to ensure that the bankers and the rich are in this, too, like the rest of us.
The amply rewarded and well-paid card carrying largely Labour dinosaur Union bosses are happy as they got to have a go at a Conservative led Government. The current (New) Labour leader is quietly hoping that the strikes will go away and no one remembers that this whole economic mess originated when New Labour were running the show.
Now to be fair it's a devilishly awkward situation that the party formerly known as New Labour finds itself in. I mean they are trying to sit on the fence and avoid taking an official position, neither for or against the strikes. Fence sitting aside as the dust settle a lot of people who can least afford it are out of pocket at a time of year when they can least afford it.
The anger of public-sector workers who took part in strike action on Wednesday remains understandably undiminished. They are being asked to make significant financial sacrifices to pay for the mess, those responsible for the mess the private finance sector, are definitely not being asked to make the same level of sacrifice and by and large appear to have got away with it and escaped unpublished for their actions.
Understandably public sector, many of whom are not paid very much, are a tad upset that part of their pension, for which they were entitled to plan for many years, is going to be taken away. I have no doubt that the scale of government borrowing requires emergency action, yet any savings from changes to public-sector pensions won't actually come through until some years after this financial disaster has faded into memory.
Apparently the Government has moved some distance towards meeting the unions' objections, apparently by reducing the cuts for those nearing retirement. If this is the case, then serious efforts should be made to get a deal on the table and to sign it. Both the Unions and the Government should accept it an honour it.
Why do the cuts need to be so apocalyptic? Could not saving be made in other areas? Trident perhaps or a couple of aircraft carriers (one of which there are no plans to even use!). The UK Government can manage to find the money to spend on wars and their aftermath, but, not apparently when matters are deemed less urgent.
I wonder if the (subconscious or not so subconscious) motivation for the attack on the public sector workers is more ideologically driven rather than financially driven. It is worth noting that both Cameron and Osborne were heavily involved if not key players (coat holders) for Michael Howard’s thankfully unsuccessful campaign to be Prime Minister.
That thought aside, one financial cuckoo that's coming home to roost is that of PFI – something that the public sector was forced to use by the last Labour Government (and is still favoured by the current government) and for which we will all be paying for many years to come. We will all be paying for a whole raft of Blair’s legacies, including a couple of wars and the London based and largely London beneficial Olympics.
For the next ten years at least, public spending is going to be under severe pressure. Harsh choices will be made and priorities decided; and some changes may need to be made to relatively generous future pension rights of public-sector staff. I don’t necessarily dispute that, but, I question on whose behalf these decisions are being made and what efforts are being made to ensure that we all pay our fair share?
From where I am sat (in the cheap seats) this Conservative Government is the Trade Union leaders' best mate (if not a convenient ally). This is government for the rich and by the rich (for that's how it appears to me) has stood by while the City fat cats continue to be rewarded for failure and to rake in fat bonuses and done nothing.
The Con Dem's biggest problem is the acute lack of fairness, as boardroom pay has raced ahead, and tax evasion and tax avoidance largely goes unpunished. Excessive profiteering by the energy cartel has gone unpunished and those who can least afford are getting hammered. David Cameron and Mr Osborne remain utterly unconvincing as they continue to fail to convince most people that they (of all people) are genuinely "all in this together".
Last Tuesday George Osborne showed that he failed to even consider any idea for public disclosure of tax returns or a ban on honours to those who have already rewarded themselves pretty handsomely. Nothing was done about tax avoidance; and no consideration was given to a "Robin Hood tax" on financial transactions (something that needs to be done on global basis). Rather than criticising the strikers, Cameron might want to take steps to ensure that the bankers and the rich are in this, too, like the rest of us.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
HIRED HELP?
The Conservatives (sorry Con Dems) since coming to power have imposed a bank levy which will raise an estimated £2.5 billion pounds a year. Sounds good and reasonable, unless, you note that during the same period they have slashed corporation tax rates from 28% to 24% which means that any impact on the finance houses in the City will be relatively minimal.
As for the levy itself, which originally proposed that a levy of 0.07% on all of a banks liabilities, HM Treasury has watered it down, saying that the banks won't have to pay the tax on the first £20 billion pounds of their liabilities. The chancellor has also chosen not to take forward the recommendation of Sir David Walker that banks should be forced to disclose all pay packages above £1 million pounds.
Also there won't be any action to curb the bonus culture which is expected to see £7 billion pounds splashed out this year. Just for the record, back in 2010, the big 4 banks between them managed to pay some 200 of their staff an average of £1 million pounds last year, very nice if you can get it., even better if we are in tough economic times and all in it together so to speak.
Oddly enough it gets better or worse depending on where you stand, the Conservatives have also been accused of introducing laws to give a full tax exemption for British companies tax haven branches which allows them to benefit from an 8% tax rate for profits diverted to havens via internal financing.
A Daily Mirror investigation suggests that of the 498 Tory MPs and peers some 134 have been or are employed in the financial sector, this figure also includes 70 of the party’s 305 MPs. It has also been suggested that among the 193 Conservative peers, over a third work or have worked in finance or banking.
The Financial Times has noted that an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which has revealed that financial services companies and individuals donated £11.4m to the Tory party in the first three quarters of 2010. The investigation noted that some 450 separate donations to Conservative Central Office were made by individuals, companies and limited liability partnerships and that 27%, or £3.3m, of the £12.18m donated to the party came from hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms.
Clearly the Conservatives have come a long way over the last few years since those heady days in opposition when they needed to look good, by way of comparison with the years of new Labour sleaze. So it should come as no surprise that Mr Osborne will soon fly off to do battle on behalf of the City banks in Europe to prevent a pan European levy on the banks, still with hired help it's may be appropriate to pay for what you get. I wonder what his hourly rate is?
As for the levy itself, which originally proposed that a levy of 0.07% on all of a banks liabilities, HM Treasury has watered it down, saying that the banks won't have to pay the tax on the first £20 billion pounds of their liabilities. The chancellor has also chosen not to take forward the recommendation of Sir David Walker that banks should be forced to disclose all pay packages above £1 million pounds.
Also there won't be any action to curb the bonus culture which is expected to see £7 billion pounds splashed out this year. Just for the record, back in 2010, the big 4 banks between them managed to pay some 200 of their staff an average of £1 million pounds last year, very nice if you can get it., even better if we are in tough economic times and all in it together so to speak.
Oddly enough it gets better or worse depending on where you stand, the Conservatives have also been accused of introducing laws to give a full tax exemption for British companies tax haven branches which allows them to benefit from an 8% tax rate for profits diverted to havens via internal financing.
A Daily Mirror investigation suggests that of the 498 Tory MPs and peers some 134 have been or are employed in the financial sector, this figure also includes 70 of the party’s 305 MPs. It has also been suggested that among the 193 Conservative peers, over a third work or have worked in finance or banking.
The Financial Times has noted that an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which has revealed that financial services companies and individuals donated £11.4m to the Tory party in the first three quarters of 2010. The investigation noted that some 450 separate donations to Conservative Central Office were made by individuals, companies and limited liability partnerships and that 27%, or £3.3m, of the £12.18m donated to the party came from hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms.
Clearly the Conservatives have come a long way over the last few years since those heady days in opposition when they needed to look good, by way of comparison with the years of new Labour sleaze. So it should come as no surprise that Mr Osborne will soon fly off to do battle on behalf of the City banks in Europe to prevent a pan European levy on the banks, still with hired help it's may be appropriate to pay for what you get. I wonder what his hourly rate is?
Friday, 2 September 2011
SAME OLD, SAME OLD...
Some of people may think that it was only a matter of time before the Conservatives reverted to type. So news that an oil firm whose chief executive has bankrolled the Conservatives has won exclusive rights to trade with Libyan rebels during the conflict, after secret talks which involved the British Government should come as no real surprise. Neither should we be surprised that the deal may have been organised by a former oil trader turned junior conservative minister, who happens to have close business links to the oil firm and was previously a director of one of its subsidiaries. Also probably best not to mention what the Tories (Sorry Con Dems) are planning to do to the planning process in England then or the news that David (“Call me the bankers best mate”) Cameron plans to quietly drop any banking reforms until after 2019. Perhaps it's best not to tell Vince...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)