The latest
about Sir Philip Green, erstwhile premier retailer, goodbye BHS and pension
fund, is that he feels hurt about comments made by Frank Field, the Labour MP
who chairs the joint Parliamentary committee looking into the collapse of
retailer BHS. Sir Green cries bias and
shan't attend, so there.
This might not
be so much about Frank Field, it might be more to do with the questions that
might be asked by the committee.
"Private Eye" this week, as well as a splendid cover on the
England soccer team, has a long piece in the "In The City" section at
the back about Sir Green that suggests what might be asked about which matters.
It makes grim
reading and not just for those who have lost their jobs, their futures and
possibly most of their pensions, never mind those who followed the Green dream
and lost out. Among them appear to be
most of our current media experts on finance and business. You name him, Peston of the BBC etc., and
they are there. Reputations and more are
at stake.
Along with
Blair and Cameron, their fellow politicians and other "experts", they
all knelt starry eyed at the feet of the master of retailing, hoping for a cut
of the deal as well as for pleasing the media and their friends. Just who, we may ask, has benefited from a
little help from Sir Green at key points in their careers?
One of the
staples of disagreement about tax matters is the fine distinction between
"avoidance", when you can cite a legal reason for moving money that
way, and "evasion" where it is argued that there is no legal basis or
at least a questionable one. Go the web
and read a few million words on the subject.
If you have
real money, then hire a team of crack lawyers to make your case and take care
of the detail. Better still, much
better, is to assist leading members of government and their immediate support
echelons to arrange tax laws in such a way as to favour your preferred methods
of operation.
This has been
part of Sir Green's skill set. The
trouble is he seems to have lost sight of the detail and BHS went bust in a way
that was bound to attraction attention.
The question then is, is this an extreme and rare case or is it more
common than we think?
Worse is that
it is not simply common, but as so many money men like their golf, par for the
course and maybe typical? It appears
that as you look around the more recent arrivals in the House of Commons , then who
are selected as candidates number many about whom there are questions on financial matters.
Given that
both the Conservative and Labour Party have imposed increasingly central control
over the listing and choice candidates financial and other probity seems to
have slipped down, if not off, the list of required qualifications.
I think it was
Mrs. Thatcher who sixty years ago struggled to get nomination for parliamentary
candidacy who complained that unless you had a good MC (Military Cross) and the
right other medals on your chest it was hopeless in the then days when
constituency parties did the choosing.
Sir John Nott,
formerly Royal Scots and Gurkhas who served in the Malayan Emergency with distinction
and later in Mrs. Thatcher's government had stopped his subscription to the
Conservative Party on the grounds that Cameron's utterings on the EU Referendum
are specious and unwarranted, that is untrue and grossly misleading.
More to the
point, after the Army he then went into banking and finance and did well. He also points out that the national
membership around the country of the Conservative Party has gone down from two
and a half million to 250,000 or so. So
if the national party is not paying the piper any more, the Gurkhas have an
excellent pipe band, who is and to what purpose?
The electorate
may be becoming shy of the two major parties because it is now seen that they
have been bought and it is becoming more widely known who are the people who did the
buying and now expect the parties to pay the price, both in terms of tax easing
and use of power.
It is not the
UK alone that has been bought, it is integral across Europe and especially in
the halls of mirrors in Brussels where so many have vastly profited with so
little benefit for the rest of us.
The result is
not simply an ongoing financial and taxation crisis, coupled with serious and
increasing debt risks, it is a constitutional crisis that does not bode well
for either sensible decision making or sound government.
I read the Private Eye piece too - very disturbing. It wouldn't be quite so disturbing if there were not so many other issues popping up as well. Particularly our lax UK attitude to dubious money and powerful people who look more and more like international criminals than business leaders.
ReplyDelete