Rupert Remembers, Jeremy's Hunted

Until yesterday Adam Smith was a ministerial special advisor, although clearly not quite special enough. When writing his resignation letter, we can but wonder whether his free arm was being twisted. His rapid removal follows revelations at the Leveson Inquiry, suggesting information flowed between News Corp and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, deemed inappropriate given the company’s campaign for complete control of BSkyB. Labour still have the scent of blood, so if Mr Smith was merely the Culture Secretary’s sacrificial lamb of choice, Jeremy still has every reason to feel hunted.

Ed Miliband has publicly called for Mr Hunt to hop it. “He should resign”, said the Labour leader, “he himself said that his duty was to be transparent, impartial and fair.” The Financial Times report that Jeremy Hunt previously referred to himself as a “cheerleader” for Mr Murdoch’s achievements, on his own website. If so, you can see right through his claims of transparency, and impartiality seems implausible, at best.

It may be that the Culture Secretary’s admiration for the media mogul will pay dividends, however. The headlines which might otherwise have been plotting his demise, are instead reporting the appearance at the Leveson Inquiry of Mr Murdoch himself. When executives from The News of the World appeared before a cross-party select committee in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, they were accused of collective amnesia. It would seem this unhelpful condition may have been contracted from their boss. Although advanced in years, Mr Murdoch shows no apparent signs of senility, yet has forgotten all manner of details, from conversations with his son, to dinners with Prime Ministers. You would have hoped that at least one of those might have been mildly memorable.

Like all good theatre, an inquiry like this will entertain, and provoke discussion, but in and of itself will rarely change the status quo on which it offers comment. Politics, the press, and indeed the police, are essentially self regulating bodies, and the resulting inquiries from their varied alleged inequities feel like a war of attrition. The length and tedium of the investigation will be directly proportionate to the level of public outrage, and we always give up first. Self regulation is like me asking my three year old to put himself on the naughty step, every time he attacks the cat. It’s a very democratic idea, and as such I would welcome it, but I live in a house with a very nervous cat.              

Grand Prix At Too Great A Price?

Thousands have taken to the streets of Bahrain, as the country plays host to this weekend’s Formula One Grand Prix. Although many have called for its cancellation, it is not so much the race itself to which they object, but the Sunni government that granted the permit. Representing a minority in numbers, they hold the majority of the power, status, and wealth, all of which would be cemented, if not enhanced, by a successful staging of what would be the country’s premier sporting event. Small wonder therefore, that the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, and Bernie Ecclestone, the crown prince of petrol-heads, have came out in a unified display of commitment to the race, albeit with differing justifications.

Against a backdrop of rising civil unrest, which has seen members of the Force India team ask to go home after they were caught up in the disturbances, the Crown Prince said; “I believe this race is a force for good, it unites many people from many different religious backgrounds.” His comments mark a stark contrast to those of Bahrain’s senior Shia cleric who condemned the crackdown that has accompanied the Grand Prix. The “force for good” will sadly not be witnessed by the many international journalists denied entry to the country to report on the growing tensions.

“It is nothing to do with us what happens in the country,” was the hi-light of Bernie Ecclestone’s amoral musings. The F1 Chief Executive was also quoted as saying it was not “in his power” to call it off. In reality such impotence is likely to be purely self-imposed, as anti-government protests led to last year’s race being cancelled. Alleged human rights abuses continue, according to the banned Bahrain Freedom Movement, claims supported by Amnesty International. Indeed, the Grand Prix itself is likely to coincide with the funeral of a protester allegedly beaten to death by security forces.

Paradoxically, it is the very Grand Prix to which so many of the protesters are opposed, that has proven their unlikely ally. The eyes of the world are again on Bahrain, bringing an international spotlight to internal calls for social and political reform, while attempts to stifle media coverage serve only to sharpen its focus. The Guardian reported a survey carried out for the Bahrain Economic Development Board, which found that 77% of those questioned actually welcomed the Grand Prix. To the governing elite it brings wealth and prestige, to those striving for reform it brings a platform for protest, and to the rest of us the question; if we know the hand signing the cheque has blood on it, should we really be taking the money?

Sincerely "Shocked" of Westminster

 The Chancellor of the Exchequer was apparently “shocked” to learn that many of the UK’s top tier earners pay next to no income tax, but following the findings of an HM Revenue and Customs investigation, George Osborne has been persuaded of the need to “take action”. I have been convinced for years of the need to floss regularly, yet strangely lack the motivation to follow through on my good intentions. Now, whilst it would be churlish to align the deficiencies of my dental hygiene routine with the likelihood of the Chancellor slamming shut a few lascivious loopholes, it might be fair to ask Mr Osborne to quantify the scale of his “shock”. Personally, if some mischief I’d suspected turned out worse than was predicted, I would describe myself more as disappointed, dismayed even. But if I was “shocked” you might conclude that I was either in the wrong job, or lying.

 However, that is me, and I am not the Chancellor. Instead, still no doubt reeling from the “shock”, our gallant hero rides into battle against the malevolent miscreants defrauding the crown of their rightful coppers. But who, I hear you cry, are these merry millionaires? Is it the bankers, the pantomime villain of choice for the muttering many? Or the “non-dom” donors, propping up their parties with one hand on the tiller of a gin palace in San Tropez? Why no! Saint George rides out under the banner of budgetary balancing against pensioners and the charity sector.    

Capping tax relief for charitable donations does not so much fly in the face of the principles behind Big Dave’s Big Society, it’s more of a slap, and the great and the good are queuing up to say so. Certainly, allowing higher rate taxpayers to plough unlimited funding into charitable causes, offsetting the amounts against their tax bills to reduce their payments, does indeed reduce income to the Treasury. However, of all the tax avoidance schemes to choke off, it is one of the few that benefits the country, often guaranteeing the survival of organisations that rely upon donations to maintain the work they do in the community. It seems symptomatic of the frankly bizarre PR deathwish that also saw the 50p tax rate reduced, in a perceived tax cut for millionaires, while pensioners suffered with the abolition of age-related income allowances. Far from slaying dragons, George has become one of his own making. And you don’t have to be a blood hound to catch the scent of u-turn trickling from the Treasury. They are damned if they do of course, and damned if they don’t. But given a choice between being wrong and reforming, or just wrong and resolute, I vote firmly for the former.

The distinction between tax avoidance and evasion, is that one puts you in Parkhurst, the other in Monte Carlo. As the Chancellor points out, there are perfectly legal methods of managing your millions to keep your mitts on most of it, from pension fund over-payments to use of tax havens, or avoiding stamp duty and inheritance tax. The government estimate the annual cost to the treasury is in the region of £5 billion. The real figure is likely to be four times that, or more. To really limit the losses needs legislation, and who better to bring it in that the man who avoided capital gains tax by “flipping” the house he assigned as his second home? The Chancellor may have shot himself firmly in the foot with his first barrage in the battle against tax avoidance, but he may yet win the war, if he really wants to. And if he does, I for one will be “shocked”.

Falklands Revisited

“We’re at war, son” my Dad said, sat on my bed on a bright spring morning in 1982, clearly disappointed that the gravity of his delivery was matched only by the apathy of his offspring’s reaction. But aged nine, with only a cursory awareness of current affairs, or any affairs really, I assumed that unless the Falklands crisis escalated to include food rationing and conscription haircuts, then normal tree climbing activities would continue largely unaffected. As indeed they did.

Thirty years on, with tree climbing sadly a declining element in my daily routine, we face an escalation of tensions between Argentina and Britain again. Several hundred protesters attacked the British embassy in Buenos Aires on Monday evening following a day of events commemorating the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands War, and the 649 Argentine soldiers who lost their lives. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner described the position of the British over “Las Malvinas” as “absurd”, referring to them as a “colonial enclave”. In turn, David Cameron reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to defending those remote rocks, whose impending oil inspired income may account for some of the ardent Argentine affection for them.

Then, as now, Argentina’s claim over the Falklands is as much a political distraction as an issue of sovereignty. Nothing unites a nation like a rallying call to arms, using patriotism as the Polyfila to smooth out the cracks when confidence or the economy is crumbling. The irony of ’82 was that the desired feel-good factor fell not to the Argentine administration, but the baroness-to-be; Margaret Thatcher. The determined approach of the iron lady won post-war plaudits at home and abroad, the milk-thief made matriarch in a mere 74 days. Battle is the best friend of the bullish and the brazen. Arrogant and inflexible becomes stoical and resolute, just add war and stir. Would a peacetime Churchill have left as impressive a legacy?

This week’s sabre rattling rings hollow however, as Argentina could no more afford an incursion than the UK could muster a taskforce. David Cameron could no doubt do with a little Dunkirk spirit, but 8,000 miles is, I fear, a tad too far for even the most ambitious of Blighty’s fishing boats.