I have been asked a number of times why I do not support Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell given all some say they have supposedly done for tax justice.
I reply with a simple question. Who, I ask, has done more for tax justice, John and Jeremy or Margaret Hodge?
There is, of course, quite simply no contest: Margaret wins hands down. Even in the last year, in her post Public Account Committee days, she's done more on the issue than they have.
And she's not bowled over by Jeremy and John for reasons about which she is quite clear.
I do not agree with Margaret on everything. But there's no doubt who has been by far the most effective operator and will remain so whilst John and Jeremy want to play at creating a new social movement when it's their job to run an Opposition.
So can we put that question to bed please?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Apologies but this is ‘question’ is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
Although those asking it might be forgiven for not knowing about your own record on this issue or even Hodges’ you do have to ask what they have been doing with their time?
What do they read?
Where do they get their information?
Honestly……………
I think you are perhaps being overly generous in using the term ‘information’; I’m not sure that they do much reading at all, which may explain why they come out with such nonsense.
It is disheartening to see such ignorance, though Corbyn and McDonnell seem to be leading from the front on this one; they started out paying lip service to people with expertise in economics and taxation, which they were desperately in need of, and promptly dumped them in case knowledge interfered with their preconceptions.
Faith based approaches are fine for religion but they really don’t work when it comes to forming policy…
Margaret Hodge has played a bigger part in making the Lichtenstein Disclosure Facility a success, that’s for sure.
Look, Hodge has been exposed as a tax evader; Corbyn hasn’t.
And that is utterly untrue
If you want to build your politics on lies you will get nowhere
Is this article – still on the FT site – not correct then?
“A prominent Labour politician and a fierce critic of tax avoidance has been accused of hypocrisy after receiving shares in a family company from a foundation based in a tax haven.
“Margaret Hodge, former head of Britain’s parliamentary public accounts committee, was among the beneficiaries in 2011 of the winding-up of a Liechtenstein foundation that held shares in Stemcor, the private steel-trading business set up by Hans Oppenheimer, her father.
“The shares were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.
“Ms Hodge said she had not been a beneficiary of the Liechtenstein foundation until the shares were brought onshore using the LDF in 2011, and that she had not played a role in setting up or running it.
“But the disclosure, reported by The Times, has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy. At issue is whether she should have been more transparent and made a public statement about her interest sooner.”
https://www.ft.com/content/4d9e16b4-ee3d-11e4-98f9-00144feab7de
So she was left shares where a tax settlement was required because of the actions of others
In other words she had no role in this issue whatsoever apart from being named in a will
Which makes your suggestion libellous
David Cameron was only named in a will too. Does that mean the controversy regarding his father’s will was all wrong, and he was perfectly tax compliant?
Did anyone say he was not compliant?
I very carefully did not
I doubt anyone out and out called David Cameron a tax evader, though I’m sure tax avoidance was bandied about. Just so I understand – if person A indulges in some IHT tax avoidance and person B (an heir) benefits from it, is the heir in some way morally responsible for the tax avoidance, or are they morally clean?
You cannot be responsible for what your parent did
You may not even know about it
But in Hodge’s case when she found cause for concern the matter was put right
What is more ethical than that?
“Hodge has been exposed as a tax evader; Corbyn hasn’t.”
But he has been exposed as a seat evader.
🙂
Looking at DJ’s contribution at 10.05, I can’t for the life of me spot the libel.
Indeed if the FT article quoted is libellous, I’m surprised that you are prepared to publish it afresh on your blog.
The FT article is not libellous: it says she benefitted from a will where an arrangement had to be disclosed
A previous comment said she was a tax evader
Nothing in the FT article suggests that in any way
You are wrong
As was the claim that she is an evader
And I am right
Debate over
Especially with a person who chooses to use the name you have adopted
You were quite vociferous very recently on the tax affairs of the Duke of Wetminster, even before his funeral! How did you manage to distinguish this from Margaret Hodge?
He was extensively involved in managing those arrangements
Margaret clearly was not involved in managing those of her late father – as the FT piece made clear
Is it really that hard to spot the difference?
The FT charged hypocrisy, not tax evasion.
And even then it was hard to make a credible case
Richard – here is what you thought David Cameron should say about offshore arrangements (6 April blog).
The second para wouldnt seem to relevant for Margaret Hodge, but the first and the third appear to be just as relevant as for our ex-PM.
There is no doubt that unlike Mr Cameron, Margaret has done much to bring tax issues to the forefront and achieved change. But to dismiss one as not being an issue, whilst arguing for more clarity on another, doesnt seem to be fair.
First, Cameron has not spoken about his father. He is not, I stress, responsible for what his father did, but he must have a view. He could have said that much as he respects his father, much as he loves him and much as he is grateful for what he did for him he has to disagree with him on the use of offshore. This is what mature, responsible, children sometimes have to do: they have to say that they disagree with their parents. But Cameron has not done this. That, to me is quite significant, because it suggests that David Cameron may not have that disagreement, and I would find that deeply troubling. It would imply that all the conflicts of interest that are at the heart of the concern that has been raised about his family’s affairs are real. If he laid those concerns to rest by making the type of comment I suggest I am quite sure that his own political progress on this issue would be much easier for him.
Second, David Cameron has said two things. Firstly he’s has said that his family does not benefit from offshore at present, and that he does not think it will do so in the future. I accept his assurance on the present: he should know. But he cannot give that assurance for the future: there is some good reason for believing that his mother may still have an interest in his late father’s company, in which case it is of course entirely possible that David Cameron may benefit from it at sometime to come, or that his children will. As a consequence his word on this is simply not worth relying upon. That is a big error of judgement on his part.
Third, he is given no assurance that he has not benefited from these arrangements in the past. I suspect he might have some considerable difficulty in doing so: he was at one point, very obviously, dependent upon his father, who presumably was in turn dependent upon these offshore operations to provide his main source of income. In that case, once again, David Cameron has not provided the assurance that is needed. He can only do this by using the form of words I suggest in my second paragraph.
But Hodge made clear that when they found issues they put them right
And that is precisely what Cameron is not saying
Again, I cannot see what point you are trying to make: the difference in her behaviour and that of Cameron is very obvious
Paul Mason’s latest offering is relevant in this context:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/22/follow-the-money-how-left-behind-cities-corporate-bullies-hedge-clippers
The final para. “With or without Jeremy Corbyn, the near-impossibility of Labour gaining a Commons majority in 2020 — whether because of Scotland, boundary changes, a hostile media or self-destruction — has to refocus the left on to what is possible to achieve from below. We have to start, as the Americans did, by mapping the invisible forces that strip jobs, value and hope out of communities; make them visible; trace their dependencies and then use direct action to kick them in the corporate goolies until they desist.” appears to suggest what Messrs Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s social movement will be used for.
A failure to secure the consent of a majority of voters to provide governance using the current established system of representative parliamentary democracy does not justify resort to ochlococracy or mob rule.
Genuine democrats should dread the current ascendancy of Mr. Corbyn (and Mr. McDonnell).
I have no problem with discovering the ownership of assets
Or naming those who exploit
But direct action rarely works and can backfire easily: UK Uncut, for example, might have had some reason to criticise Vodafone and BHS but not really Fortnum and Masons, and the action there backfired at many levels
Without very good research so will what Mason is suggesting
And the language is unacceptable to me as a Quaker
“…the name you have adopted”.
Says who? One’s given name is no more under the control of the individual than bequests he or she receives but you think it reasonable to mock me (it’s ok, you’re not the first) but to defend Margaret Hodge.
I think that’s a pretty poor show and since you have my email address you could easily have checked.
I have checked
I have not been able to find a record of a single Gowlyter on the web
But it does have a remarkable resonance with a German word of the type many seem to think it fun to parody when trolling
And getting a gmail account is evidence of nothing
You will not be posting again
Like it or not the sins of the fathers ( mothers) are always visited upon their progeny in some form or another……
I find it impossibile to believe that at the very least Mrs Hidge dud not have a
superficial understanding of the configuration of
the Stemcor set up long before her inheritance tax event ( as did any siblings).
Logically/legally/ morally therefore especially given her high profile work on tax rectitude it
was incumbent on her to ” whistleblow” ” her bloodline to HMRC long before events forced her hand
— obnoxious as that may have seemed.
A for the LDF this was just manna from Heaven at the right time
of which she and very many others including myself took full legal advantage.
Why?
She was never a director
And I can assure you I have not a clue about my father’s affairs, and he is still alive at 90
Why should I?
I have discussed this with Margaret and what she told me is what she has told the press and I find it completely plausible
Tax justice surely requires some honesty. You say quite serious and unpleasant things about the now deceased Duke of Westminster.I cannot imagine you have the inside knowledge of the estate’s affairs or his oen involvement in them to support these assertions. He is of course now dead; would you be prepared to suggest his heir, the present Duke is similarly personally involved in agressive tax avoidance?
Yes
Richard.
I too am prepared to suggest his heir, the present Duke, is similarly personally involved in agressive tax avoidance.
This estate is designed to not pay tax
If the Duke is not engaged in tax avoidance then I think it fair to assume that the trustees are
The ‘estate’ is held in an entirely legal trust is it not? One of the trustees has died.
Whether this is the same sort of trust as that used by Hodge’s father I don’t know, but it sounds similar.
In either case, as I understand it, there is no IHT to pay as there is no inheritance as the trust continues.
Whether this is morally right or not it is entirely legal (for both parties) it would seem.
If the present Duke can be accused of aggressive avoidance, then surely the same must apply to Hodge?
The same old legal so it’s ok argument
Hodge admitted her family arrangements were wrong: she / they opted to put them right
Has the Duke
Ate you utterly unable to spit the difference?
PS I am bored by stupid comments if this sort: any more from anyone will be deleted
She did a fair bit of grandstanding when on the PAC. A good bit of villain bashing for the gallery. Easy thing to do from the comfort of opposition.
But she was also a minister under Blair and Brown (almost) continuously from 2001 until Labour lost office in 2010. She had the chance to do something about it.
I tried to research her record on tax justice as a minister. I couldn’t find any speeches, campaigns, or articles on the topic.
What is her record on this issue when Labour was in power?
She wasn’t s tax minister
Ministers are only allowed to work in their appointed area
I have just Voted for JC hoping to give Austerity, Corporations, The elite, and the press a bloody nose
WIN.WIN.WIN.WIN. As simple as Brexsit
And what is he going to put in their place?
Politics for tiny tots…