Tax Break

Who said tax is boring?

Taking axes to taxes

31ba460a00000578-0-image-m-19_1456825752232

How Hungary chose its tax rate

En route to a tax conference in Malta earlier this month, circumstances led me to muse about the renewed race to the bottom of international corporate tax rates. Donald Trump had not yet surprised the world with his election win, so his promises of madly reduced US corporate tax rates were the stuff of fantasy. But lowly Hungary had just come up with the first single digit rate in the EU, leapfrogging on its way down the traditional cut price nations of Ireland and Cyprus. And since Britain’s decision to ditch the EU, its surrogate Prime Minister Theresa May and her Cabinet have been titillating the markets with talk of even lower rates, though this week’s Autumn Statement reiterated the, once promiscuous but now modest, 17% target for 2020.

All sounds wonderful? Well, here was the first lesson in Tax Policy 101 at 35,000 feet. A certain Italian international airline, which shall remain nameless, was offering the cheapest Business Class travel to my destination. This was not the first time I had flown with them, but triumph-of-hope-over-experience is my middle name.

As Milton Friedman famously said: ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’,

33d5a61e00000578-3572879-image-a-65_1462373323259

It took their minds off crashing

but in the case of this airline, for the first hour and a half in the air, there was no such thing as a free glass of water. The single attendant assigned to Business Class clearly felt the need, inspired by his socialist Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, to redistribute his time to the proletariat at the back, and offer free access to the Business Class toilet because – as he pointed out – he had 150 people on the flight needing facilities; Airbus (and the Italian airline) obviously hadn’t taken that fact into account when configuring the seat lay-out. The meal would not have disappointed a five year old kid with a five dollar budget at McDonalds.

But it wasn’t all bad. The plane did manage to stay in the air for the entire three and a half hour flight – no small feat when considering Italian aviation history, especially in the early 1940s.

At the end of the day, it is simple economics that if you cut the budget something has to give. In the case of the Italian airline, it was service that flew out of the window. In the case of countries recklessly hacking corporate tax rates without stopping to think, they are condemning their populations to austerity today, or austerity tomorrow.

Of course, what each government is trying to do is bring in more foreign investment, expand employment and, thus, the tax base. However, while there is considerable evidence that free trade, by forcing nations to concentrate on their areas of comparative advantage, potentially leads to an increase in the size of the overall pie, tax competition is, if anything, distortive to international trade leading to suboptimal results, at the same time delivering reduced public investment that may have been needed to expand the economy.

johnf-kennedy

Where is he when we need him?

After years of careful planning following the 2008 financial crisis, we are now entering a period of knee-jerk decisions in international economics alongside knee-jerk decisions in international affairs.

At least it will not be boring.

 

m

Was the Battle of Europe lost on the playing fields of Eton?

holy-grail-knight

What was that about Freedom of Movement in the EU?

‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.’ That aphorism, attributed to Mark Twain, has been much on my mind  lately.

Anybody wanting to get inside the minds of the wrong-headed majority that tragically voted the UK out of the EU (and probably lit a fuse to both those abbreviations) could do worse than read one of Dickens’s less known novels, ‘Barnaby Rudge’, about the Gordon riots against Catholic legislation.

Although the situation in 1780 became violent while last week’s referendum ensured peaceful mob rule,  the cynical manipulation and ignorance that led to the riots should have been a cautionary tale taught to every schoolboy and schoolgirl  in the last century and a half.

In the weeks, months and years ahead experts will assess the carnage to be irrevocably wrought on the UK and Europe, .

From a tax viewpoint, the immediate damage would appear to be to the UK Holding Company regime, as well as Finance Companies and IP ownership. This arises from the future removal of the parent/subsidiary directive, and interest and royalties directive. These two directives guarantee exemption from dividend withholding tax and withholding tax on interest and royalties, respectively,  when paid by the other 27 EU countries to the UK. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, withholding tax will be applied according to treaty. This will mean that Holding Companies, exempt from tax on their dividends, and Finance Companies and Patent Box companies paying low tax, will be at a disadvantage compared with EU jurisdictions. As the UK does not withhold tax on dividends according to domestic law, the UK is currently very popular as a holding jurisdiction – a popularity that is likely to disappear very quickly (like, tomorrow morning).

Thanks to the OECD’s BEPS project, most other disadvantages of the Brexit will already have been swept up in wider international agreements, while there may be some small advantage in not being penalized by the EU for offering State Aid to companies.

It is well known that Boris Johnson and David Cameron studied at the same elite school. While the Duke of Wellington may have declared that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, it would appear that  the Peace of Europe may have been lost on that same dot of England’s green and pleasant land.

It’s simply not cricket.

Pupils huddle during the Eton Wall Game at Eton college in Eton, near London

Meeting of a future Tory Cabinet

 

 

 

 

Going it alone?

It would appear Americans have long preferred blondes

It would appear Americans have long preferred blondes

Ever since Marilyn Monroe’s less famous namesake, James, came up with his Doctrine almost two centuries ago, America has toyed with isolationism. They tried it in the First World War, and it didn’t work. They tried it in the Second World War, and it didn’t work. And Barack Obama has spent his presidency unsuccessfully trying to raise the drawbridge to the Middle East.

But there is a bit of isolationism going on at the moment that is not catching everybody’s eye: Tax Isolationism.

As the nation fires its engines for the four-yearly circus that is the Presidential Election, candidates for the Republican nomination are outdoing each other in unpassable and unworkable tax reform proposals. Meanwhile, the nominee-presumptive for the Democratic ticket has made her own comments on the issue.

What is remarkable is that all the candidates have concentrated on lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, conjuring up numbers they each know they will not have to justify. After all, America is one of the few countries in the world where the Government’s Budget is a wish-list rather than a statement of intent (Congress never passes Budgets as proposed). They are looking at America as if it were a self-contained island. Their sole material tip of the hat to other countries is the universal objection to inversion transactions, which have been rife in recent years and serve to reduce the US tax base.

In the meantime, BEPS is fast taking shape, and the US Treasury is belatedly realizing that, as European nations apply the rules and import more profit to their shores, in a zero-sum game the big loser is the U.S. of A. which is by far the busiest player in the international economy.

The big question now is whether the US will try and torpedo part of the BEPS program. At this late stage that would not go down well internationally. As regards automatic exchange of information, America may end up trailing much of the world since the Federal authorities evidently have limited legal right to demand States’ statistics.

What did he see in her?

What did he see in her?

On the other hand,  America’s antithetical view to John Donne’s meditation, ‘No man is an island,’ may not be all bad. As Mrs Arthur Miller herself once observed, ‘If I’d obeyed all the rules, I’d never have got anywhere’.

Putting a Price on Morality

The only relationship between morality and tax?

The only relationship between morality and tax?

‘If you prick us, do we not bleed?’ Well, not if we are a company. This was the point on which I was reduced to a state of heckling at the Lisbon conference described in my previous post. A Breakout ‘Conversation’ – Breakout ‘Sessions’ are SO last decade –  on ‘Tax and Morality’ was irresistible. (Look, when you are choosing between ‘Documentation requirements under BEPS’ and ‘Tax and Morality’,  irresistible is a relative concept.)

That the first question was simply whether tax and morality went together like a horse and  carriage (not precisely those words, but definitely the idea) was unacceptable. Corporate Tax and Personal Tax, as conceded by the moderator in dealing with my outburst, needed to be treated separately, even if the ultimate conclusion might be ‘yes’. Companies are Children of a Lesser God (their shareholders), and it is nigh impossible to pin anything high and mighty on them.

To me, all this populist corporate morality  posturing over the last few years, embarrassingly sparked off by a British Parliamentary Committee chaired by the alleged beneficiary of a Liechtenstein trust, has been one long yawn of poppycock. The most convincing argument regarding Corporate Morality came from a British colleague and old friend, who managed to dredge up the Parliamentary Proceedings leading to the enactment of certain joint-stock companies in the 17th century, that included some kind of public purpose. (I have been unable to confirm this in independent research, but he is a good bloke, so he probably knows what he is talking about.)

On returning home, thanks to an obituary in The Economist, the issue of Morality and Personal Tax was placed into focus. Irwin Schiff, who died in a Federal Prison last month, was a self-styled libertarian who refused to pay Federal Tax in the United States and, often with time on his hands in various open facilities financed by the idiots who did pay their taxes, wrote several books on the subject.

What was remarkable, and so typical of the different approaches of Europeans and Americans to tax, was that his lifelong struggle had nothing whatsoever to do with morality. In America, to this very day, morality is to taxation what a bicycle is to a fish. You pay taxes because the law forces you to. If the law is an ass and doesn’t close a loophole that allows you not to pay tax, you are an ass if you pay. C’est tout.

The late (literally, and with his tax filings) Mr Schiff attacked the income tax on the basis of it being unconstitutional. Now, I admit to not understanding this (and, neither, it appears did various US judges over the years who sent him to cool off in correctional facilities). The income tax was never popular. It was instituted during the Civil War when, to get at citizens clearing off from the land of the free and the home of the brave, it wasn’t escaped by leaving the US – a price still being paid by US Citizens overseas , and currently copied only by that other regional superpower, Eritrea. It was removed in the 1870s and only made it big-time when Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 (the wrangle in recent years over Obamacare revolved around whether the required federal payments by individuals fell within the Amendment).

I personally do believe (as discussed in a number of earlier posts) that there is a moral responsibility on individuals to pay personal tax. However, there is something simple and attractive about the American approach. We Europeans could not begin to understand Mr Schiff. He lived (when not incarcerated) in Nevada, who few would dub the moral capital of the world. He dressed like a second-hand car salesman and represented himself in court (presumably because no self-respecting lawyer thought he had a case – his arguments  drew heavily on ridiculous sophistry).

Promo or mugshot?

Promo or mugshot?

Schiff made a fortune with such Pythonesque titles as ‘The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You’ and ‘How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes’, but the bit I find hardest to comprehend could best be summed up in that wonderful exchange between the legendary Jack Benny and a thug: “Your money or your life?….Look bud, I said ‘Your money of your life’.” …”I’m thinking, I’m thinking!” Forget morality, it seems even freedom has a price in the land of the free.

 

 

Let slip the dogs of war

Even the Portuguese have a Triumphal Arch (what for, exactly?)

Even the Portuguese have a Triumphal Arch (what for, exactly?)

I have just emerged from a fascinating two-day conference in rain-soaked Lisbon. Despite the headline title, the real theme was inevitably the prospects for the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project of the OECD, the rump of which is due to be approved by the G20 shortly.

The public proclamations on BEPS have displayed populist triumphalism while, in the course of the two days – to anybody who had any doubts before – it became clear that the actual prospects are far more modest.

Firstly, by not allowing the Americans to think this was an extension of their work on FATCA, the OECD didn’t manage to bring them to the party. The Americans never join anything anybody else comes up with first – take the Second World War, for example, where the fun only started after Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, by making the Digital Economy the flagship topic, even if the Yanks had been convinced it was all their idea, they were not going to Kamikaze pilot themselves into their own ship – all Digital Economy reforms are, by definition, anti-American.

Thirdly, as two former senior politicians, gentlemen who almost gave me back the naive faith in politicians of my youth, made blatantly clear – no nation, be it America or the other God-knows-how-many countries currently on Earth, was going to give up on any serious opportunity to tax.

Then there was Pascal Saint-Amans, the Frenchman behind the BEPS project, who  explained how he had charismatically convinced everybody to accept his proposals. It was a case of working towards ‘consensus’ rather than ‘unanimity’. And that says it all. Never trust a Frenchman with your wife or long English words. Consensus is a synonym for unanimity. He was trying his luck on us, a group of grey accountants, for whom words are things to be kept under the bed (where the Frenchman may also be hiding). Obfuscation (go on Pascal, look that up in your Collins English-French Dictionary) seems to have been the name of the game. Sell the OECD a pile of words and confuse everyone into thinking something is happening. People may think Saint Amans has worked miracles (if the Pope canonises him will he be Saint Saint-Amans?), but the real deliverable looks a lot more down to earth.

That is not to say that BEPS is a failure (you may be wondering, after all I said above, how I am going to climb out of that one). Transparency – Country-by-Country reporting, international exchange of rulings, examination of holding and conduit companies, and dispute resolution will all become reality, alongside the unrelated Automatic Exchange of Information.

But, sorry Pascal, you don’t get all the credit for that.

BEPS was trumpeted as the first major breakthrough in international taxation in a hundred years. In reality, there has been some breeching of the fortifications, but no breakthrough.  Thanks to populist ‘uprisings’ following the 2008 Financial Crisis, taxation has been under the spotlight. Transparency is the minimum required to appease the masses, and even that would probably  have fallen  apart had it not been for the American obsession with FATCA. Many mistake the noise made by the British and French legislatures over the lack of tax being paid by American multi-nationals as part of the equation. Wrong. These are unilateral acts by Governments looking after themselves – the diametric opposite of the BEPS philosophy.

The G20's greatest internationalist

The G20’s greatest internationalist

The end result looks remarkably like the Allied approach to the Second World War. Frenchman Pascal Saint-Amans, like General De Gaulle,  made a lot of noise, was overrun, but declared victory. The British plodded on alone trying to break the multi-national enemy. And then the Americans came in and did whatever they wanted. I am not sure where the Russians fit in – but let’s wait and see what surprises Putin has up his sleeve if he is invited to the G20 summit (which, otherwise, will not be the G20). Interesting tax times.

 

Send in the clowns

Traditional Silly Season Fare

Traditional Silly Season Fare

One of the highlights of my week is reading The Economist from cover to cover (normally starting with the Obituary at the wrong end). Several hours of sanity and good syntax. Come August and the Silly Season each year, I know I can take my foot off the pedal and glide through the depleted pages of archived material and non-news. Not this year. The world didn’t stop as Europeans headed for sand and sun. Ironically, though, the one country that was missing from last week’s edition – for the first time in living memory – was Greece, the silliest of European countries. This was clearly more an issue of fatigue, than not having anything to write about.

So, that leaves me to fill you in about the goings on in South East Europe’s favourite loony-bin.

As everybody knows, last month the Greek Parliamentary Circus approved an agreement reached by its leading clowns, headed by the comi-tragic Alexis Tsipras, to sell Greece out to the European Union, European Central Bank, IMF and Universe. Pivotal to the success of the agreement will be Greece’s ability to substantially increase tax revenue. Enhanced tax collection and enforcement in a country that sees no wrong in tax evasion is going to be a real trapeze act, but it was the VAT reforms that caught my eye.

The European Union does not have a unified VAT rate system – as long as a country’s standard rate is at least 15% and there are no more than two reduced rates of at least 5%, members can do what they like. Members other than Greece, that is. Already toting a standard rate of 23% with reduced rates of 13% and 6%, the Government had to find another 1% contribution to GDP from ‘the silent killer’. Taking the standard rate any higher would have been the equivalent of a collective downing of hemlock, so the solution was ‘found’ in scrapping the reduced rates on all sorts of things.

This would be far more palatable to the Greeks

This would be far more palatable to the Greeks

The 13% rate is now to apply only to basic food, energy, hotels and water (hotels were previously at 6.5%, so they don’t really count as a benefit). What is amusing is that a new super-low rate of 6% will apply to, wait for it, pharmaceuticals (logical), books (ugh?) and theatre (they’re having us on). As much as I love literature and the performing arts, they can hardly be classified as No. 1 in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In any event, Homer, Herodotus and Plato are all pretty much out of copyright,  so their works tend to be quite cheap anyway. And, as far as theatre is concerned, while it might be reasonable for the desperate Government to be praying for a Deus Ex Machina to get them out of this appalling Greek Tragedy, Sophocles is not going to do it for them this time.

I would actually expect the conniving Greeks to take a leaf out of the Spaniards’ book. When Spain was hit with the need for reform at an earlier stage of the Euro crisis, some Spanish theatre owners found a novel way to get around the increased VAT on tickets. They sold carrots (which due to their basic food status were taxed at the reduced rate) at inflated prices and added a theatre ticket free of charge.

Holidaymakers in Greece can no longer afford everything

Holidaymakers in Greece can no longer afford everything

The other great change in Greek VAT is that the Aegean Islands are to lose their reduced VAT rate status from October 1. The result will be that, whatever nudists save on their holiday clothes will now go on their hotels and food. Bare-faced cheek, if you ask me.

Have a wonderful summer.

Cogito ergo sum

Good old British liberal education

Good old British liberal education

Arguably, the greatest contribution to society of a liberal education is perspective. ‘Dah da dah da dah. DISCUSS’ was the way it went when I was at school, as opposed to the ‘A, B, C, D, E. Tick one’ of the modern era. Today, July 14, is only significant to the vast majority of the world’s population for being the day after July 13 and the day before July 15. In France, it is a national holiday. Back in 1989, the bicentenary of the storming of the Bastille, it was Oxford educated Margaret Thatcher who pointed out in an interview with Le Monde that: ‘ ”human rights did not start with the French Revolution,” a perspective the French were not prepared for.  Fortunately for the Iron Lady, she was guillotined by her own Government the following year, before the furious French could get their act together. Earlier today, the massively anticipated sequel to Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ hit the bookstores. The fictional superhero of my youth ( along with Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne), Atticus Finch, now turns out – in his author’s eyes – to have been a bigot. We all missed that one.

So, with the gradual movement from education to knowledge cramming, it is perhaps no surprise that the entire tax world is out on a fanatically dogmatic witchhunt, not even stopping to breathe and get the whole thing in perspective. And it is embarrassing.

I refer, of course, to the twin tax bugbears of western society, BEPS and Automatic Exchange of Information. Europe (did somebody whisper OECD?) has decided that American (did someone say ‘foreign’)  companies pay scandalously and imorally little tax in their jurisdictions, and the world’s leading economies (did someone shout ‘the entire world’?) are singlemindedly trying to sort this out (with a constant look over their shoulders to check if the Americans are going to throw a wobbler and crush the whole thing). Meanwhile, thanks to the Americans (who feel that – far from taking too much tax away from the Europeans – their taxpayers are hiding their income there),  everybody is trying to make sure that their tax residents declare all their ill-gotten gains.

He tried to take shares in somebody else

He tried to take shares in somebody else

Dogma rules. If this can be sorted out, we are told, the world will be a fairer place. Perhaps. But there are two small issues here that should have been factored in. Firstly, it is by no means clear that companies should pay tax.  While Shylock could ask, ‘If you prick us, do we not bleed?’ joint-stock companies, like Pinocchio, do not have the same luxury. Companies are a legal fiction – the Walt Disney of the business world. As they do not have feelings (an accusation often aimed at me), they cannot suffer taxation. Taxation is paid by flesh and blood people – it is the customers who pay higher prices , the shareholders who make lower profits, and the employees who receive lower income. The company just sails on regardless – and, if it dies, does not even warrant a marked grave. There has always, therefore, been a strong movement to abolish company taxes in favour of taxes on individuals – income tax, withholding tax, value added tax. Company taxes, it is argued, distort economic performance.

Secondly, while the search for the hidden treasures abroad  of individuals is highly laudable,  white man speaks with forked tongue. The latest example of Orwellian Doublespeak is last week’s British budget where non-domicile status (institutionalized tax avoidance) was, with much fanfare, marginally tweaked. Rich foreigners will still be able to enjoy the English weather for substantial periods.

While BEPS and Automatic Exchange of Information are undoubtedly an improvement on the international tax scene that has been around until now, they are not a Utopian goal resulting from deep thought and discussion. They are  the result of an ‘I want’ philosophy of the electorates of the world’s leading nations. The elimination of company tax is controversial and may be totally impractical, but it, and other ideas including a simple move to regressive VAT as the main source of revenue, should have been part of  the debate that never came. Instead, the new world tax order – like so much else in the modern world – is being led by populism. And populism – thanks to a biased, disingenuous and largely ignorant press – is becoming increasingly dogmatic. Look what happened to the French in the 1790s.

 

 

 

Unfrozen Assets

Prime Real Estate

Prime Real Estate

I think the main reason I have been cautious and conservative all my life is a particular madness I observed in the 1970s as I was on the threshold of adulthood. There was a property boom in the UK and people were making a packet buying and selling anything with a front door. One fine day, a wealthy property dealer from our neighbourhood went spectacularly bust – at that time the biggest bankruptcy in UK history. In the months that followed, news surfaced of local rent collectors, shopkeepers and assorted minnows being declared insolvent for millions that they clearly had never possessed. It transpired that a combination of recommendations and guarantees by bigger players, together with banks thirsty to expand their balance sheets, meant that many idiots went from fashionably poor to unfashionably bankrupt without enjoying the fruits of their lack of labour for even a day.

Prime Real Estate

Prime Real Estate

When the Financial Crisis hit in 2008, it was deja vu. Here were Ireland and Spain going belly-up thanks to property speculation, while the Greeks didn’t even make the effort to invest in property – their country just produced bankruptcy out of thin air. But, it was Iceland that really caught my eye. Igloos not being subject to the same rules of property bubbles as other countries, and Iceland not having Greece’s ability to mug the EU, they had to think of something else. And for a country that had little to offer in the form of blood, toil, tears and sweat – what better luftgesheft than Finance? When everybody was doing it, who would notice little Iceland? When Iceland unsurprisingly slipped under the ice, the whole world looked aghast at how it managed to get there in the first place.

Well, it appears Iceland is finally coming in from the cold. Earlier this month the Government announced that it is relaxing the capital controls its predecessor was forced to impose during the 2008 meltdown, meaning that investors with money tied up in frozen Icelandic assets will be able to pull it home, while Icelanders will be allowed to buy forex. The rub is that any foreigner owed money by the country’s bankrupt banks will either need to agree to a substantial haircut or pay a 39% tax.

Now, when you see an offer like that you start to understand why the Icelandic economy crashed. I was, in fact, already at the end of the next sentence of the article I was reading when my eyes did one of those  typewriter carriage returns, boomeranging back across the page for a second-take. What difference can it make to a foreign investor whether the bit of his money  lopped off by the Icelandic Government is a haircut or a tax? The only thing I could think of is that a haircut will invite a capital loss at home which the disappointed investor might be able to use against other foreign capital gains, while a 39% tax on a capital asset is meaningless tosh.

This nation of fishermen, fresh from fooling the world that they were bankers, seem to think they can do it again – you can fool some of the people all of the time. Now that the chips are down once more, investors should smell something fishy and freeze them out.

Virgin Alpine

He was surprised to discover which nunnery she belonged to.

He was surprised to discover which nunnery she belonged to.

Hamlet’s outburst at Ophelia to ‘get thee to a nunnery’ was intentionally ambiguous. In Elizabethan times a nunnery was either a convent or a brothel. Were the Danish Prince alive today, he could merrily get away with the same line aimed at Switzerland. What happened to the once VIP Escort Agency that, on its way to legitimacy, managed to skip the world’s standard hypocrisy, and within six years achieved a pose of pious humbug. ‘I knew the bride before she was a virgin’ could have been written across the Welcome Hall at Geneva Airport.

There is no need to relate the bawdy history of this mountainous paradise – it will suffice to mention the last century’s safe-haven for the loot of Nazi war criminals, and the recently exposed shenanigans of FIFA, football’s world governing body based in Switzerland (and led by a Swiss citizen – one of the most reviled people in the world not serving time for pedophilia or war crimes).

After telling the US back in 2009 that it would not allow UBS to release records of undeclared bank accounts, now, with all the zeal of the convert,  it is publishing lists of individuals subject to requests for information from other governments.

Switzerland has also joined the OECD’s global transparency initiative, according to which there will be automatic exchange of information without the need for a request from another country. And as for  that bust last month of seven FIFA officials in a Zurich hotel…..

Gentle persuasion

Gentle persuasion

Viewing all this from the comfort and security of my own lily-white country, Switzerland is less the zealous convert, and more the faceless (do you know the name of the Head of State?), small-time con who, when put under the swinging lamp, squeals loud and clear.

I wouldn’t trust Switzerland any further than the next US investigation. A leopard doesn’t change its spots – or at least not so fast. Switzerland is to be avoided, nay evaded, by individuals until such time as it settles down to some form of hypocritical normality like the rest of the world. In the field of corporate tax, on the other hand, where international populism has forced Switzerland into change,  the hypocrisy in offering new incentives to replace the old disgraced ones is Switzerland at its cheekiest best (or worst). Nothing to worry about there (other than the possibility that the rest of the world will get wise to them).

Hero with admirer

Hero with admirer

In the meantime, Switzerland will be feeling just a little more self-righteous – and deserving of the centuries-old honour of providing the Pope’s Swiss Guard.

The Party’s Over?

Exhibit A

Exhibit A

The most poignant scene in the aftermath of the British General Election was defeated Labour leader Ed Milliband’s ‘victory’ speech at the declaration for his  Doncaster constituency. True to custom, he used the opportunity to recognize the enormity of Labour’s defeat, and effectively conceded the election. But it was not the words of this left-wing, intellectual misfit’s eulogy that got me; it was the fact that behind him stood fellow candidate Nick the Flying Brick of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. As Milliband all but resigned the leadership of his party, it was as if fate had decreed that Labour supporters look carefully into the eyes of the nutter at his rear, ready to step up to the plate and probably give the Labour party as much chance of election in 2020 as Red Ed had now. Although the Party Manifesto was centre-left, just about everybody –  the ‘somebody-help-me’ areas of the North and  their brother inner-cities that returned Labour MPs, and everywhere else that did not – seemed to believe that Milliband’s gang would not manage to keep their high-taxing, statist paws behind their backs.

It was King Solomon in Ecclesiastes, later echoed by The Byrds, who told us that there is a time for everything. Well, there was a time for statism. Had I been voting 100 years ago, I may well have voted for the Labour Party. The Liberal Government of the time  had been the most radical government in history, bulldozing reforms for the benefit of the wider  population in the pre-war years. But, by the time the Great War  was over, its coalition with the Conservatives had (you’ve heard this one before) guaranteed its obliteration. The  Labour Party was still embryonic immediately after the First World War, but it came fully into its own after the Second. When I did vote 30 years ago, I chose Social Democrat (ie Liberal Democrat in today’s sad terms). It was time for a change in the mix of the mixed economy,  gradually working away from the statism of the post-war years. Had I been able to vote in the  election this week, I would have voted Conservative. The country has changed beyond recognition.

It is more understandable with the Greeks

It is more understandable with the Greeks

The challenge of the 21st century is not the exploitation of labour by the owners of capital; it is the fast-approaching lack of need of labour by the owners of capital. The world needs new solutions to old and new problems  (including the perennial wealth gap), all within the concept of a global economy. The tired old mantras cannot and, indeed, should not be allowed to persist. If anyone doubts this, they need only look at the Official Monster Raving Loony Syriza Government in Greece – a Greek Tragedy waiting to happen.

When the Greatest Generation came back from the Second World War, there was an urgent need for mass employment and the rebuilding of the country. The British Electorate, unswervingly grateful to Churchill for leading the nation to victory, brilliantly recognized the dichotomy between War and Peace, and promptly charged Clement Attlee’s Labour Party with the task. When, a generation later, Margaret Thatcher set about the necessary task of dismantling Attlee’s enterprise (albeit, IMHO, too fast), she was still able to refer to him admiringly as ‘all substance, and no show’.

Labour has elected much worse

Labour has elected much worse

Well, there were 13 years of Labour Social Democratic government under Blair and Brown. The election of Ed Milliband to lead the party in 2010 looked at the time to sane observers, not as an exorcising of the progress made in the previous two decades, but  as the swan song of the, yet unburied, left on its way to a waiting grave.  It almost guaranteed a decade-long Tory stewardship. I, for one, never feared that the British electorate would be stupid enough to send Milliband to Downing Street. It wasn’t. The leadership election in the coming months will probably decide whether it is only a decade. Let’s just hope that in 2020, the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is not an Official Monster Raving Loony Party doppelgänger.

Post Navigation