GP Masthead
Gordon Prentice - Talking Politics
BBC Panorama and Michael Ashcroft PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Wednesday, 01 February 2012 02:26

Last night, Panorama did the nation a great service by firing a blazing broadside at the tax cheat, Michael Ashcroft, whose business activities in the Turks and Caicos Islands are again under scrutiny.

The programme alleges the billionaire Conservative peer had an interest in the construction company, Johnston International, long after claiming he had had “no economic, beneficial or legal interest in the Johnston Group since 1999” when he sold the company.

Panorama blew that out of the water, providing documentary evidence of a clear and close connection between Ashcroft and Johnston International’s Chief Executive, Allan Forrest.

Johnston International built a lavish $16 million mansion for Michael Misick, the former Prime Minister of TCI, who is currently under investigation for corruption. His worldwide assets were frozen last June. But he has not, as yet, been charged.

In 2004, Misick borrowed $4,7290,000 from Coral Square Ltd, apparently an Ashcroft entity, and a further $5m in 2007 from the British Caribbean Bank, run by Andrew Ashcroft, the peer’s son.

In the libel case brought by Ashcroft against the Independent in 2011 (see attached), Mr Justice Eady told the newspaper, in effect, to put up or shut up.

The Judge tells the Independent they must “come off the fence and decide exactly what the charge against Ashcroft is.”

If the Independent is able to advance a properly pleaded case against Michael Ashcroft, to the effect that he did personally attempt to buy influence through authorising the $5m loan and/or the funding of Mr Misick’s mansion and his “lavish lifestyle”, and so on, then the Independent should be able to plead that Ashcroft’s denials of the relevant misconduct were dishonest.

Panorama has given the Independent a stack of ammunition.

How does Ashcroft explain away the relationship he had with Allan Forrest, the Chief Executive of Johnston International? Why was Forrest getting a $300,000 bonus from Ashcroft?

What does the tax cheat have to say about the revelation that he, Ashcroft, controlled Johnston International’s parent company?

The links between the companies he owns or controls are impenetrably complex. A cat’s cradle designed to conceal and obscure.

It is time for transparency.

Ashcroft is not a private citizen. He has a formal position, appointed by the Prime Minister to review the UK’s military presence in Cyprus. And he has used the platform of Parliament to ask how many UK overseas aid projects have been stopped because of corruption.

This time, I doubt the litigious Ashcroft will sue the BBC.

A string of TCI politicians are due in Court on Friday, 3 February to face charges of corruption.


Fred Goodwin

At long last, Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood “for services to banking”.

But he still has the comfort of knowing his turbo charged pension of £342,500 a year continues for life.

The Labour Government should have acted decisively but it fumbled the ball.

Years ago, when I pressed Broon to strip Goodwin of his gong, Broon came up with this opaque one liner:

"The authority to grant and cancel honours is contained in the statutes of the various orders of chivalry."

It was an answer designed to close down any further comment.

By contrast, Cameron realised that stripping Goodwin of his knighthood had no downside.

He seized on the FSA report on the collapse of RBS which damned Goodwin’s stewardship of a great Scottish institution.

This was the authoritative account the mandarins on the Forfeiture Committee said they needed to make Sir Fred just Fred again.

That, and a steer from the Prime Minister.

Attachments:
Download this file (Ashcroft_v_Independent_(1.7.11)_(Approved).pdf)Ashcroft_v_Independent_(1.7.11)_(Approved).pdf[Ashcroft V Independent 2011]171 Kb
Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 February 2012 22:57
 
The trouble with Billionaires PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Monday, 30 January 2012 04:23

Imagine this: you are given one dollar every second.

At that rate, after one minute, you would have 60 dollars. After twelve days, you would be a millionaire – something beyond the wildest dreams of most people on Earth.

But how long would it take to become a billionaire?

Well, at that rate, it would take almost 32 years.

I am grateful to Linda McQuaig, the celebrated Canadian journalist, for doing the sums.

She calls for a much more progressive tax system with a top rate of 70% for incomes over $2.5m (about £1,586,000). And she wants determined action to close the tax loopholes that almost exclusively benefit the rich.

She is talking about the Canadian system but there is a straight read across to the UK.

Our tax system is grotesquely distorted, rewarding the super rich and, too often, turning a blind eye to the tax cheats.

It its report last year (attached), the High Pay Commission tells us “top pay has spiraled alarmingly to stratospheric levels in some of our biggest companies”.

In BP, in 2011 the lead executive earned 63 times the amount of the average employee. In 1979 the multiple was 16.5. In Barclays, top pay is now 75 times that of the average worker. In 1979 it was 14.5. Over that period, the lead executive’s pay in Barclays has risen by 4,899.4% – from £87,323 to a staggering £4,365,636.

I see that Stephen Hester, the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (83% State owned) is to give up his bonus of just under £1 million.

That’s a start. It still leaves him with a base salary of £1.2 million so he should be able to get by.

Will Hutton has a nice piece in today’s Observer, making the point that Hester’s salary is reward enough for the work he does.

More than enough, I’d say.

We should get rid of bonuses in State owned banks. If Hester and the other top executives don’t like it they can move on.

It’s time to call their bluff.


Ashcroft and the Royal Yacht

The notorious tax cheat Michael Ashcroft is offering £5 million towards the cost of a new Royal yacht.

He says he wants to give away his fortune before he dies.

What does he expect?

A round of applause?

Before he gives his money away, perhaps he should settle first his account with HM Revenue and Customs.

William Hague famously told Tony Blair, that once Ashcroft received his peerage in 2000 he would become UK resident for tax purposes in the following financial year.

Hague told us: “This decision will cost him and benefit the Treasury tens of millions of pounds a year in tax.”

Hague subsequently corrected himself.

Not tens of millions. No. No. No.

“Zero” would have been more accurate.


Honour killings come to Canada

Stone age attitudes of “family honour” led Mohammad Shafia, a wealthy Afghan Canadian, to murder his first wife and three teenage daughters.

The girls' Western ways infuriated Shafia, a bullying foul mouthed controlling tyrant who believed family honour had been compromised.

For the past four months the Shafia trial in Kingston, Ontario, has transfixed Canadians who see the world through the lens of gender equality.

“Honour” crimes are a relatively new phenomenon here and the trial got wall-to-wall coverage in the press.

The jury of seven women and five men today found Mohammad Shafia, his second wife, Tooba, and his 21 year old son, Mohammad, guilty of first degree murder.

They will have 25 years in prison to reflect on it all.

In the UK there were almost 3,000 honour crimes last year.

Attachments:
Download this file (High Pay Commission 2011.pdf)High Pay Commission 2011.pdf[High Pay Commission 2011]967 Kb
Last Updated on Monday, 30 January 2012 22:10
 
Pay cuts or jobs? A false choice PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Wednesday, 18 January 2012 20:44

The BBC’s Nick Robinson tells us that Ed Miliband backs pay cuts.

Oh dear!

In his defence Miliband says “The priority has got to be to protect jobs.”

I am left wondering how far you can take this approach before people start to say no.

The most extreme example of wage cutting is happening here in Ontario where, on 1 January, the US multinational giant, Caterpillar, locked out nearly 500 workers at the plant in London, close to the American border.

The plant’s previous owner, Progress Rail, was bought last year by a wholly owned Canadian subsidiary of Caterpillar.

Now the company wants to slash their $35 hourly wages by half and significantly reduce their benefits. Caterpillar say they want to get wages and benefits in line with their US plants.

If you go down this road where does it all stop? $10 an hour?

This Saturday there will be a rally in the town and all the federal Party leaders have been invited.

They will be asked the age old question: whose side are you on?

With some politicians we already know the answer.

Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, looks the other way. He doesn’t want to get involved. But when Air Canada employees were on strike last year, Harper was the first to threaten back-to-work legislation.

We wait for other politicians to find their voice.


Goldman Sachs bonuses average £240,000

A world away from the picket line in London, Ontario, the 1% and their helpers continue to cash in.

As it happens, I’ve just seen the terrific film, Margin Call, which takes the audience into the heart of a US investment bank just as finance capitalism goes into meltdown.

Now, a few years later, and after humungous amounts of public money have baled out private banks, we realise little has changed.

Goldman Sachs’ 95 so-called “code staff” based in the UK share a staggering £175m topped up with additional millions in “Restricted Stock Units”.

Seems to me these stock options should be banned outright. And we should return to progressive taxation to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share.

What does it take for people to feel outrage at what is happening?

Mitt Romney paying tax at 15%?


Birtwistle’s NHS deadline

Burnley’s Liberal Democrat MP, the boastful Gordon Birtwistle, says he has secured the cash for a brand new A&E department or Urgent Care Centre at Burnley General Hospital.

Never a man to sell himself short, Birtwistle tells the Lancashire Telegraph

I’ve got money approved down in London providing they (the hospital trust) get the bid in before April 4.

I’m not bothered about what it’s called as long as we get back what we had before.

Birtwistle’s bombshell takes everyone by surprise.

There is no mention of a £12m capital project in the East Lancashire Hospital’s 2011-12 business plan which covers the period 2011-2016 (see attached).

The Trust plans to incorporate the Royal Blackburn’s Urgent Care Centre into its Emergency Department. But there is no mention of any souped up UCC at Burnley.

If Birtwistle delivers the cash he promises, will the sparkling new building still be an Urgent Care Centre – a designation he likened previously to a “first aid post”?

Meanwhile, in the constituency next door, Pendle’s Conservative MP, Andrew Stephenson, is holding out for the A&E badge to be reinstated. He told readers of the local rag, the Nelson Leader:

Since my election, I am happy to say that the Urgent Care Centre at Burnley is now receiving more ambulances, however the majority of blue-light cases are still going to Blackburn. This is good news, but I still want to see Burnley General have its A&E designation reinstated in full.

I have been keeping up the pressure on the Department of Health, who are undertaking a national review into how urgent and emergency care services are categorised, the “nomenclature review”. Unfortunately, the review is taking a long time, but as ridiculous as it sounds there has never been a proper definition of what services an Urgent Care Centre or A&E Department should provide.

I dare say all will become clear in due course.

Attachments:
Download this file (ELHT_Annual_Business_Plan_2011-12.pdf)ELHT_Annual_Business_Plan_2011-12.pdf[East Lancs NHS Trust Business Plan 2011-2012]715 Kb
Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:23
 
Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Friday, 27 January 2012 03:45

I tend to agree with those who say Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question is loaded.

Professor John Curtice is surely right when he says that in everyday conversation people are more inclined to say they agree than don’t agree.

We need a formulation that is neutral. One that doesn’t nudge the voter in a particular direction.

There have been two attempts to prise Quebec out of the Canadian federation. The first referendum in 1980 saw 40.4% in favour of secession, 59.5% against.

In the re-run in 1995, those wanting an independent Quebec were only narrowly defeated by 50.5% to 49.4%.

Ominously, the question in the 1995 referendum begins with the words:

Do you agree…

What follows is more opaque

…that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

It is an open question how many Quebeckers fully understood the question. Some reports suggest over a quarter of those voting yes didn’t realise they were voting for an independent Quebec.

In any event, once the dust settled, legislation was brought in to make things crystal clear. Canada’s Clarity Act 2000 is designed to ensure any referendum question cannot be read two ways.

Salmond’s referendum question appears clear and straightforward but it is nonetheless a leading question, which my dictionary tells me is

a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer

It must be changed to a formulation that doesn’t tilt the voter towards independence.


Lois Brown MP

Last night, I take myself off to the Aurora Cultural Centre where the local Conservative MP, Lois Brown, is holding a “Pre Budget Consultation”. She wants to know what people want to see included in the forthcoming Federal budget.

Nothing prepares me for the views expressed by the parade of right wing Canadians who declaim from a lectern six feet away from the MP. She sits behind a desk, listening attentively, taking notes.

Step forward, Bruce Annan who describes himself as an accomplished speaker. He is, apparently, an international media consultant based in the town.

He tells the 25 of us in the audience the Harper government was right to pull out of the Kyoto accord and abolish the so-called “long gun register” which requires people with rifles, shotguns and the like to get clearance first from the police before they start shooting things.

He lists with approval Harper’s wilder initiatives before urging the majority Conservative Government to turn its attention to “union bullies’.

The silver tongued media man says the Government should get out of the business of international aid. That’s something for private individuals.

And he believes in flat taxes.

He declares: “By definition, Government spending is poorly spent.”

“I agree with you” chirrups Lois.

“We have to cut.”

She confesses she has no time for Keynes. Her lodestars are Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayek She says Margaret Thatcher is her inspiration.

Lois applauds Toronto Mayor, Fat Rob Ford, for trying to get rid of the City’s subsidised housing.

And, yes, she wants to simplify the tax structure. She is thinking about a flat tax – though it is not Government policy.

Nevertheless, she invites the views of the Chamber of Commerce who, minutes before, pleaded for lower taxes.

That’s the way these Pre Budget consultations work.

Attachments:
Download this file (Your Scotland. Your Referendum.pdf)Your Scotland. Your Referendum.pdf[Your Scotland. Your Referendum. January 2012]786 Kb
Last Updated on Sunday, 29 January 2012 21:48
 
Referendum lunacy PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:09

The future of the UK could be decided by foreigners if the Coalition Government’s plans for the forthcoming Scottish referendum are allowed to stand.

There are an estimated 253,000 foreign nationals living in Scotland and many of them will have a vote.

Under the UK’s absurdly anachronistic voting laws, citizens of 53 Commonwealth countries as well as the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote in all elections. This concession is reciprocated only in Ireland and in a tiny handful of Commonwealth countries.

EU nationals can vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections but not for Westminster. Perversely, they will also be able to vote in the Independence referendum.

In the document Scotland’s Constitutional Future (see attached) the Government says certain categories of non UK citizens should be able to participate in the referendum because they already can vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections and to do otherwise

could lead to administrative complications and risk the perception

that changes were being made to favour one or other outcome, and would enfranchise individuals currently ineligible to vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

This means a closely fought referendum could be decided by people with next to no connection or affinity with either Scotland or the UK. They just happen to be living in Scotland for the time being and on the electoral register.

The UK Government believes

the existing Scottish Parliament franchise achieves the right balance of clarity, consistency, and transparency, and would be administratively straightforward to deliver.

Isn’t something missing?

What about fairness?

How can it be right to allow the UK’s centuries old constitutional settlement to be changed irreversibly by non UK citizens?

Allowing non-citizens to vote for members of a devolved Parliament with circumscribed powers is one thing. Giving non-citizens a say in the possible dismemberment of the UK is something else.

Participation in this make or break referendum should be restricted to UK citizens whose primary address is in Scotland. Pure and simple.

Too bad if this causes administrative complications.

 

For the record, citizens of the following 53 Commonwealth countries who are legally resident in Scotland will be able to vote in the Independence referendum: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Attachments:
Download this file (Scotland Referendum.pdf)Scotland Referendum.pdf[Scotland's Constitutional Future]827 Kb
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:25
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 74
PrivacyTech DetailsSitemap