Monday Moan 27

Hands up all those who pay more tax than the law requires?

Perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t help wondering what all the fuss is about on the issue of taxation and whether or not companies are somehow finding ways of avoiding paying more tax than is necessary.

So many politicians (who themselves seem pretty keen to take maximum advantage of the rules, of course) are working themselves into a high state of moral indignation on this topic that I fear for their health unless they soon take one of their frequent extended holiday breaks.

I am fed up with seeing Margaret Hodge parade herself in front of the cameras every week to deliver another barrage about the ‘immorality’ of companies using the tax rules to pay the minimum amount of tax that they can – all perfectly legitimately, as it happens. If politicians don’t like it then this is not the fault of those who advise clients on tax strategies, but of those who made the rules in the first place.  Hodge last week harangued a witness appearing before her Public Accounts Committee (see Moan 6 and Moan 8 for previous comments on such Committees) with a string of aggressive questions, or rather statements designed to draw out the responses she wanted.  A bully at work.  But when she said “If the public knew you were in the business of deliberately avoiding tax they would think you were completely and utterly and totally immoral in the work you are doing” I had to pinch myself to check that I was not dreaming.  Was she really saying that someone was engaged in completely and utterly and total immoral work when what they were doing was promoting a scheme that had been advised to the tax authorities and approved by them as being perfectly legal? If you've nothing better to do then have a look here at 12 mins 40 secs.

Hands up all those (apart from Starbucks, apparently) who want to pay more tax than the law requires?  Hmm, a fairly small number of people I imagine.  And that number is unlikely to include Margaret Hodge herself, whose life has been made just a little easier by being the daughter of a very wealthy businessman who sent her off to private school and, following her inheritance on his death, in whose company she holds (directly and through her children and others) almost 10% of the shares, currently valued at some £20m.  Questions about the tax avoidance strategies of that company have exercised some commentators recently, although the company itself says everything it does is perfectly legal.  I’m quite sure that is true, but in other circumstances that would not stop Hodge from seeking a headline or two.

 

Radio 4 Today programme – an exercise in playground debating tactics

The Today programme has been up to its usual tricks again. Evan Davis interviewing George Osborne last week demonstrated precisely why either he (Davis) should be given a holiday or why politicians generally should be wary of agreeing to be interviewed.

In classic Today style (see Moans 8 and 22), Davis knew all the answers to his ‘questions’ (statements) beforehand because he, of the massive ego, was much brighter than poor old George. So, his task was simply to get George to admit his guilt by answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as required – another tactic much used these days (see Moan 17).  Davis kept telling Osborne to answer with either of these, and then talked over Osborne if he didn’t comply.  Osborne tried to reason with him but was rudely rebuked for wasting Davis’s time.

Osborne -“I’m sorry, you can’t just ask these questions and before you even allow me to answer” ….

Davis - “Well, it’s a factual question, you are clearly unable to answer, so let’s move on. Come on, let’s not waste time.”

Memo to Today.  Please stop this pointless and insulting approach to interviewing.  Perhaps just try to imagine the boot being on the other foot and ask yourselves whether you would consider this to be a perfectly reasonable approach or whether you would find it rude and unacceptable – the equivalent of playground behaviour.

 

A clever economist speaks ……

Whilst on the subject of the Today programme, we had the great pleasure of listening to Lord Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick and long-standing economic know-all, being interviewed alongside Bridget Rosewell, professional economist and business woman, last week on the subject of the Autumn Statement and the state of the UK economy.  Bridget Rosewell ventured that Lord Skidelsky’s recipe for the economy was based on a false premise because, she said, “the economy is a bit stagnant but it is not in recession”. 

Lord Skidelsky, eminent professor and man of many well-constructed thoughts, responded by saying “The economy is in recession, it has not grown, to any extent, in the last year and a half and if that isn’t …. well, all right, call it semi-recession”.

So, that’s clear.  The noble Lord’s views are based on the UK being in recession, which turns out to be not a recession but a newly-coined economic state of half-recession when confronted by the need to support his assertions.

Makes you look up to the academic profession, doesn’t it?

 

Time to put it out to grass?

I have been a great fan of Have I Got News For You for many years.  I have put up with Ian Hislop’s almost unbearable smugness, particularly when there is a guest he clearly dislikes.  I have put up with the scripted nature of so much of the programme, because it still made me laugh and there was enough apparent spontaneity to make you feel you were watching people thinking on their feet.

This series, however, has limped along rather joylessly.  We have had too may poor episodes to be able to excuse each of them as ‘just one that didn’t work’ (see Moan 19). Far too many awful guest presenters.

Even Paul Merton now appears to have lost his spark.  He has been the key to the programme’s attraction for me, and it is sad to see him struggling to find things to say that make you laugh. He doesn’t seem disiniterested, just lost.   This week’s epsode featured an extraordinarily wooden David Mitchell as guest host – another who suffers when working to a formal script, it seems.  Worst of all, it featured, yet again, Janet Street-Porter. Leaving aside the voice, which ought to have guaranteed that she was never allowed to broadcast in any form whatsoever, the fact is that she is just boring and whatever is the very opposite of funny.  She has been on this programme so many times I have to assume either that she is always available and very cheap, that she has some incriminating evidence stashed away against whoever is in charge of bookings for the programme, or that (surely not?) some kind of warped audience research indicates that people like her.

 

I can hardly believe it, but I can't see the point in watching HIGNFY in future.  It's the end of an era.

Monday Moan 19

What An Example

Sitting on a bus going into one of our lovely provincial cities from the Park & Ride facility on Saturday I shared the top deck with a family group – Grandad, Grandma, Dad, Mum and child.  The child wondered why Grandad was sitting a few seats in front of the rest of them – “that’s so I can fart when I want to” explained the senior gentleman.  Nice.

 

The rest of the journey was no better.  The Grandad’s and Dad’s ‘conversations’ were littered with expletives, delivered at full volume so everybody on the bus could hear.  There was a running commentary on everything outside and an assessment of everybody they saw. 

 

Loud, obnoxious, opinionated, foul-mouthed …… what an appalling example to the poor child.  She may turn out to have respect for others and to behave in a civilised way, but if she does it will be no thanks to her relatives. 

 

Shame on them.

 

 

Any Chance Of A Seat?

Later in the city it was time for lunch.  Everywhere was busy but we didn’t want a full meal so decided to go to one of the many Starbucks/Costas/Pret A Manger/Caffè Nero-type places that have replaced the sandwich bar and cafes of the past.

Finding food wasn’t much of a problem.  But finding a couple of seats was.  Plenty of seats in the venue but mostly occupied, at the height of a busy Saturday lunchtime, by groups of people lingering over a cup of coffee and a very long chat.  At least there was no evidence in the particular place we chose of the laptop brigade – who can manage to make a single drink last for hours as they occupy a whole table with their laptops and papers.  Mind you, we found them at another place later in the day when all we wanted was a quick refresher after sightseeing and shopping.

What is it with such people?  Why is it that they think it acceptable to occupy space in a busy restaurant when their own food (if they ever had any in the first place) and drink has been consumed and they are just sitting around chatting, when people with food cannot find a space to eat?    Ask them to move up to make room, or perhaps ask if they are about to go and you are likely to be ignored, given a withering look or perhaps verbal abuse.

And why do the establishments themselves not do something about it?  Go out to a proper restaurant and overstay and you are quite likely to be asked to leave if there are others who are waiting for a table. 

 

Not Just The Crude

Whilst I’m on about it, there are plenty of others who can be intrusive and obnoxious in public places, as well as the foul-mouthed ones mentioned earlier.

Whilst less offensive than my bus companions, I’m not really that happy to find my ears assaulted by braying children of the rich who want everyone to know about their fabulous holidays, expensive sports activities, how Mummy or Daddy do this or that, or anything else of a similar ilk.

Whatever happened to private conversations between people in public places?  I try very hard to keep whatever I say to my table companion between the two of us and not to broadcast everything I say to everybody else in the place.

But then I’m not showing off, I’m not bragging, and I’m not wanting everyone to see me and know how important, rich, clever or funny I am.  I’m just out for a quiet day with someone I’ve chosen to be with and who wants to be with me.  We want to enjoy ourselves without imposing on others.

I know, that makes me weird.

 

Chicken Or Egg?

I wandered into the hell that is Primark during my city outing and found myself wondering whether the shop and its ethos were the cause of mess that is their sales floors or whether it was all the fault of their customers.  If you have shopped in one of their stores you will know what I mean – clothes all over the floor, customers rifling through piles of t-shirts or the like looking for their size and not worrying about those that fall on the floor around them, let alone folding them up again and putting them back afterwards if they decide not to buy.

You see similar things at other stores during sales times – as people rush to try to find the bargains and just leave discarded clothes on the floor. 

Is it the cheapness of the clothes that makes people behave like this?  Are there just too many customers trying to get hold of the goods so that they have no time or space to put things back?  Are the employees not trained or bothered to tidy up?

I don’t know the answer, and it is probably a combination of many things, but it all makes for a depressing experience, made worse by the knowledge that the clothes won’t last, so you’ll have to go through it all again soon.

  

You Are Only As Good As Your Last Gig

Clare Balding was one of the media stars of the Olympics and Paralympics.  Her stock rose to new heights as she was lauded as the best TV presenter, a person who knew what she was talking about, who had presence, authority and humour in just the right proportions.

It must have seemed like a good idea for her to accept the offer to chair last week’s ‘Have I Got News For You’ as a means of furthering her reputation. 

I doubt that she thinks so now.  HIGNFY is a show I like.  It usually manages to cover (loosely) the key topics of the week in a lively and entertaining way.  But not this week.  It might have seemed obvious to comment upon the Jimmy Savile revelations and upon Abu Hamza’s arrival in NY but, unfortunately, neither worked and we faced a series of tasteless jokes and embarrassed reactions from the audience that left the performers wriggling uncomfortably in their seats – and this despite what were undoubtedly the best efforts of those whose job it is to edit the mass of footage into a sharp and funny half hour programme.

A good reputation can so easily be tarnished by one calamitous appearance – I hope for Clare’s sake this is not something she’ll live to regret.