Myths and broken promises around Sunday trading

10 July 2015 by Bishop Alan Smith

Chancellor George Osborne’s Budget on Wednesday included a proposal to allow local control over liberalising Sunday trading.

The campaign in the 1990s for more Sunday trading was presented as a matter of freedom: “We should be able to shop on Sunday if we want,” but it was not about creating a more just society – it was about trying to find business advantage. A determined lobby successfully argued against total deregulation to preserve some of the value of a shared day off and some protection for retail workers and associated employees.

The legislation, which was passed in 1994, was a compromise which tried to balance rights and opportunities for all sections of society. That must still be the objective today.

Retail and associated workers are hardly well off, and it is they who will pay the price of longer opening hours on Sundays. While most of their bosses will still enjoy weekends off, many retail workers already find they have no choice over Sunday working. They have lost, for a large part, the premium payments they enjoyed at first. In addition, they will face more childcare costs, which will probably be more expensive on a Sunday, or lose precious family time.

The same claims in favour of Sunday trading are being made now as 21 years ago – that the economy will grow and that people will not have to work if they don’t want to. This time there is even more compelling evidence about how wrong this is.

The 2012 Olympic Games experience, when shops were opened for longer hours, is not persuasive. The growth in business in large shops took place at the expense of small shops, which lost business. There is only so much money in the economy, and loading businesses with the greater costs involved in longer opening hours cannot lead to growth.

Some distinguished business leaders voiced these arguments, before and after the Olympics, for example Stuart Rose, former executive chairman of Marks & Spencer, and Justin King, when he was CEO of Sainsbury’s. The Association of Convenience Stores, another part of vital social fabric, has surveyed this and leading accountants Deloitte also take this line.

More Sunday shopping is at odds with the Big Society, the vision outlined by David Cameron in 2010. Greater human flourishing is unlikely to come from even more consumerism. Our laws need to encourage citizens to be good neighbours, volunteers, carers and parents, which requires a balance of work and rest.

Research from the National Centre for Social Research shows how important this shared day of rest is for families and for relationships to flourish. If the time available on Sundays for family interactions is diminished (through the need to work) it is not made up during the week.

Our heritage is six days’ work, one day’s rest. We are zealous about preserving built heritage, and pay the considerable price for that because we recognise the social benefit to be gained. Yet this piece of cultural heritage is just as valuable and worth retaining, because it has real value to shaping what kind of society we want to be. That should be at the heart of our politics.

Bishop Alan Smith of St Albans sits in the House of Lords and has a special interest in economic matters

Source

.

Bilderberg 2014: George Osborne and the man at the centre of everything

After terrifying John Major, Sir John Kerr has moved on to well-connected boardrooms and the heart of Bilderberg


Charlie Skelton, with photographs by Hannah Borno

theguardian.com, Monday 2 June 2014 00.27 EDT




George Osborne and Sir John Kerr. Photograph: Hannah Borno


On the sun-drenched patio of the Marriott Hotel in Copenhagen sat the chancellor of the exchequer. He sat quietly and listened carefully as a distinguished older gentleman gave him what appeared to be an intense and barely-interrupted 25 minute briefing. George Osborne sat and listened, while we stood and watched.

The body language was fascinating. George was tense, leaning in, petitioning. The man opposite was physically relaxed but full of gestures and explanations. George was there to listen hard and get up to speed. Apart from a two-minute speech at the end, he opened his lips barely a dozen times, and half of those were simply to have a sip of his fruit punch.



The gentleman with his back to us, slouching comfortably in his chair, is an important, extremely well connected, but not very well known individual: Sir John Kerr. Otherwise known as Baron Kerr of Kinlochard. The current vice-chairman of Scottish Power.

At Bilderberg, Sir John always seems to be at the centre of things: when Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands emerges onto the patio, it’s Sir John who leads her out. When no one else will have a drink with Richard Perle, Sir John steps up:



Patting shoulders, pressing the flesh, ushering people together: Bilderberg is his domain. Sir John is a member of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle – the steering committee – and probably its heaviest smoker. The only thing with more tar in it than Sir John’s lungs is Peter Thiel’s hair.

Here’s a lovely portrait of Sir John, enjoying a pre-dinner cigarette on the riverfront terrace. I think it shows showing how delighted he is to see the photographers camped outside the conference.



Sir John used to be one of the UK’s top civil servants: he was head of the diplomatic service, and served as ambassador to the US and the EU.


One of the architects of European integration, he was in charge of the secretariat that drew up the first draft of the European constitution, and famously hid under the table during the Maastricht negotiations, passing up handwritten notes to John Major. Out of sight, but right in the centre of power.

Major likened Sir John to Machiavelli in his memoirs, and was clearly terrified of the man. He memorably said: “When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?”

After wrapping up his career in public service, Kerr hopped gracefully into the City, and was until recently deputy chairman of the most Bilderbergian company of all, Shell Oil. As well as his role at Scottish Power he is a board member of Rio Tinto, the multinational mining company.

Half diplomat, half corporate creature, Sir John is the ultimate behind-the-scenes powerbroker – a barely visible fixer, in whom the public and private spheres are perfectly melded. He’s Bilderberg incarnate.

And in the power dynamic between Sir John and the chancellor, Sir John is quite clearly the boss. It’s impossible to know exactly what he was saying during their confab, but I think the gist of it was how high George has to get off the ground when Sir John says “jump”.



Anything higher than that’s fine. Anything less, and he’ll take George’s feet off at the ankles.

After a time, a couple of conference organisers came over to the pair and gave them a heads-up about the cameras. Sir John ushered George inside to continue their meeting, while out on the patio other Bilderberg briefings carried on apace.

Over at one end of the terrace, the Swedish foreign affairs minister, Carl Bildt (left), was being given some international advice by a member of the international advisory board of Goldman Sachs, Professor Victor Halberstadt.

 

While at another table, the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, was discussing fiscal policy with the economist Kevin Warsh, who’s on the board of logistics giant UPS.



The man in the middle of the shot, hidden by Warsh’s helpful hand, is Paul Achleitner, the chairman of Deutsche Bank and board member of Bayer pharmaceuticals. He’s at Bilderberg to make sure that whatever Lagarde does at the IMF, it’s for the best. The best for Deutsche Bank and Bayer pharmaceuticals.

That’s what’s so great about Bilderberg: besides the larger briefings, there are all these quiet opportunities for politicians and policymakers to be set on the straight and narrow by international bankers and corporate leaders.

About 10 minutes after guiding Osborne into the blessed privacy of the hotel, Sir John re-emerged and had a few terse words about the press cameras with one of the conference organisers.



That look he’s giving us – you can see why it gave Major the jitters. It could cut tin. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he doesn’t like us. Which is a shame, because he’d be a useful friend to have. He can get you free tickets to the Rio Tinto Christmas party, or an invitation to Bilderberg – but you’d have to behave.

It only remains to be seen if Osborne declares his half-hour one-to-one with Sir John in his quarterly ministerial declaration of meetings with external organisations. He definitely had the meeting. That much we could see. And Sir John is entered on the official conference participant list as “Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power” – which definitely counts as an external organisation.

What we witnessed wasn’t the pair of them bumping into each other in a corridor, it was a serious chat. And it happened to be at least partially transparent to us: so will it make it into George’s transparency data? We’ll know in about four months. And if it does, then what about all the other meetings he’s had during his stay in Copenhagen? And what about the ones at last year’s meeting in Watford?

He can’t just say "Chatham House rules" and expect a free pass. That’s like making up a rule in a playground game that suddenly makes you invisible. “If I say ‘Chatham House rules’ you can’t see me!” Sorry, George, we can see you perfectly well. You should have had your meeting with Sir John in the hotel sauna. Or did Princess Beatrix have it block-booked?

Oh, and if you’re reading this on your way back to Westminster, Justine Greening, the same applies to you. Let’s find out if the ministerial transparency declarations mean anything at all.

In his declaration for the period covering last year’s Bilderberg conference, Osborne covered the three-day meeting with heads of banks and giant corporations with the words: "June 2013, Bilderberg Conference, General discussion." Ever so slightly better than nothing, but not by much. A vague, unattributed “general discussion” utterly fails to describe what goes on at Bilderberg.

What happens at Bilderberg is official government business, and the meetings that take place here shouldn’t be treated any differently from any other ministerial meetings.

And if it’s not official business, why have so many of the ministers brought ministerial aides? Why did Bildt bring along the deputy director-general at the Swedish foreign affairs ministry, Jessica
Olausson?




And if Sweden’s deputy director-general at the ministry for foreign affairs is attending the conference, how come her name is not on the participant list? Is she just in Copenhagen to carry Carl’s newspapers? Is that her, striding across the Marriot patio, or have I imagined the whole thing? It’s not impossible I’ve gone bananas, I haven’t slept much the last three nights: too busy staring at photos of Sir John Kerr and his acolytes. It’s enough to turn the mind.

Not to mention the stomach. Although that could be the jar of marinated herring fillets I’ve just eaten. I wouldn’t rule them out – that’s all I’m saying.

Source
.

Osborne blocks EU Finance Ministers' progress on Robin Hood Tax

08 Nov 11


POSTED BY ROBIN HOOD

At the G20 last week, a growing group of countries from France to Brazil backed the Robin Hood Tax, and the link between the Robin Hood Tax and fighting poverty and climate change became clearer than ever.

Following the G20, today George Osborne met with EU Finance Ministers in Brussels, and with France and Germany as big supporters, the Financial Transaction Tax was on the agenda. Osborne has ended up postponing his return to London after a row over proposals for a Financial Transaction Tax.

According to sources Mr Osborne further frustrated progress by asking what was the point in even having a conversation about the Financial Transaction Tax given that it was going to be rejected. He then asked if it was "the best way to spend our time".

The Chancellor has also said no bank would end up paying the tax and the final payer would be pensioners.

George Osborne appears determined to ignore the positives and exaggerate potential negative impacts of Financial Transaction Taxes.The Chancellor's opposition is based on bad economics and a political desire to put the privileged few in the City ahead of the wishes and needs of the rest of us.

What did Osborne say and why was it wrong?

A Financial Transaction Tax will cause business to relocate

George Osborne's position that it needs to be global to work is disingenuous. The best evidence that this is not the case is right here in the UK. Our unilateral FTT on shares raises more than £3billion for the Exchequer each year without a significant loss of business from the UK. Several other countries including South Korea, India, the US, South Africa and Brazil have also unilaterally implemented FTTs.

These examples provide the basis for a well designed low rate tax that can avoid migration. As outlined at the ECOFIN meeting, it does not matter where the transactions take place, but which parties are involved, making avoidance harder.

The IMF has said that FTTs “do not automatically drive out financial activity to an unacceptable extent”. Those who cite the Swedish example as evidence that FTTs lead to a loss of business miss the point as that was a uniquely bad example.

A Financial Transaction tax will negatively impact on growth

The biggest threat to long term growth is not an FTT, but an out-of-control financial sector. According to the IMF for instance, indirectly, UK economic output fell by 27% or £497bn as a result of the systemic crisis precipitated in 2007.

Growth means more than protecting the profits of the privileged few in the financial sector. Casino banking may add numbers to GDP but it is of little value to the real economy and ordinary people's lives. An FTT could help rebalance finance in favour of the real economy.

The European Commission’s impact assessment, cited by Osborne and others, projects a worst-possible case 1.76% hit to long-term growth across the EU. If the FTT were designed in the way the rest of the document suggests, they conclude that a much lower figure is likely - perhaps as little as 0.53%.

Even this fails to take in to account that FTTs would help stabilise markets by deflating the recent boom in high-frequency trading. By reducing risk and the cost of capital at the same time, FTTs would help bolster positive growth.

It is fundamentally a political choice by governments about which tax options are chosen. The UK is cynically arguing that an FTT could hit growth but has chosen to implement other taxes such as VAT which impact negatively on growth.

A Financial Transaction Tax will hit savings, pensions or small businesses

The FTT's tax rate is set extremely low (an average rate of just 0.05%) precisely to avoid having an impact on pensions and savings that carry out very few transactions. Such a rate would hit high frequency casino trading which is a completely distinct area of banking. 50% of revenue from a Robin Hood Tax would be spent here in the UK helping to save jobs and protect ordinary families hit hard by the financial crisis.

The IMF has studied who will end up paying transaction taxes and has concluded that FTTs would in all likelihood be ‘highly progressive’. The customers of casino banking are high net worth individuals and financial institutions so it would fall on the richest segments of our economy and society to pay, in a similar way to capital gains tax. This is in complete contrast to VAT, which falls disproportionately on the poorest people.

The UK government has committed to 0.7% GNI for international development so doesn't need to implement an FTT.

It is ironic that the UK, a world leader on aid, is blocking a wider agreement that could raise billions to help poor people overseas and closer to home.

It is no excuse to let the financial sector off the hook because the UK government has already committed to spend 0.7% of GNI on international development. The Government is turning down billions in additional revenue that could help us meet not just our international development commitments, but those on climate change and closer to home much needed revenue could help protect services, ordinary families and jobs in the UK as well.

Double Speak? The UK's position over the last few weeks

This is the strongest display of opposition to the Robin Hood tax from the Conservatives. Previous to this, Cameron and Osborne have both said they support the principles of the Financial Transaction Tax and would support it if implemented globally. Yet new information tells a different story; at the G20 we have reports of Cameron not pushing for international agreement, instead trying to block international progress. Contrary to his public statements a leaked letter sent by Osborne to a group of financial sector trade bodies assures them that “the necessary international consensus does not exist” to impose it. But he then goes further than his public stance revealing he has doubts whether a Financial Transaction Tax could work at all.

The Government's stance continues to protect the interests of the City of London. Last month, reports revealed that financiers and the City are putting significant financial resources into making sure politicians don't introduce further regulation, despite their broken promises on Project Merlin. Some of these resources are focused specifically against the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax, notably by the British Bankers' Association who wrote an open letter to Osborne claiming that such a tax would damage what they regard as an 'efficient financial system'. This is simply the mafia that run the casino complaining that their gambling activities may be curtailed. This is nothing to do with the real economy, or in fact the real world.

As pressure grows, internationally and domestically, the UK Government continues to actively block progress on the tax. With countries like America and Russia softening their position, the remaining blocking countries - the UK and Canada - are looking increasingly isolated.

It could be designed to raise revenue in the UK to be spent by our Treasury on good causes at home and abroad. As Gates outlined, and as we have shown with our own existing Stamp Duty on shares – itself a form of Financial Transactions Tax – it would not have to be global to work. A group of leading nations, including the UK, could show the way.

As the UK economy continues to fail and people are losing their jobs, homes and public services, it is time for this Government to start putting the people before the City. The Robin Hood Tax remains the best option on the table to raise billions to fight poverty at home and abroad and tackle climate change - this is first step in Plan B.

We want them to act in the interests of the 99%, not protect the interests of a privileged view in the financial sector.

Source