Don't do evil

Tweet Google’s motto was rather thrown back at them last week by the Chair of the Commons committee looking at tax avoidance by some of the major companies.  I’m not sure that it was entirely fair though.

It’s not that I support tax evasion; I don’t.  Clever schemes to avoid paying tax in one jurisdiction by transferring the transactions to another are at the least immoral, and from some reports, may even be illegal.  But are immorality and illegality the same as evil?  Evil suggests something much more deliberately malign to me.

Killing people – now that would be evil.  Building and possessing weapons of mass destruction, or supporting and acquiescing in such – now that would be evil in my book.  (And, purely coincidentally, would put most members of the said Commons committee higher up my list of evil-doers than Google.)  But using the letter of the law to avoid paying tax doesn’t seem to be in the same league to me.

It made a good headline, though; which was probably all that it was ever intended to do.  Publicly castigating the bosses of such companies is great fun, and attracts attention to the castigators.  But I can’t help feeling that our legislators would be better occupied simplifying and strengthening the laws under which such companies operate rather than engaging in witch hunts.  To say nothing of ensuring that the authorities prosecute through the courts when breaches of the law are discovered.

Expecting capitalist companies to do other than maximise the profits of capitalists by every means that they can is unrealistic.  It’s what they’re there for.  Enriching themselves at our expense is what capitalists do; the evil is in the system rather than in the individuals.

PS – Another thing to emerge from last week’s news on tax avoidance was that Amazon paid less in taxation than it received in government grants.  Am I the only one to be wondering how on earth we can be in a position where a company making billions in profits is getting grants at all?  In this case, it’s the Scottish Government paying them an incentive to build a new distribution centre in Dunfermline; but presumably similar incentives were paid for the centre in Swansea.  We’re paying grants to companies to establish themselves here and then transfer all their profits and taxes elsewhere, in effect.

It makes for an interesting comparison with the call by Iain Duncan Smith a few weeks ago for pensioners who don’t ‘need’ the benefits they’re being paid to give them back.  What about capitalist companies which don’t ‘need’ the grants they’re receiving?

There's more to the EU than economics...

Tweet ...although one might not think that to listen to the opposing sides.  Those who want out proclaim that it will free the UK to compete globally, whilst those opposed to exit paint a picture of economic disaster.  There’s a parallel with the debate about independence for Wales in there somewhere, but not a lot of consistency.  Some of those arguing for the advantages of a UK outside the EU also paint a picture of gloom for an independent Wales; whilst some of those arguing for Welsh independence paint a gloomy picture of a UK outside the EU.

Who’s right?  I suspect that both sides in both arguments have a point, but they’re all over-playing it.  I do not for one moment doubt that the UK would be viable outside the EU.  There would be consequences, and they might not all be pleasant, and there’d be adjustments to be made.  It would be hard for me to argue otherwise when that is pretty much the position that I take on Welsh independence.  The idea that the ‘viability’ of any state depends on the extent to which it is, or is not, united in some form of union with its neighbours is a strange one, and seems to bear little relationship to the real world, in which all sorts of states in all sorts of arrangements manage within the arrangements which they choose.

And that, perhaps, is the point.  Any state has to – and inevitably will – adapt to the circumstances in which it finds itself.  That doesn’t mean that some arrangements might not be better, in purely economic terms, than others, in the short term at least.  Arguing about that balance of advantages is much harder, though, than painting a more black and white picture.

In truth, whether we are looking at the EU or at the UK, the rationale has always been much wider than the purely economic.  Mankind may be economic animals, but we’re not solely economic animals; there are wider considerations which come into play.  It’s a consequence of the extent to which the capitalist ideology has permeated thinking that the arguments are almost always presented in purely economic terms, coupled with a laziness which prefers to bandy numbers and statistics rather than debate wider concepts (to say nothing of an attempt, in some cases, to disguise the real motives).

My starting point is that we need to find ways of exercising sovereignty at a local level as far as possible, whilst pooling that sovereignty where needed in order to tackle wider issues.  It isn’t an easy balance to achieve; and there isn’t a single right answer to the question.  That’s no excuse for avoiding the question.  There’s much more to life than economics.

And another thing about that dam...

Tweet There’s a good reason why all the mockups and impressions of the proposed Severn Barrage show a road across the top.  Although the scheme’s proponents talk about the barrage itself being entirely privately financed, it is unlikely that the barrage would ever be built without the public sector financing that such a road requires.

In theory, it could be a rail link rather than a road link –  a 21^st century alternative to the Severn Tunnel would surely be worth having.  The proposed barrage is really in the wrong place for that though – the alternative (smaller and less environmentally damaging) Shoots Barrage would be much better placed to form part of HS3 – Wales’ link to the European rail network.  So road it would be.

That of course means connecting it to the M4; and I do wonder whether any of the proponents has really looked at a map to consider the implications of a four or six lane highway between Lavernock and the M4.

Assuming that little problem could be overcome, it also raises the question as to how such a road would be funded in practice.  For reasons which escape me, and which seem to defy logic, most, if not all, of our elected politicians seem to be wedded to the idea that road tolls are a very bad idea unless the road crosses a stretch of water, in which case they become a very good idea.  So much so that two parties (Labour and Plaid) are now in favour of using roads-which-cross-water as a source of taxation revenue to fund other projects.

It’s probably reasonable to suppose therefore that any new road crossing would be funded by tolls and that those tolls would have to be set at a higher level than the tolls for the existing crossings – the proposed bridge is, after all, considerably longer than either of the existing crossings and more expensive to build in consequence.

Using the logic applied when the second Severn Crossing was opened, we can’t really have a situation where the crossings are priced differently, since few people would then use the higher-priced crossings.  So I think we can assume that all three crossings would be priced at the new higher level – and that such tolls would continue for the foreseeable future, rather than being reduced (or even abolished) at the end of the current contract period.

So how much of a leap is it really to say that those politicians and others supporting the Hain barrage are, in effect, also supporting not just the retention of Severn tolls but increasing them to a higher level and maintaining them at that level for the indefinite future?

Being overtaken by events?

Tweet The Conservatives seem to be busy digging their European hole even deeper and wider as fast as they possibly can.  There is clearly within that party a deep-seated dislike of all things European.

It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with Norman Lamont, but on this occasion his assertion, although not quite in so many words, that ‘renegotiation’ was nothing more than a fig leaf to enable David Cameron to buy off his party in the short term and keep the UK within the European Union in the long term has a certain ring of truth to it. 

Whether the “renegotiation” ploy will work remains to be seen.  It clearly worked for Harold Wilson in 1975 but I’m not so sure that Cameron has as strong a grip on his party as Wilson had on his.  And Wilson’s Labour Party was badly enough split on the issue.

It’s difficult at times to work out exactly what it is about Europe that so many in the Conservative party have taken such a dislike to.  Lord Lawson attempted to spell out part of his objection at least.  He is quite clear that the European Union is attempting to obstruct the inalienable right of London based international capitalists to rip off the rest of the world and to destroy any country’s economy whenever they so choose.  Those weren’t quite the words he used, but it seemed to me what he was, in effect, saying.

Others have talked about freeing the UK from European bureaucracy in order to be able to compete more effectively.  Somehow it seems to me that the rest of the European Union’s members are unlikely to allow the UK to simply exempt itself from the rules which control them and then be allowed to gain economically through an unfair competitive advantage.  And the idea that the UK can compete (in the foreseeable future at least) with low-wage economies such as India and China, as has been suggested by at least one Conservative, seems to me equally fanciful.  Until such time as wages and living standards in those countries catch up with the West, it seems to me unlikely that competition is a realistic prospect.

It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the real issue is more to do with the perceived electoral threat from UKIP; but that is itself a euphemism for an attempt to appeal to a certain group of voters who traditionally vote for the Conservative party.  There is a section of the electorate which is deeply hostile to Europe, Europeans, and indeed 'foreigners' in general (and I rather suspect, to those of a darker hue in particular) and the line being trodden by those attempting to pander to that section of the electorate without appearing to become openly xenophobic, or even racist, themselves is a fine one.

Attempted populism always carries a danger that events starts to overtake those who think they are in control of them; quite apart from the other dangers which arise from any attempt to appease that particular section of the electorate.  Cameron’s weakness is in danger of leading him into a position where, although I suspect this is contrary to his own instincts, he ends up leading the UK out of the European Union.  And even if he's unlikely to win the election which is such an important precondition, it seems that there are those in the Labour opposition who are being tempted to follow the same line.

The idea that the UK can return to some sort of imperial age independence may appeal to a particular section of voters, but it’s unlikely that most of us would benefit from it.  But, for all their talk of maintaining a rather different union closer to home, it looks as if the separatists are gaining the upper hand within the Conservative Party - and gaining ground in the Labour Party as well.

The dam with a hole

Tweet Just when it was starting to look as if the whole scheme for a Severn Barrage was sinking rapidly – so much so that the MP for Hafren Power Central Neath was starting to foment trouble elsewhere (How could the Labour Party ever think it could win any elections without his advice?), up pops the Western Mail with a front-page banner headline claiming that the barrage scheme has been “boosted” by the engagement of a number of major companies. The paper thinks this is a big story apparently – although not quite big enough to depose rumours about managers of Welsh soccer teams being enticed away to Everton from the very top of the front page.

I wonder whether it’s really that big a story – is it saying much more than “companies sign contracts from which they expect to make a profit”? The paper merely tells us that the companies have “been engaged” to assess the project; it tells us nothing about the commercial terms of engagement. One assumes that they’re expecting to be paid for their work; and companies accepting paid work for profit tells us little about the viability of the scheme itself.

It’s possible of course that I’m being too cynical here, and that they’re doing work for nothing at this stage in the hope of a bigger payback later. It’d be a gamble if they were.

The Western Mail has become something of a cheerleader for this doomed project. Its editorial tells us that “the environmental advantages of building a barrage are demonstrable”, but gives us only that half of the story which fits that particular narrative.

To read both the story itself and the editorial comment, one might conclude that the only opposition to the scheme comes from the owner of Bristol Port; and that as he is a donor to the Conservative party his concerns can be dismissed with no further consideration.

Not only do the environmental arguments for the barrage not stack up, but neither do the economic ones. This barrage will only ever be built – regardless of what its proponents say – if there is a massive investment of taxpayer funding; even if it is disguised funding. It is no coincidence that all the drawings and artists’ impressions of the scheme show a bridge over the top of the barrage.

Hafren Power have been, in fairness, clear from the outset that they would not provide that bridge, nor build the higher and stronger barrage which it would require. That is something that we would have to pay for, but since no one seems able to conceive of a barrage without a road on top, public involvement would be inevitable.

I’d lay odds that the risks and rewards will end up being shared in the usual fashion between the public sector and the private sector – the public sector (all of us, effectively) would get to share the risks amongst ourselves, and the sponsors of the scheme would get to share the rewards amongst themselves.

Preventing that which never was

Tweet A report in the Western Mail last week talked about the need for schools to educate children to prevent them becoming “radicalised” and turning to “terrorism”.  It’s not the first report of this nature to leave me feeling more than a little uneasy; the BBC carried a report a month or so ago in which the Home Office claim to have “deradicalised” 500 people.

The first concern that this raises in my mind is partly related to a sloppy use of language.  Words like radicalised and terrorist are starting to lose any meaning as they are applied in increasingly general fashion – what’s wrong, exactly, with holding radical views for instance?  There’s a danger that we start to treat different views as always being unacceptable views.

The second concern is around the idea that either the government, or the school, can identify those at risk of developing into “radicals” with sufficient accuracy to be able to target individuals or groups and bring them back onto the path of righteousness.  It’s hard to see how any such approach can avoid the danger of branding particular demographic groups as potential radicals or terrorists.

And how do the Home Office known that they have deradicalised anyone?  Putting 500 people who might or might not have become terrorists through a targeted programme gives a measurable outcome certainly; but the long-term effects of that program are surely open to question at the very least.  An ability to conceal their views and intentions is one of the key factors in the “success” (to misapply a word) of some terrorist activities.  I can’t believe that any techniques likely to have been used in the programme – or any program of which I can conceive in a democracy – would overcome that ability.

The intentions behind such programs and proposals are entirely worthy; we all want to think the government is doing all that it can to protect us, as well as protecting potential perpetrators from themselves and each other.

I can’t help feeling though that a line has been crossed when governments claim to be able to identify large numbers of potential terrorists before they’ve actually done anything; and the claim to have prevented people from becoming what they would probably never have become anyway is more than a little dubious.

Scottish £s

Tweet No one should ever have expected any report coming out of the UK Treasury to say anything other than that Scottish independence is a bad idea, and identifying a whole host of practical problems associated with the SNP’s proposal that Scotland should retain the £ sterling.  Equally, no one should have expected the SNP to do other than rubbish the report.  Honour satisfied all round.

However some of the points made by the Treasury have at least a little validity.  The Treasury isn’t always wrong just because it’s part of the UK government.  I’m not sure that the RUK could, even if it wanted to, actually prevent an independent Scotland from declaring the pound sterling to be legal tender.  As a parallel, there are plenty of places in the world quite happy to accept US dollars without having any input into dollar policy.  There’s the rub though – the RUK could indeed decide not to give an independent Scotland any input into its monetary policy.

Whether they would do so or not is another question; I suspect that the SNP is right to assume that this is little more than posturing at this stage.  Everything in the UK’s history suggests that pragmatism and negotiation will be the order of the day if Scotland votes yes – they are just trying to make sure that that situation never occurs.

Acceptance or otherwise of Scottish banknotes looks like a little bit of froth on the whole argument; it’s pretty hard to get them accepted anywhere outside Scotland at present, and that seems unlikely to change. 

The real underlying point arising from the Treasury report however is that Scottish influence on monetary policy for sterling would be close to zero in practice, yet that monetary policy would have a huge influence on the Scottish economy.  In effect, that means little change from where Scotland is today, but I can’t help thinking that “independence” would be more meaningful if Scotland were to break its link with a monetary policy primarily designed to suit the south-east corner of England.

The political rationale for keeping the pound sterling is obvious; it makes independence look like less of a change and less of a gamble, and therefore easier to garner support.  The economic rationale is a lot less obvious to me; I suspect that membership of the Sterling area would turn out to be, in the timescale of these things, a comparatively short phase before Scotland’s eventual adoption of the Euro; a commitment expected of new EU member states.

It’s for Scotland to decide of course; but if it happens there will be some useful pointers for Wales coming out of this debate.

Electoral longevity

Tweet In his speech to the Conservatives’ Welsh conference, the party leader Andrew RT Davies criticised the longevity in office of Labour ministers in the assembly.  He went so far as to compare them with ministers in the Eastern bloc during the Soviet period.

It earned him a headline or two, and I’m sure it went down well with the party faithful.  I’m not sure that it has much validity however.  If ministers are good at their job and if the people continue to elect them, what’s wrong with them remaining in office for a lengthy period?  Indeed, it has often seemed to me that the UK habit of reshuffling ministers every year or two is a convenient way of ensuring that real power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister (or First Minister in Wales) and the civil service, and that real change is obstructed.  Ministers are moved on before they get too knowledgeable about their brief.

It’s also true of course that with a limited number of members in the assembly, the extent to which the First Minister has a choice when it comes to appointing ministers is itself limited.  With a bare majority of half of the 60 members, the First Minister has 30 members from whom to choose.  It’s an entirely different situation from that in the House of Commons, where the prime minister typically will have 300 people from amongst whom to choose his or her ministers.  One way of overcoming that part of the problem would be to increase the number of members in the assembly – but that does not seem to be on the agenda for Mr Davies or his party.

The more significant question than the length of time for which they have been in office is the question of the competence of those ministers.  If they’re good at their job then leaving them in place is not a terribly bad idea; better than handing the jobs over to someone who might not be as good, just because they’ve been in post for a particular length of time.  And if they’re bad at their job then they shouldn’t be there in the first place; longevity does not enter the equation.  But competence is a question on which we will all have our own opinion.

It’s true, of course, that Labour has been in power continuously since the assembly was elected.  It’s equally true as a result of that that the Labour Party – including those long-serving Ministers - must take the predominant share of the blame for any failings over that period.

However we cannot escape the truth that the people of Wales actually elected the Labour Party to that position.  Andrew Davies may wish that were not true – I might wish it were not true – but it’s an inescapable fact.  In that sense any comparison with Eastern Europe is completely invalid.  Longevity in office is simply the result of the people’s verdict, whether we like it or not.

Never mind, it will never happen

Tweet I’m not entirely sure what purpose the Conservatives thought they were achieving by holding a debate in the Senedd this week on the building of a new nuclear power station in Ynys Môn.  It’s not a matter over which the Assembly has any power – and the Tories are usually the first to deride other parties for wasting debating time on matters over which they have no influence.

Whatever the intended purpose may have been, it did highlight the problems with energy policy in three of the four parties represented in the Senate.  (Lack of coherence from the fourth is entirely normal.)

For the Tories, it highlighted a willingness to take a step into the financial unknown in support of their big business friends.  It is entirely clear that no nuclear power stations will be built unless they are given public subsidies, guarantees on prices, or clear undertakings to underwrite risks. The fact that the extent of these costs is currently completely unquantified is apparently irrelevant as far as Tories are concerned.  They will be happy to see all of us, as taxpayers, contribute whatever it costs to enable the large companies involved to make their profits.

For Plaid, it highlighted, yet again, that the party’s energy policy has been turned into something of a shambles by short-term electoral considerations.  The party is, as I’ve commented before, apparently opposed to all new nuclear power stations except the ones that companies actually want to build.  And to read the local press in Carmarthenshire at least, it is in favour of all new wind powered stations except the ones that companies actually want to build. Whilst there are still some in the party prepared to argue the case for renewables – and Cynog Dafis had a paean of praise for wind farms in the latest issue of 'the Welsh agenda’ – overall the party’s stance on energy is now completely incoherent, especially when compared to the clear and unequivocal stance it adopted on energy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Then we come to Labour.  I thought that the comments by the Conservative AM Angela Burns were a little unfair.  Amongst other things she said that there had been little progress from the Welsh government in developing energy policy in Wales. But that’s completely untrue; there has been plenty of progress in developing policy on energy in Wales – the policy on energy produced by the One Wales government between 2007 and 2011 was an extremely good policy.  The problem with the Labour Party stance is that the development of policy and the implementation of policy seem to be seen as two entirely different things.  Policies once developed are put onto a nice big shelf somewhere and the government carries on as though it had never bothered to go through the exercise of developing them.

In any event, the Senate has now declared its support for a new nuclear power station in complete contrast to its previous support for an entirely renewables-based energy policy.  The only saving grace would appear to be that they are no more likely to be able to implement the new policy than they were to implement the old one.

Privatise the Windsors?

Tweet Much of the coverage a couple of weeks ago about the privatisation of the Search and Rescue service seemed to take more interest in the link with a certain William of Windsor than with the impact on either those gainfully employed in the service or what I suppose we should, in today’s terminology, call “service users” or even “customers”.  As a general rule, those whose employment is privatised get to keep their jobs; they just get transferred to another employer who will, over time and despite TUPE provisions, find ways of reducing their employees’ pay and benefits whilst maximising their own rewards.

In this case, it appears that William and his co-workers will be spared such a fate.  It set me thinking though – is the government approach to privatisation radical enough?  Why not for instance privatise the entire monarchy?

Much of the argument for retention of the monarchy is around the alleged tourist value – but might a private company be better at exploiting that potential?  I’m sure that there’s a company somewhere willing to take this enterprise on and run it at a profit.

Instead of us paying the Royals through the civil list, we can run it like the railways; the successful bidder will have to pay an agreed annual charge for the rights to the brand.  They’d have to charge for opening roads, bridges, and buildings of course in order to generate an income stream.  Some sort of sliding scale, perhaps, based on degree of royalness.

They’d also want to rationalise the estate.  There are far too many castles (and rooms inside them) for so few people; those which could not be made to turn a profit could be sold, or even demolished to make way for more profitable developments. 

Such residual roles as the monarchy possesses in the constitution wouldn’t be missed that much; it’s more pretence than real power anyway.  And if they want the brand leader to come and declare parliament open every now and then, I’m sure that they could make the figures show that it’s cheaper to pay a private company to send her than it is to employ her directly.  That’d be in line with normal government approach to the economics of privatisation.

This proposal could also solve all the problems and issues related to future succession as well.  I can’t see any way that any profit-oriented organisation would leave the future of the brand image to the vagaries of human genetics.  No, a privatised monarchy would soon rationalise that little issue.

The government claims that there are no sacred cows; so why should the monarchy be an exception?  Not so much "off with their heads" as simply taking the headcount off the public payroll...