Unbiased pros and cons of EU membership : Part 3 – Corrupt and Undemocratic? The EU and UK governments

In this post I’ll explain how decisions are made in the EU,  how democratic or undemocratic it is, and how corrupt (or not) it is ; and then a discussion of the same for the UK government.

How the EU works – How democratic (or undemocratic) is it?

The EU has four main decision making bodies – the European Commission, the European parliament, the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

The European Council is made up of all the elected heads of government (Prime ministers or Presidents) of EU member countries, plus the President of the European Commission.

Candidates to be President of the Commission are selected by the European Council by Qualified Majority Voting (meaning larger countries get more votes based on their population).

Then the European parliament, (made up of MEPs elected in every EU member country, by the Proportional Representation voting system), votes to approve or reject the candidate for President of the Commission.

Then each country’s government gets to put forward candidates to be commissioners. The Commission President assigns potential offices to them (e.g Commissioner for agriculture) and the European parliament votes to approve or reject them, until enough have been approved that all offices are filled.

The Councils of Ministers are made up of ministers from member governments of the EU. E.g The Council of Ministers when dealing with EU agricultural policy or laws would be made up of the Agriculture Ministers of all national governments in the EU. Votes by any Council of Ministers are also usually by Qualified Majority Voting.

The European Commission can put forward proposals for EU laws (regulations).

Usually any EU law (‘Regulation’) the Commission propose has to be voted on by the European Council (if a very controversial or major issue), or else the relevant Council of Ministers, and also by the European parliament.

The European parliament can also vote to amend (propose changes to) the proposed law. If a majority of the parliament and a majority of the Council vote in favour of the law, it becomes EU law. If not, it does not.

This is called the “Ordinary Legislative Procedure” – shown in more detail in the picture at the start of this post - you can click on the picture to enlarge it.

There are some ‘Special Legislative Procedures’ in which the Commission and the Council are the only ones involved in making a decision on an EU Regulation, with the European parliament only consulted on its views. These are only used rarely and can only be used in certain policy areas.

Then there are EU Directives, which are made by the Commission, and in theory require no one else’s approval to enter into force. In practice though national governments can decide how to implement them.

Also in practice a country’s parliament can choose not to implement a Directive by voting to “derogate” from it, as Ireland’s parliament did over the First Railway Directive, although the EU sometimes takes legal action against and tries to sue member governments for not implementing Directives (though the European Court of Justice does not always rule in the commission’s favour).

International Treaties (such as the extremely controversial Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership  or TTIP which the EU and US governments are negotiating on) are negotiated on by commissioners, but on a mandate given to them by the Council and parliament, and must also be ratified by majority votes for them in the European Council and Parliament, and by national parliaments also before they can come into force at EU or national government level.

This is all very complicated, confusing, blurs who is responsible for what ;  and far too much of it happens in secret (with the media banned from most meetings of the Councils and Commission, but allowed in the European parliament).

Even MEPs can’t make any photocopies of documents on the details of TTIP negotiations to show to anyone else for instance (1).

(This resulted in details of the negotiations being leaked – including that they did include the provisions for companies to sue governments for any regulation that limited their profits. (which EU officials had previously denied. (2)

This leak however makes it far less likely any agreement on these terms will be ratified – with the French government already saying it may not ratify TTIP after the leak (3))

However the EU, despite not being nearly as democratic as it should be, is far from being “completely undemocratic” as many of the its critics allege.

Three of the four main decision bodies are elected, and in practice no EU Regulation or Directive can pass without the approval of elected bodies. Nor can “unelected bureaucrats” (i.e European Commissioners) make any decision without elected representatives voting to approve them (or to reject them so they aren’t implemented).

How corrupt or influenced by big banks and firms is the EU?

For instance European Commissioners and their advisers are often former employees of big companies such as Exxon-Mobil – and some of them draw up EU energy and environment policy (4).

The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank.

Many other politicians and central bankers in Eurozone countries, have gone back and forth between senior positions in government, and being paid advisers to or executives of Goldman Sachs and other large banks (5).

It seems unlikely to be coincidence that the EU has issued 1 trillion Euros of ‘Quantitative Easing’ money to private banks, but won’t issue any to pay off debts of countries like Greece (6).

And around a third of European Commissioners, on finishing their time in office, go into jobs working for big banks or firms (7).

These are just examples, not an exhaustive list.

Now how democratic is the UK government? And how influenced by big business?

How democratic (or not) and how corrupt,
or influenced by big business, (or not) is the UK government?

MPs – The House of Commons

The House of Commons – the MPs of the UK parliament - are elected by the First Past the Post voting system, which bins millions of peoples’ votes unrepresented in every election, and lets parties get a majority of seats on a minority of votes (currently the Conservatives have 51% of MPs on 37% of votes) (8).

In theory elected MPs appointed government ministers direct civil servants on what laws to make and parliament votes on whether to amend them, pass them or reject them.

The House of Lords

The House of Lords, though unelected, has little power in practice. It can only send a bill (draft law) back to the elected House of Commons (made up of MPs) twice, with suggested amendments (changes). If the Commons send the bill back a third time the Lords cannot vote against it, even if their amendments have been rejected.

In practice the Lords have helped to prevent Prime Ministers with big majorities for their party in parliament rushing through laws before the public, MPs, or the media have had time to look at what those laws would do in detail – because many MPs just vote whatever way the party leader tells them to most of the time.

The Prime Minister can appoint unelected members of the House of Lords to be government ministers, which is more dubious.

Big banks and Companies’ Influence in government departments

A much more undemocratic – and arguably corrupt – factor - is that big banks and big companies that donate to party funds often second their employees to UK government departments. They then get to influence, write, or scrap, regulations for their industries.

The Ministry of Defence has dozens of staff seconded to it from arms companies it’s giving contracts to . Energy companies second dozens of staff at a time to the Department of Energy and Climate Change – including some from gas companies writing energy policy (9) – (12)

The four largest accountancy firms in the UK also routinely second staff to the Treasury, where they help draft tax laws. They then use the knowledge of tax laws and influence over them which they gain to help paid clients they advise (including big banks and companies) to avoid taxes (13) – (14).

Chancellor George Osborne has even given a job to the former head of the British Bankers’ Association writing tax law at the Treasury. (15)

There are no laws preventing advisers or ministers taking jobs with firms they did favours for in government. And advisers to ministers and Prime ministers are not elected, but appointed. 

In itself advisers being unelected would not be a problem, if so many of them did not have close involvement with private companies who profit from advice they give ministers – and if they did not often then take jobs with those companies.

For instance Sir Stuart Rose, an adviser to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is also a paid member of the Board of Bridgepoint Capital – an investment firm which owns the majority of shares in the private healthcare firm Care UK (16).

Mark Britnell, an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron on health policy, told a meeting of private healthcare firm executives that the NHS would be shown “no mercy” and that this was a “big opportunity” for them (17).

A year later he went into a job as a lobbyist for a company that lobbies on behalf of private healthcare companies (18).

The former head of HMRC – the Treasury’s tax collecting body – Dave Hartnett, now has a job working for the HSBC bank (19).

Under him HMRC let big banks and firms off with not paying large amounts of tax, without prosecution, in “sweetheart deals”, while aggressively prosecuting people on ordinary incomes for tax evasion (20).

The Campaign Against the Arms’ Trade’s Revolving Door blog shows the many former Ministry of Defence Ministers, advisers and chiefs of staff who have gone on to jobs working in arms companies (21).

Former Conservative Health Secretaries Stephen Dorrell and Andrew Lansley both went into jobs working for private healthcare firms after overseeing the contracting out of NHS services to private companies that donated to Conservative party funds (22) –(23).

Before that New Labour Health Secretaries Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn similarly went into jobs with private healthcare firms after also overseeing ‘Public Private Partnership’ contracts going to private firms, and the contracting out of NHS services to private firms.(24).

Again these are just examples, not every instance.

Big Business Influence through donations to party funds

There are no serious restrictions on political donations from big banks, big firms or the very wealthy to political parties.

Banks and hedge funds provided over half of the donations to Conservative party funds in the run up to the 2010 election (25).

The Coalition government including the Conservatives continued New Labour’s policy of massive Quantitative Easing of hundreds of billions of pounds, with every penny going only to private banks  (26).

In 2013 Mark Carney, a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank, was appointed Governor of the Bank of England (27).

Between 2010 and the 2015 election super-rich hedge fund managers donated £10 million to the Conservative party (28).

At the same time Chancellor George Osborne cut the top rate of tax from 28% to 20%, and abolished stamp duty reserve tax on asset management funds – which would include hedge funds (29).

Although he did later exclude hedge funds from a cut in Capital Gains tax for other businesses (30)

Leaving the EU without addressing these problems will not fix them.

It’s private political donations and the revolving door between government and business that are undermining democracy at every level of government.

The Leave Campaign’s leaders – Would they protect the NHS and stop TTIP?

Leave campaigners Michael Gove MP, Daniel Hannan MEP and Nigel Farage MEP  say they would increase NHS funding if we left the EU. Yet Gove and Hannan co-authored a book in 2009 which called the NHS “irrelevant to the modern world”. And Hannan told Fox News that the NHS was “a 60 year old mistake”. Farage has been caught twice saying the NHS should be replaced with private healthcare (31) – (33).

Gove , Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson are also members of a Conservative government slashing public health spending so it can say the NHS has “failed” and needs “reforms”, while promising “big opportunities” to private healthcare firms that donate to Conservative party funds (34) – (35).

So are Cameron and Osborne, who are for staying in the EU, but Hannan and Gove’s previous statements suggests they would erode the NHS even more.

Boris Johnson’s supposed opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is not credible when he wrote an article praising its “brilliance” in 2014. (36).

So if Boris has his way he will probably just negotiate a TTIP style deal, but between the UK and the US rather than the EU and the US.

Sovereignty here just means Boris and pals handing more power to big business. And these are the people likely to become Prime Minister and government ministers once David Cameron stands down (As he’s said he will before the next General Election) if we leave the EU.

Of course many of the politicians campaigning for remaining in the EU are no more trustworthy – certainly not Cameron or Osborne.

Conclusion – Leave or Remain in the EU?

So the EU and the UK government both leave a lot to be desired. Both should be a lot more democratic than they are. Both are heavily influenced by big banks and big companies through donations to political parties and the revolving door of people going back and forth between government and big business.

Which you choose is up to you. You may decide that getting rid of one level of bad government is an improvement. Or that there is no point in leaving one corrupt and not fully democratic layer of government just to give another that is just as bad more influence – and that remaining to push for reform of both is the best way.

 

 (1) = www.guardian.com 18 Feb 2016 ‘MPs can view TTIP files – but take only pencil and paper with them’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/mps-can-view-ttip-files-but-take-only-pencil-and-paper-with-them

(2) = www.independent.co.uk 02 May 2016 ‘After the leaks showed what it stands for, could this be the end for TTIP?’, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ttip-leaks-shocking-what-are-they-eu-us-deal-a7010121.html

(3) = www.guardian.com 03 May 2016 ‘Doubts rise over TTIP as France threatens to block EU-US deal’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/03/doubts-rise-over-ttip-as-france-threatens-to-block-eu-us-deal

(4) = Corporate Europe Observatory ‘Brussels, Big Energy, & revolving doors: a hothouse for climate change’, http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2015/11/brussels-big-energy-revolving-doors-hothouse-climate-change

(5) = www.independent.co.uk 18 Nov 2011 ‘What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

(6) = BBC News 22 Jan 2015 ‘ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515

(7) = Corporate Europe Observatory 17 Mar 2016 ‘Revolving doors round-up’, http://corporateeurope.org/revolving-doors/2016/03/revolving-doors-round

(8)  BBC News Election 2015 Results,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

(9) = www.guardian.co.uk 17 Feb 2015 ‘Dozens of arms firm employees on MoD secondments’, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/16/dozens-of-arms-firm-employees-on-mod-secondments

(10) = www.guardian.co.ujk 05 Dec 2011 ‘Energy companies have lent more than 50 staff to government departments’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/05/energy-companies-lend-staff-government

(11) = www.guardian.co.uk 10 Nov 2013 ‘Gas industry employee seconded to draft UK's energy policy’, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/10/gas-industry-employee-energy-policy

(12) = Independent 22 Apr 2015 ‘Big Six firms use influence to dictate energy policy, claims leading environmentalist’, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/big-six-firms-use-influence-to-dictate-energy-policy-claims-leading-environmentalist-10196672.html

(13) = www.guardian.co.uk 26 Apr 2013  'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax', https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy-firms-knowledge-treasury-avoid-tax ( four main accountancy firms in the UK second staff to Treasury to write tax laws, then use knowledge of them to help clients avoid tax)

(14) = House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, 15 Apr 2013 ‘Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms ‘, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/870/870.pdf

(15) = www.guardian.com 09 Dec 2015 ‘Osborne criticised over Treasury job for former bank lobbyist’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/former-bank-lobbyist-to-head-treasury-office-tax-simplification (former Chief Executive of British Bankers’ Association given job writing tax law for the Treasury)

(16) = Independent 14 Feb 2014 ‘NHS adviser Sir Stuart Rose has private health link’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-adviser-sir-stuart-rose-has-private-health-link-9129592.html

(17) = www.guardian.co.uk 14 May 2011 ‘David Cameron's adviser says health reform is a chance to make big profits’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform (for private healthcare firms – also told them NHS would be “shown no mercy”)

(18) = Guardian 23 Nov 2012 ‘David Cameron's former NHS privatisation adviser becomes lobbyist’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/23/david-cameron-privatisation-adviser-health-lobbyist

(19) = www.independent.co.uk 24 Mar 2015 ‘Former HMRC boss Dave Hartnett forced to defend new job – with HSBC’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/former-hmrc-boss-dave-hartnett-forced-to-defend-new-job-with-hsbc-10129195.html

(20) = www.guardian.com 29 Apr 2013 ‘Revealed: 'Sweetheart' tax deals each worth over £1bn’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/29/sweetheart-tax-deals

(21) = Campaign Against The Arms Trade – Revolving Door Log,
https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/influence/revolving-door

(22) = www.guardian.co.uk 20 Oct 2015 ‘Ex-health secretary Andrew Lansley to advise firms on healthcare reforms’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/andrew-lansley-advise-firms-healthcare-reforms

(23) = PULSE 01 Dec 2014 ‘Former health secretary takes up private management consultancy role’,  http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/political/political-news/former-health-secretary-takes-up-private-management-consultancy-role/20008623.fullarticle (this time Stephen Dorrell MP)

(24) = Guardian 17 May 2011 ‘Former Labour ministers rushing to take private sector jobs, report finds’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/17/labour-ministers-consultancy-private-sector

(25) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 08 Feb 2011 ‘Tory Party funding from City doubles under Cameron’, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/02/08/city-financing-of-the-conservative-party-doubles-under-cameron/

(26) = BBC News 03 Dec 2015 ‘What is quantitative easing?’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

(27) = BBC News 30 Jun 2015 ‘Mark Carney takes over as head of Bank of England’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23118515

(28) = www.independent.co.uk  04 Feb 2015 ‘General Election 2015: How hedge fund super-rich 'donated £19m to Tory party'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-hedge-fund-super-rich-donated-19m-to-tory-party-10024548.html

(29) = www.mirror.co.uk 24 Mar 2013 ‘George Osborne in Budget giveaway to Tory donors in the City’, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-budget-giveaway-tory-1781551

(30) = Telegraph 17 Mar 2016 ‘Budget 2016: private equity angered at exclusion from capital gains tax cuts’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/17/budget-2016-private-equity-angered-at-exclusion-from-capital-gai/

 (31) = www.guardian.co.uk 16 Aug 2009 ‘Key Tory MPs backed call to dismantle NHS’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/16/tory-mps-back-nhs-dismantling (Michael Gove MP and Daniel Hannan MEP co-authored book ‘Direct Democracy’ in 2009 which said the NHS is “no longer relevant in the 21^st century”. Hannan also told Fox News that the NHS was a “60 year old mistake”)

(32) = www.guardian.co.uk 12 Nov 2014 ‘Film shows Nigel Farage calling for move away from state-funded NHS’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/film-nigel-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies

(33) = www.independent.co.uk 20 Jan 2015 ‘Nigel Farage: NHS might have to be replaced by private health insurance’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-nhs-might-have-to-be-replaced-by-private-health-insurance-9988904.html

(34) = www.independent.co.uk 27 Nov 2015 ‘George Osborne actually cut public health budget by 20 per cent despite NHS promises, analysis finds’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-actually-cut-health-budget-by-20-per-cent-despite-nhs-promises-analysis-finds-a6751311.html

(35) = see the blog post on this link and sources in it

 (36) = Telegraph 19 Oct 2014 ‘This trade deal with America would have Churchill beaming’, by Boris Johnson,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11173369/This-trade-deal-with-America-would-have-Churchill-beaming.html

Energy company executives are lying about their costs and ever increasing profits - here's the proof - time to nationalise the energy industry

The energy companies claim their profits are not increasing. Yet Scottish Power’s own 2012 accounts show it more than doubled its net profits from £267 million in 2011 to £648 million in 2012 (1)

The energy companies claim the vast majority of any profits they do make are re-invested in new generation capacity. Yet in February Scottish Power’s parent company Iberdrola announced it was spending £890 million from Scottish power revenues on share dividends (2) – (4).

It also spent £23,000 sponsoring Labour, Conservative, SNP and Plaid Cymru conferences and events in 2012 (5). An investment to ensure no real regulation or renationalisation maybe? If so, cheap even if it had been ten times that.

Accountants who looked at the Big Six energy firms’ accounts, interviewed by Channel 4’s Dispatches, found they all issue similar share dividends of hundreds of millions of pounds a year (6).

The accountants also found the firms’ claims on their profit margins include only retail, excluding big profit margins on generation and wholesale of energy, with all six firms being generators as well as retailers (7).  

Office of National Statistics and Ofgem figures show that while wholesale energy costs increased by 38% between 2005 and 2010, customers bills increased by 73%, almost twice as much. Add in that the companies were making profits on generation and wholesale and energy costs can’t possibly account for the increase in bills (8).

A study by Manchester University in 2011 found the big six energy firms systematically profiteering over years by raising their prices by the full amount every time wholesale gas costs increased, but, when costs fell, delaying passing on the savings to customers and only passing on part of them when they did (9).

Ofgem, the energy regulator, recently estimated that energy companies have been increasing prices by up to 10% a year while wholesale gas costs are falling (10).

It also estimates that their profit margins have doubled in the last year , while infrastructure costs, wholesale energy costs and green levies have added just £35 to the average bill in the same period (11) – (12).

It's not the green levies -
they're under 4% of the average household’s bill

The energy companies, PM David Cameron and the Daily Mail want you to believe that the main cause of rising bills has been “immoral” green levies added to them by the last government (13) – (15).

Yet most of these levies have nothing to do with renewable energy or reducing CO2 emissions. They’re to reduce energy bills for the poorest households.

Only four are ‘green’ measures – the Renewables Obligation, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Price Floor, and Feed In Tariffs, which allow consumers to save on their bills by generating electricity using small wind turbines or rooftop solar panels. The four together put £50 or about 3.95% on the average household’s annual bill of £1,267 a year (16) – (17).

So green measures are under 4% of the average bill ; apart from the fact that as global demand for fossil fuels is rising faster than supply, if we don’t invest in alternatives to increase supply, energy prices will rise faster.

The other two main government levies on fuel bills, the Energy Companies Obligation and the Warm Home Discount, reduce bills for people on low incomes. The final two, and smallest, are for Smart Meters and Better Billing to reduce all consumers’ energy bills. These four non-green levies add £61 a year to the average bill or 4.81% (18) – (19).

Privatisation is only a success for the 1%
at everyone else’s expense :
time for renationalisation

Privatisation of the energy industry is only a success for the wealthy executives and major shareholders of the companies, at everyone else’s expense.

The average income of the majority of people in the UK relative to inflation has been falling ever since the financial crisis ; by 2% in this year to August alone (20).  

Almost one in four people in the UK are spending their savings to pay energy bills, one in six have gone into debt to pay them. Thousands are estimated to die each winter due to illnesses caused by cold due to being unable to afford to heat their homes (21) – (22).

Yet the energy companies’ executives are still increasing their profits and spending them on dividends. That kind of massive redistribution of wealth from the vast majority to a tiny and already wealthy minority is unacceptable. Nationalisation must follow.

Even with the economy growing again, so much existing and new wealth is being taken from the majority by a small majority that economic growth is not stopping the majority continuing to get worse off. Unless we want to end up like Brazil, with a tiny wealthy elite and everyone else in poverty, we have to reverse the inequality.

What you can do

• Sign this 38 degrees petition and/or this petition on the government’s website calling for the renationalisation of the energy industry to end profiteering by the energy companies.

 

• Contact your MP asking him to urge his / her party to adopt renationalisation of the energy industry and call for it in parliament and in his or her column in the local newspaper. You can find who your MP is using your post code and contact them on this site.

 

• Email letters or text messages to newspapers, magazines and radio and TV programmes when they’re discussing energy prices to call for renationalisation

 

Sources

 

(1) = SCOTTISH POWER UK PLC DIRECTORS’ REPORT AND ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2012, page 3,
http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/userfiles/file/Consolidated_Report_%26_Accounts_Scottish_Power_UK_plc_2012.pdf

(2) = BBC News 11 Jul 2013 ‘Profits soar at Glasgow-based Scottish Power’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23270146

(3) = Financial Times / ft.com 17 Feb 2013 ‘Iberdrola defends £890m UK unit dividend’,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b020833a-78fb-11e2-b4df-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jiPiV4Q5

(4) = thisismoney.co.uk 17 Feb 2013 ‘Spanish owner takes £900m dividend from Scottish Power despite pushing through a big increase in bills for British customers’,
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2280170/Scottish-Power-defends-900m-Iberdrola-dividend.html

(5) = SCOTTISH POWER UK PLC DIRECTORS’ REPORT AND ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2012, page 14,
http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/userfiles/file/Consolidated_Report_%26_Accounts_Scottish_Power_UK_plc_2012.pdf

(6) = Channel4.com 04 Nov 2013 ‘Dispatches delves into the accounts of the Big Six energy suppliers’, http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/dispatches-delves-into-the-accounts-of-big-six-energy-suppliers

(7) = See (6) above

(8) = BBC News 11 Jan 2012 ‘Energy bills explained’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15352599

(9) = Guardian 02 Dec 2011 ‘Big six energy firms face fresh accusations of profiteering’,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/02/energy-firms-accusations-profiteering-electricity

(10) = Guardian 29 Oct 2013 ‘Energy firms raised prices despite drop in wholesale costs’,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/29/energy-firms-raised-prices-as-wholesale-costs-fall

(11) = Independent 29 Oct 2013 ‘Big Six energy producers under fire over excessive profits ahead of grilling by MPs’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/big-six-energy-producers-under-fire-over-excessive-profits-ahead-of-grilling-by-mps-8909608.html

(12) = Guardian 29 Oct 2013 ‘Energy firms 'overcharge by £3.7bn a year'’, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/29/energy-firms-overcharge-accusation

(13) = Telegraph 29 Oct 2013 ‘Scrap green tax and energy bills will fall, say Big Six’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10413396/Scrap-green-tax-and-energy-bills-will-fall-say-Big-Six.html

(14) = theguardian.com 23 Oct 2013 ‘David Cameron pledges to reverse 'green charges' on energy bills’,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/23/energy-industry-competition-test-cameron

(15) = Daily Mail 13 Oct 20134 ‘Red Ed's great green obsession... and the real reason YOUR bill has gone through the roof’, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456760/Red-Eds-great-green-obsession--real-reason-YOUR-gone-roof-The-hidden-subsidies-household-pays-year-thanks-Milibands-laws.html

(16) = theguardian.com 23 Oct 2013 ‘Green energy levies: how much do they cost and will they be cut?’, http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/23/green-energy-levies-how-much

(17) = Full Fact 23 Oct 2013 ‘How much do 'green taxes' add to energy bills?’,
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/energy_bills_green_taxes-29250

(18) = see (10) above

(19) = See (11) above

(20) = guardian 16 Oct 2013 ‘UK unemployment data: 0.7% average pay rise dwarfed by inflation’,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/16/uk-unemployment-average-pay-rise-inflation

(21) = see (6) above

(22) = BBC News 19 Oct 2011 ‘Rising energy bills causing fuel poverty deaths’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312

Hundreds of MPs and Lords with financial interests in private healthcare firms revealed showing conflict of interest on NHS ' reforms'

The excellent Social Investigations blog  has found hundreds of conflicts of interest and financial interests of MPs and Lords who have voted for the Coalition government’s NHS reforms , relating to private healthcare firms (plus there are some among the right of the Labour party who are supporters of PFIs or PPPs ).

This post on Conservative members of the House of Lords’ links to private healthcare firms is particularly eye-opening.

I’d already posted reports from the Guardian on some of the private healthcare firms whose executives donated money to the Conservative party – and on one adviser to the current government moving to the healthcare division of a major accountancy firm, but from Social Investigations’ work, this seems to have been only the tip of the ice-berg.

Things are almost as bad as in America where many of both main parties’ members of congress are in the pockets of private healthcare firms, though some Democrats remain above board in this respect and so do many Labour MPs.

We need tax havens closed down to avoid another financial crisis and increase revenues , the 50p tax rate is a side issue, the mansion tax a gimmick

Chancellor George Osborne's cut in the 50p top rate of tax is supposed to bring in extra revenue by making the wealthiest pay tax in the UK, while business Minister Vince Cable is calling for a “mansion tax” supposedly to target the “super rich”. Another Lib Dem – Lord Oakeshott – says it’s because otherwise taxing the super rich is like pinning down jelly. In fact the real problem – the thing allowing the super-rich and big firms to avoid taxes; and the thing that caused the financial crisis and will cause another if they’re not closed down –is tax havens. Some will tell you closing them down is impossible – they’re wrong. It’s been done before and it can be done again.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg suggest a minimum tax rate, which is a better idea, but both avoids the main problem – tax havens, including the City of London ‘Square Mile’, which is governed only by the Corporation of the City of London – mostly bank and hedge fund executives.

To listen to most politicians you’d believe that they’ve now re-regulated banks and financial firms as much as is possible and that taxing and regulating big firms, banks and billionaires further is impossible as they’d just go elsewhere .  Nicholas Shaxson’s book ‘ Treasure Islands ’ shows this is a long way from the truth. It should be required reading for every voter in every country in the world (1).

The ‘Mansion Tax’ might get a little extra tax out of some of the super rich (while also e.g punishing widows and people who’ve retired for having a bigger than average house or a house in an area with high property values, the same way the Rates used to). It will barely make the super-rich of big firms blink though. If you want to get significant taxes out of them, you have to close down the tax havens

Bretton Woods

Shaxson shows that after World War Two the Bretton Woods agreement between the western European countries and the US imposed capital controls – i.e limits on how much money could be transferred from one country to another by private individuals and companies, with any large amount requiring an explanation of the reason and approval by government, which would not be granted unless benefits to the country the money was coming from could be shown.

There were also fixed exchange rates between the dollar and other currencies, avoiding currency speculation of the kind that led to Black Wednesday and the Asian Financial Crisis in the 1990s.

(Other aspects of Bretton Woods, such as the Gold Standard, were more questionable)

However from the day Bretton Woods came into force, bankers, the financial industry and politicians they lobbied were looking for ways to get around it and weaken it to the point it would collapse entirely. By 1971 they managed to achieve that.

How tax havens cause financial and economic crises – and will cause more if they aren’t closed down

Their main method has been tax havens, not only because of low (or no) taxes, but also because tax havens provide secrecy, allowing banks and companies to avoid regulation. They do this in several ways. For instance by allowing banks and companies and people to registering their company or shell companies or accounts in tax havens. Tax havens also allow professional front-man directors, managing executives, treasurers etc who are listed as the executives of thousands of different firms registered in that haven. So if anyone tries to find out about who owns and manages that company, they’ll only find the front people. Secrecy is the most important aspect, because if no-one knows who really runs an account or firm or what company or individual is putting money into it or taking it out (e.g to donate to political parties’ or politicians’ campaign funds), no-one can regulate them.

Enron, World.com, Parmalat and Long Term Capital Management for instance were all registered or had shell companies in the Cayman Islands, a British dependency.

While many tax havens are small islands and so ‘offshore’ some of the onshore tax havens like the US State of Delaware Luxembourg, Switzerland and the City of London (Square Mile) mentioned earlier are even bigger centres of corruption. Delaware has more companies registered in it than any other tax haven due to it’s lack of regulation, almost zero taxes and high level of secrecy.

The ‘financial derivatives’ like ‘Collateral Debt Obligations’ which led to the financial crisis were mostly invented and issued by firms registered in tax havens.

The onshore and offshore tax havens are similar in being small, largely being governed by the heads of companies in the tax haven (Jersey, City of London) or by governments so small that they are captured easily by big banks’ and companies’ lobbying and donations (Delaware).

The City of London is governed by the City of London Corporation headed by the Lord Mayor (no relation to the democratically elected mayor of the rest of London). City of London Corporation elections work like those of a medieval city dominated by merchant guilds rather than a modern democracy. There are 9,000 ordinary electors, but 39,000 votes held by companies. The votes held by companies are held by their Chief Executives, who get a number of votes based on their number of employees. (Tony Blair, who dropped the Labour party’s previous policy of abolishing the Corporation in 1996, passed legislation in government increasing the number of votes in it going to company executives from 26,000 to 39,000).

When Labour party member Maurice Glasman stood against one of the candidates in a Corporation election, it was unprecedented. The heads of the companies in the Square Mile are almost always elected unopposed by any other candidate.

This means that, in practice, as many of the UK’s banks and other financial companies are in the Square Mile governed by the Corporation, the UK’s financial industry remains entirely unregulated. Neither the British government nor the Mayor of London, nor the London Assembly, nor the EU, can regulate what goes on inside the Square Mile under their ‘Ancient Charter’ dating to before the Norman conquest of England.

What’s more the City of London Corporation and the firms that make it up are in denial about CDOs and other financial derivatives having caused the crisis and continue to lobby the government to avoid ‘unnecessary’ regulation of the financial sector and to allow it to continue to create now and ‘innovative financial products’ of the kind that caused the crisis.

If the tax havens aren’t closed down another crisis is not just a possibility – it will almost inevitably happen again, because the banks and firms involved are so big they can always extort a bail-out to avoid taking down the entire economy with them – and then re-invest some of the money they get from that in lobbying and donations to party funds.

How Tax Havens push up taxes for the majority

Shaxson found that an estimated $12 trillion – a quarter of the world’s wealth – is untaxed in tax havens, put there by individual people or their financial advisors. The amount put in them by banks and big companies is not known, but we do know that every major company and bank in the UK, from RBS to Tesco has dozens of subsidiaries, ‘joint ventures’ or ‘associates in tax havens like Jersey – and that the purpose of these subsidiaries and other agreements is to avoid tax. So at a guess at least half the world’s wealth is going untaxed in tax havens.

We also know that the Inland Revenue, which would jail ordinary people or heads of small businesses for evading or avoiding tax, instead negotiates ‘sweetheart deals’ with big banks and firms, allowing them each to avoid tens to hundreds of millions each a year – and that’s only from the accounts the Inland Revenue knows about.

That pushes taxes up for everyone else – all the ordinary people and small businesses who can’t afford the lawyers and accountants they’d need to avoid tax.

If that money was taxed, so those who can afford to pay paid what they can afford, taxes for everyone else would fall, extreme cuts in public spending would be unnecessary as tax receipts would rise and the kind of fraud that allowed the financial crisis to happen could be prevented.

How Tax Havens allow developed and developing world corruption

It also helps corrupt governments and dictatorships around the world – including in the poorest countries – to divert taxes and aid money into secret accounts in tax havens. So the next time you hear someone complain about how corruption makes aid pointless, point out that it couldn’t happen on the scale it’s happening without the tax havens and lack of controls on capital transfers, which are the result of the actions of developed world governments like the US, Britain, France and Switzerland. The centres of corruption are tax havens in the developed world.

Tax Havens launder drug , criminal and terrorist money

The secrecy which tax havens provide which is designed to allow people and companies to avoid or evade tax also allows drug traffickers, organised crime and terrorist groups to launder money. Shaxson provides several concrete examples including the BCCI affair and the Florida mafia

The Fiction that most Tax Havens are independent

The British government maintains a fiction that it has no control of what goes on in it’s tax haven dependencies – especially the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man. Shaxson’s book provides plenty of examples of them being able to get their way when they want something in these places – and plenty of quotes showing the British government giving their dependencies a nod and a wink on how it would be better if matters were ‘resolved’ without the UK government having to act itself and end the convenient fiction.

The biggest threat from tax havens – and how they can be closed down, as they were under Bretton Woods

The most frightening thing about tax havens though is that they are all still operating, providing secret accounts and shell companies for banks and firms worldwide – and as long as that’s the case another global financial crisis could happen tomorrow.

The ‘nothing can be done’ excuse – and why it’s false

Most of the politicians and bankers and billionaires will tell you that there is nothing that can be done about this – that modern technology and business practices have gone beyond the ability of governments to regulate them. That’s nonsense. It was possible to transfer money between countries fairly rapidly in 1945-1970, but Bretton Woods prevented it being done constantly without good reasons – and growth rates in that period were far higher (at an average of 4% a year) in the developed world than they have been since 1970. Before 1945 there was the same chaos in international finance, leading to the same problems – the 1929 Great Crash and the global Great Depression. So this is not a matter of new developments making new capital and exchange rate controls impossible – they are just as possible as they were in 1945 to 1970.

The ‘lack of political will’ excuse – and how to create the political will

Many will tell you that the problem is a lack of political will – again, nonsense. If enough people demand that their governments close down tax havens and impose regulation on them, it can be done, just as it was done after World War Two. Tax havens rely on money being able to get in and out. Simply ban all money transfers in and out of them until new regulations are in force and enforce full sharing of all information on accounts and companies registered in them.

The problem is that the billionaires and big firms and the newspapers and TV stations they own and the politicians they lobby and donate to have persuaded everyone that the people costing them money are fraudulent welfare claimants, when in fact, for instance, only 0.6% of benefit claims in the UK are estimated to be fraudulent. As long as the majority allow themselves to be conned in this way there certainly won’t be the political will to do anything about the tax havens that are really pushing taxes up for the majority and causing economic crises. If they are informed and persuaded of the real problems – and that allowing the tax havens to remain will result in another financial crisis and recession if they’re not closed down, that will rapidly change though.

Politicians lack the ‘political will’ to do anything about tax havens as long as the majority don’t realise how they’re suffering due to them because the same big firms and super rich people benefiting most from tax havens are also the ones donating most to the funds of the big parties and spending most on lobbying government.

The ‘requires an international agreement we can’t get’ excuse – and the alternative of leading by example

Then there’s the excuse that it would require an international agreement and that that’s not possible. In fact it’s been done before (Bretton Woods) and progress can be made even without one – because if one country starts closing down it’s tax havens then the voters in others won’t accept that closing down tax havens is impossible any more -  and the dominoes will start to fall.

Sources

(1) = Michael Shaxson (2011) ‘Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World’ Bodley Heads, London, 2011

(2) = Guardian DataBlog October 2011 ‘Tax havens and the FTSE 100: the full list’- The top 100 British multinationals have declared full or joint ownership of 34,216 companies - 25% of which are located in jurisdictions classed as tax havens. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data

(3) = Guardian 20 Dec 2011 ‘HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue-sweetheart-tax-deals

David Cameron's talk of Christian values is empty while he punishes the poorest and the majority while helping the wealthiest get wealthier

Prime Minister David Cameron’s talk of Christian values is empty coming from a man whose government is cutting benefits for the disabled and forced people into homelessness by increasing rents for people living in social housing  - including hundreds of thousands of disabled people - to 80% of market rates, while capping housing benefit (1) – (9).

While he claims ‘there is no money’ for the disabled or those he makes homelessness or  unemployed, he provides taxpayer subsidies to arms companies and won’t tax banks or hedge funds a penny more.

The government is paying BAE billions to build an aircraft carrier which will be left to rust; and billions more for another which will have just 6 aircraft by 2020. The National Audit Office found Cameron’s claim that it would be more expensive to cancel the contract was false (10) – (13).

Department for International Development Minister Andrew Mitchell told parliament that UK foreign aid to India is intended to secure trade deals with India including £6.6bn of  British fighter jets (14). There is money for the war in Afghanistan too and for new PFI contracts, which the Treasury Select Committee found cost taxpayers 70% more to repay per pound than funding by taxation or loans (15) – (16).

Cameron protects the City of London financial sector from new taxes and regulations (17). This includes stock market traders and hedge fund and bank managers who caused the financial crisis, on an average income of £100,000 per year including bonuses, who got a 12% pay increase in 6 months (18) – (19). At the same time he’s making hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, police and others unemployed (20).

Then, with six people unemployed for every job available, even on the government’s fiddled figures, his party labels them lazy scroungers (21) – (22).

His government cracks down hard on benefit fraud, which amounts to just £1.6 billion each year out of over £187 billion, with fraudulent claims made by just 0.6% of benefit claimants, often for very small amounts (The inaccurate £6 billion figure the government sometimes claims for benefit fraud actually includes mistakes made – many of them by Department of Work and Pensions staff, not claimants.) (23) – (24).

Meanwhile each year between £6.9 billion and £12.7 billion of benefits that people are entitled to go unpaid either because they are unclaimed or because staff wrongly or mistakenly refuse them to people entitled to them (25).

So at least 4 times as much money isn’t paid out in benefits to people entitled to them as is taken by fraud.

The UK National Fraud Authority’s reports show that the vast majority of fraud each year in the UK is tax fraud (around £15 billion a year) and private sector company and individual criminal fraud most of the rest (around £16 billion a year) (see page 7 of their annual report for 2011). So benefit fraud is peanuts by comparison (26).

At the same time Cameron allows tax havens in the Channel Islands and Belize to remain and lets the Inland revenue do sweetheart deals with big companies to get off with billions in taxes each year (27).

While it’s estimated at least 3,000 people will die of cold related illnesses this year in the UK  due to being unable to afford to heat their homes ; and with the proportion of households in fuel poverty having risen from a fifth to a quarter under the Coalition, Cameron’s government allows the big energy companies off with what a study by Manchester University found to be profiteering – raising their prices immediately by 80% of cost increases when their costs go up, but when costs fall cutting prices to consumers by only 50% of the fall in the wholesale costs of gas, coal and oil generated electricity (28) – (30).

As a result the gap between energy companies’ costs per unit of electricity or gas and their prices in the UK rose from £1.93 in 2004 to £4 in 2010. It’s since fallen due to media coverage – but is still much higher than in 2004 at £2.73 (31).

Yet no hint of capping energy profiteering coming from Cameron’s government.

In Cameron’s version of the Bible does Jesus invite the money-changers into the temple to discuss how they can work together to ring more money out of the poorest?

 (1) = guardian.co.uk 16 Dec 2011 ‘Cameron calls for return to Christian values as King James Bible turns 400’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/cameron-king-james-bible-anniversary

(2) = Guardian.co.uk 21 Oct 2011 ‘Disability groups fear further benefit cuts after miscalculation’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/21/disability-groups-further-benefit-cuts

(3) = BBC 08 Jul 2011 ‘Affordable rent housing plans 'to hit London families'’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14073437 ; ‘Families will struggle to afford multi-bedroom homes in London if government proposals for a new "affordable rent" tariff are introduced, a report by the London Assembly has said. Social housing tenants would be charged 80% of the market rent under the plans.But this is generally higher than the current level and may make payments tricky for families, the assembly's planning and housing committee said. And the proposed cap on benefits could make things even worse, it added. "In this example, new clients could therefore be facing rents that are higher by nearly 100% for a one-bedroom flat and over 300% for a four-bedroom property." This week the government said the changes to housing benefits were about "fairness" and were needed to reduce a bill "which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour". But Labour criticised the coalition after it emerged a senior civil servant had warned 20,000 people could be left homeless by the cap on benefits.’

(4) = Observer 21 Aug 2011 ‘Families 'will be priced out of social housing by plans for higher rents' - Proposed rent rises will be unaffordable across much of urban England, not just London, study warns’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/21/families-priced-out-social-housing

(5) = BBC News 11 Mar 2011 ‘Housing benefit cut to hit 450,000 disabled people’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12714313 , ‘An assessment from the Department for Work and Pensions shows the change will leave 450,000 disabled people an average of £13 a week worse off.’

(6) = Scottish Government Communities Analytical Services January 2011 ‘Housing Benefit Changes : Scottish Impact Assessment’ (1^st draft version),http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22shelter%20scotland%22%20rent%2080%25%20market%20rates&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotland.gov.uk%2FResource%2FDoc%2F1125%2F0110252.doc&ei=a0KzTuzaN8OO8gO6p4jxBA&usg=AFQjCNGZf0X0ZRayjdogzPZqTzkV8I7JXA&cad=rja

(7) = Shelter (England) 12 Oct 2011 ‘Rent rises hit home’, http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/october_2011/rental_market_in_crisis

(8) = Shelter Scotland 21 Sep 2011 ‘50% Cut In Affordable Housing Budget As SNP Government’s Manifesto Pledge Turns to Rubble’, http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/media/press_releases/press_release_folder/2011/50_cut_in_affordable_housing_budget_as_snp_governments_manifesto_pledge_turns_to_rubble

(9) = BBC News 27 Oct 2010 ‘No change to housing benefit plan - Cameron’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11633163

(10) = Guardian 07 Jul 2011 ‘National Audit Office challenges £6bn project to build aircraft carriers’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/07/nao-report-aircraft-carriers-navy

(11) = guardian.co.uk  11 Jul 2011 ‘David Cameron 'prevented independent watchdog seeing aircraft carrier papers'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/11/david-cameron-aircraft-carriers

(12) = Channel 4 News 07 Jul 2011 ‘Guardian 07 Jul 2011 ‘Full fact check : the real cost of cancelling aircraft carriers’http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-real-cost-of-cancelling-aircraft-carriers/7210; ‘In 2007, the Labour government decided to build two 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers at an estimated cost of £3.65bn….But since then, costs have spiralled dramatically, with the projected outlay now thought to be £6.24bn for just one fully operational carrier, the Queen Elizabeth…..The second ship – the Prince of Wales – will be built, but left in a state of “extended readiness”, meaning that fighter planes won’t be able to launch from or land on its deck…..It gets worse: the NAOnow thinks the eventual bill for the programme “will significantly exceed £10 billion”.’

(13) = Guardian 29 Nov 2011 ‘MPs warn Royal Navy's carriers will be costly, late, and of limited use’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/29/royal-navy-carriers-impaired-use-public-accounts-committee ; government admits one carrier to be mothballed on construction in 2016, one to have no planes on it till 2020, when it will have only 6, raised to 12 in 2023

(14) = Independent 17 Dec 2011 ‘Aid to India part of broad plan to build trade and investment, says minister ’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/aid-to-india-part-of-broad-plan-to-build-trade-and-investment-says-minister-6278373.html , ‘The Government's controversial decision to continue giving money to India, a nation that has more billionaires than the UK and an aid programme of its own, is directly linked to developing trade and investment opportunities, a senior minister admitted yesterday.

In terms of perhaps surprising bluntness, international development minister Andrew Mitchell said the decision to spend £1.2bn over the next five years was part of a broader partnership that also included the hoped-for sale of fighter jets to India…. One potential deal officials are anxiously following is the sale of 126 fighter jets to Delhi. The EuroFighter Typhoon, made by a European consortium including Britain's BAE Systems, is one of two jets that have made the final shortlist in a deal worth an estimated £6.6bn.’

(15) = guardian.co.uk 19 Jul 2011 ‘300 schools to be built with £2bn PFI scheme’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/19/300-schools-built-private-finance-scheme

(16) = BBC News ‘PFI projects 'poor value for money', say MPs’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059 ; ‘The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) used by successive governments to pay for new schools and hospitals is poor value for money, MPs have said. The Treasury select committee said PFI was no more efficient than other forms of borrowing and it was "illusory" that it shielded the taxpayer from risk. Government had become "addicted" to PFI, the committee's Tory chair said…. In a critical report, the cross-party Treasury select committee said the long-term expense of PFI deals - where the private sector shoulders the upfront cost and is typically repaid by the taxpayer over a 30-year period - were now much higher than more conventional forms of borrowing. Due to the financing costs involved, it said paying off a £1bn debt incurred through PFI cost the taxpayer equivalent to a direct government debt of £1.7bn.’

(17) = Guardian 07 Dec 2011 ‘David Cameron threatens veto if EU treaty fails to protect City of London’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/07/cameron-threatens-veto-eu-treaty

(18) = Astbury Marsden Compensation Survey 2011 – Banking Infrastructure London,http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tN8-iJkGpa8J:www.astburymarsden.com/documents/Astbury%2520Marsden%2520Compensation%2520Survey%25202011_Banking%2520Infrastructure%2520London%2520small.pdf+Astbury+Marsden+report+city+pay&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjCp35WxasQC0uKU6hyPufcF3PKQgqywr0k1qNAEGK_4wMSeFBhohPhKrGo7oTiY4RLukF4E51KGYTxH6kmRfhX-1zs80hIKdv6Ckao6ZzZxFrjD6HI5anmt52lZR3QiNTc0ttx&sig=AHIEtbS9vlPCGJzgvi4HFde7s45wAlnw_w ; shows average salary for city of London financial sector is £83,000 with 12% increase in 6 months in 2011

(19) = Guardian 28 Nov 2011 ‘Banks under fresh pressure to curb bonus and dividend payouts’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/28/banks-curb-bonuses-dividends ; ‘According to a survey by headhunters Astbury Marsden published on Monday, City professionals expect an average bonus of 24% of their basic pay for 2011, indicating a payout of £19,920 on an average salary of £83,000.’ (which brings their average annual income including bonuses to about £103,000)

(20) = guardian.co.uk 29 Nov 2011 ‘Cuts: an extra 300,000 public sector jobs now face the axe’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2011/nov/29/300k-extra-public-sector-jobs-face-axe , ‘The Office for Budgetary Responsibility now reckons 710,000 public service jobs - not 410,000 - will go over the next five years.’

(21) = Office for National Statistics ‘Labour Market Statistics, November 2011’, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2011/index.html ; shows 2.62 million people unemployed in 3^rd quarter of 2011

(22) = Labour market statistics: 16 Nov 2011 – Vacancies - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2011/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Vacancies ; shows 462,000 job vacancies in 3^rd quarter of 2011

(23) = Guardian  01 Feb 2011 ‘Benefit fraud: spies in the welfare war’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/01/benefits-fraud-investigators ; ‘The Salvation Army and a number of other charities have written to the prime minister pointing out that the £5bn figure highlighted by the chancellor was "a threefold exaggeration of the true government estimate of benefit fraud". The frequently cited figure is achieved by adding the estimated amount of fraudulent claims (approximately £1.6bn) to the estimated total of claims made as a result of an error either by the claimant or the official handling their claim….There is an artful misrepresentation here; the suggestion is that the benefits bills is out of control because vast quantities of fraud is being committed by benefits claimants – so cutting the bill is just a question of tackling fraud. It is true that the benefits bill has grown rapidly, from £125bn in 1996/7 to £187bn in 2009/10, but this is not the result of increased fraud. The cost is higher because more people are (legitimately) claiming benefits and because an ageing population is making the cost of pensions soar. Less than 1% of people on benefits commit fraud, and those who do, campaigners argue, are often the poorest of the poor, and the sums involved very small.

(24) = Full Fact 01 Nov 2010 ‘Calls grow for George Osborne to correct the record’,http://fullfact.org/blog/calls_grow_for_george_osborne_to_correct_the_record-2364

(25) = Hansard House of Commons Written Answers 16 March 2011column 401w  ‘Social Security Benefits’ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110316/text/110316w0004.htm#1103171000102 ; ‘Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of monetary value of unclaimed benefits in the latest period for which figures are available; and how much was unclaimed for each benefit and allowance type. [45049].Chris Grayling: For the six income-related benefits for which estimates are available there was between £6,930 million and £12,700 million left unclaimed in 2008-09’

(26) = National Fraud Authority Jan 2011 ‘Annual fraud indicator’,http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/nfa/annual-fraud-indicator/annual-fraud-indicator-2011?view=Binary

(27) = Guardian 20 Dec 2011 ‘HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue-sweetheart-tax-deals

(28) = guardian.co.uk 19 Oct 2011 ‘Fuel poverty 'will claim 2,700 victims this winter'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/oct/19/fuel-poverty-2700-victims-winter ; figure is if only 10% of 27,000 cold related excess deaths in winter are due to fuel poverty ; figure is for England and Wales only so including Scotland , with Scotland having a population of 5.2 million and England and Wales 63 million, there will be 222 cold related deaths in Scotland this winter, which, added to the 2,700 in England and Wales comes to 2922 – roughly 3,000)

(29) = guardian.co.uk 01 Dec 2011 ‘Fuel poverty affects a quarter of UK's households as bills soar and pay freezes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/01/fuel-poverty-affects-quarter-households

(30) = guardian.co.uk 02 Dec 2011 ‘Big six energy firms face fresh accusations of profiteering’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/02/energy-firms-accusations-profiteering-electricity

(31) = See (30) above