Tax havens and the super-rich: why the government has one eye closed

London, tax haven capital.

New research from the Tax Justice Network – an organisation devoted to making the rich pony up their due - says that a minimum of $21trn is held offshore. This stash should worry us all.

This is not just because it is money which could generate $190bn in taxes to be spent by governments on, say, paying down debt, building schools or hiring nurses. What is as important is the effect this hidden money has on social inequality.

Alongside the report with the $21trn figure (which may in fact be $32trn, or somewhere in between, or indeed less), the TJN published "Inequality: You don't know the half of it", which hews to the argument of The Spirit Level and similar texts, that inequality increases social problems, and shows how it is now a much greater problem in the light of its new research:

"Power follows money, and extreme concentrations of wealth at the top of the income scale lead inevitably to disproportionate power and influence for the wealthiest members of society, so some of the most malign political effects of inequality stem from changes as the very top of the income and wealth distribution."

The British government is certainly making some efforts to tackle tax avoidance - all those Carr-ish schemes are being stopped - but it's with one eye closed. As Nicholas Shaxson pointed out in his book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world, the fons et origo of tax havens is… London. With New York, "the jurisdictions act as capitals of secret empires, exploiting their hand-in-glove relationships with former colonies to tap funds that would otherwise be deemed too dirty to handle."

If the government can't make the connection between the money that flows into the City from tax havens and the riots on London's streets, it should perhaps pay attention to the Tax Justice Network, crusaders even without capes.

Josh Spero is the editor of Spear's.

London. Photograph, Getty Images

Josh Spero is the editor of Spear's magazine.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496