Bonuses: time for a windfall tax

Aren't you sick and tired of bankers ripping you off?

Can there be a more shameless, selfish, self-centred, navel-gazing bunch of bankers than the RBS board? How on earth can a failed bank, bailed out to the tune of billions of pounds by taxpayers, now try to blackmail those same taxpayers, ie, their new shareholders? Vince Cable is right -- call the bankers' bluff!

But not only has the government been outflanked by the Tories in recent months, in populist anti-bonus rhetoric, if not in concrete or workable proposals, but it still can't get its line straight. Harriet Harman says bonuses are "reckless" and "irresponsible" and Paul Myners says bankers need to "come back into the real world", but Peter Mandelson says that he understands "the point of view that RBS directors are expressing". He adds:

They say they have to remain competitive in the market in recruiting senior executives and that's why it's important that all the banks are equally restrained and that RBS is not singled out.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has belatedly "waded in", saying:

Nobody is being discriminated against because every bank is having to follow these procedures.

Every country in the world is legislating to create new bonus policies where we restrict bonuses both in terms of the eligibility and also in terms of the conditions attached to bonuses.

But why has Brown only now spoken up about this? Back in September, when James and I interviewed him for the New Statesman, he said so little about bank bonuses that we didn't even bother to include this passing line from the PM in the final piece:

I think what we're all talking about is how you can reduce the proportion of bonuses in revenues and profits and how you can limit them in that way -- what you've got to do is find the international rules that everybody can implement. You don't want to go down to the last person in the last board in the last company . . . and I think that's why the agreement in Pittsburgh will be one that can be applied across every nation.

The tone has changed -- thankfully, if belatedly. It's time for Brown and Darling and Mandelson and Harman to crack down on excessive bonuses. And if RBS, as Mandelson says, feels it is being "singled out", then the simplest solution is a windfall tax on all bonuses, so that the boys at Barclays pay as much as the boys at RBS. In fact, back in August, I wrote that Brown should "impose a retrospective 90 per cent tax on all 2008/2009 UK bank bonuses". I'm pleased that others are catching up. Here is the FT's Martin Wolf this week:

Yet, regardless of the success of reforms of incentives in -- and regulation of -- the financial sector, it is reasonable to recoup not only the direct fiscal costs of saving banks but even some of the wider fiscal costs of the crisis. The time has come for some carefully judged populism. A one-off windfall tax on bonuses would make the pain ahead for society so very much more bearable. Try it: millions will love it.

Oh, and never forget the key statistic, revealed by the the National Audit Office this week: our glorious banks have received £850bn of taxpayer support to see them through the financial crisis. As the Metro points out:

The figure is more than the entire NHS budget, almost three times [in fact, it's almost 23 times] the annual defence budget and more than five times what Britain spends every year on transport.

Shame on them.

 

 

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.