Colonialism isn't the best answer to tax dodging

Party like it's 1799.

An interesting point from Ed Conway's write-up of the G8's tax debates. It seems Germany and co aren't particularly happy with British Overseas Territories:

Moreover, it transpires that neither Germany or Russia wanted to sign up to some of the G8 pledges on tax evasion. Other countries remain less enthusiastic about the avoidance/evasion clampdown. Others remain sceptical about the UK’s motives – earlier this year Austria’s finance minister Maria Fekter said she laughed when she first heard George Osborne was focusing on tax.

“Great Britain has many money laundering centres and tax havens in its immediate legal remit – the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands.

“These are all hot spots for tax evasion and money laundering.”

It's similar to a line pushed domestically: the British overseas territories are British, so we should do something about them. It sounds less appealing when you phrase it as what it actually is: colonialism for the left.

The various islands left in the British Empire are, largely, independent. Britain takes responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, and the Home Office recommends the Queen on who to appoint as governor, but beyond that, they are self-determining. They have elected legislatures and heads of government, as well as their own courts systems (although appeals go to the Privy Council) Most of them would probably be fully independent by now – once decolonialisation began, it went along at a fair clip – except they're too small to realistically survive on their own.

You can be fairly sure, however, that if they did survive, and were made fully independent, their first act would probably not be to shrink their financial sectors. That's one of the few areas in which a small economy actually has a competitive advantage over bigger ones.

So what Austria wants is for the Britain to over-rule independent, elected governments and force them to follow policies which aren't in their best interest. I know the sun never set on the British Empire, but that's ridiculous.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.