The Isle of Man Today web site carries the following back handed compliment today, the following being an edited (shortened) version of the story:
We have also written a story about a letter from a group who thinks the Isle of Man should ditch zero-10 company tax.
The group of 12 people — including a high profile charity worker — says that we'd be better off in the long run and have a better reputation if we re-introduced company taxes.
You might remember that a few weeks ago (August 10, to be precise) we ran a story based on a survey of corporate service providers and other finance sector interests. They predicted doom and gloom — ultimately lots of job losses and a big cut in tax take — if the Island lost zero-10.
We're delighted we've got a response today.
Unfortunately, the group of 12 people who've written to us aren't establishing themselves as a formal pressure group. That's a shame because they could have help to fill an argument vacuum on this topic and widen the debate. We sometimes find it hard to find someone to put counter-arguments in political stories because there are few pressure groups and little in the way of formal party politics — which thrive on confrontation — in the Isle of Man.
But at least there's someone here in the Isle of Man — and not just Richard Murphy, the UK blogger — making the argument.
Well, I’m delighted too. I don’t want to be the one-man political opposition in the Isle of Man and never set out to be so.
But I also note how very hard it is for their to be effective political opposition in places like the Isle of Man and the other Crown Dependencies. Any pretence that there is freedom of speech in such places is just that — a pretence. These islands are effectively occupied by the financial services industry and they use their power — the very real power to make or break people’s chance to make a living — to ensure that opposition to their activities is silenced — or belittled to the fringes.
This is not accident. This is the ultimate expression of the neo-liberal contempt for government — that overlaps with that of anarcho-capitalism, as I noted here. That same contempt for government and the rule of law that it upholds is indeed inherent in the whole definition of secrecy jurisdictions: Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain that is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. They do in addition create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.
The Isle of Man Today web site and the weekly Isle of Man Examiner newspaper can welcome twelve brave individuals standing up against their government — as I do too — but the reality is that if that paper really believes in freedom of speech, politics and proper government it would challenge the whole structure of secrecy on which the Isle of Man’s business model is predicated. But it doesn’t. As such it is complicit with the occupying force within the island that holds it in fear and to ransom.
That’s why a few of us — not just me by a long way — from outside the Isle of Man and other secrecy jurisdictions have had to challenge what happens in these dark corners of corruption that set out to undermine democracy, society as we know it, accountability and the rule of law and which are, in consequence the very enemy of society itself. We’ll know we’re winning when there is real democracy in these places. Maybe the twelve who have written are a start — and I wish them well without knowing who they are — but we have a long way to go. Until we get there they can rely on much external support — and not just from me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Respectfully, Mr Murphy, this particular posting is nonsensical, and stories like this really do your credibility little good in the long run. Yes, there are disadvantages to any political system made up largely of Independent candidates — for a start, it is temptingly easy for the powers-that-be to buy off and ultimately neuter their critics in parliament by offering them roles in government. But we also enjoy a pleasing diversity of candidates: in the last general election, my constituency was contested by six candidates, ranging from a hang-‘em-and-flog-‘em hard-line right-winger through to a Marxist vicar.
The island also has its own opposition party called Mec Vannin: very left-wing nationalists strongly opposed to the finance industry. Unfortunately, they do not bother to contest elections, so in my view they barely deserve the designation of a political party.
But lack of freedom of speech here? Utter nonsense. That argument is just about tenable in the case of Jersey, which is ruled by a rich oligarchy (although, admittedly, a democratically elected rich oligarchy). But our members of parliament are largely ordinary people: small shopkeepers, pharmacists and postmen. Plutocrats of the financial services industry are actually conspicuous only by their absence. Similarly, those of our MPs who speak out against the status quo — for instance, the maverick Peter Karran — are neither intimidated nor vilified, unlike, say, the unfortunate Senator Stuart Syvret over in Jersey.
Yes, the newspapers here are not particularly bold in challenging the executive and holding them to account, but that stems more from lack of journalistic prowess than anything sinister: you won’t find many far-reaching expos?©s in any other weekly newspaper serving a population of 80,000.
Certainly, you are free to oppose the economic direction taken by the island’s government. But phrases like “contempt for government and the rule of law”, “complicit with the occupying force within the island that holds it in fear and to ransom” and “dark corners of corruption” simply make you appear rather hysterical and underline the purely polemical nature of much of your writing.
Under our political system, anyone who can afford a couple of thousand pounds can stand for parliament, without requiring the patronage of a political party or having to compromise their ideas and beliefs to please a selection committee. In the recent by-election in my own constituency, a heavily-funded candidate with shadowy backers lost to another candidate who spent a fraction of the same amount — despite mounting one of the biggest publicity campaigns in the island’s electoral history. That, Mr Murphy, is democracy — as opposed to the gross malapportionment in the UK favouring one political party over another, which I have seen you yourself defend in this very blog.
Yes, of course people would have to think hard before agreeing to expel the financial services industry, due to its prominence here. But there are those, including but not limited to Mec Vannin, who are opposed to its presence, and they get plenty of publicity for their views, without any kind of persecution. Ultimately, you should not confuse people voting democratically for a system you find abhorrent with a lack of democracy itself.
With respect Iliam Dhone this posting is entirely factual and significantly increases Mr. Murphy’s credibility in the short, medium and long term.
The PSG fully endorses comments regarding contempt for government and rule of law, the dark corners of corruption and the fear and ransom that the financial services industry (the occupying force)exercises over the Isle of Man.
For example the island’s so-called “Office of Fair Trading” recently and openly admitted that managers and directors of island based investment funds are not subject to any form of regulation or approval. (OFT letter 10th August 2010).
This gives licence to publish fraudulent statements about the character of funds, misrepresent a professional body, fail to make adequate disclosure of unlimited exit penalties, market funds without the required permit/licence and receive and make dubious payments via Caribbean shell companies.
Hundreds of pensioners would agree that that rather being “hysterical” and “polemical” Mr Murphy’s comments are well judged and highly accurate.
Never ever invest or bank a single penny on the Isle of Man.
@Iliam Dhone
And respectfully, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
Of course what you say has an element of truth in it
Yes your politicians are shopkeepers and so on – and not bankers. But why should the bankers worry when those who are elected do their bidding – usually (if my experience of Jersey is anything to go on) without any clue about what they are doing?
And yes there is the appearance of democracy in the form of elections – but again so what when the outcome is pre-ordained
And it is the outcome that proves my point, I suggest
And the fear that finance has created of change….
@ Premier Shareholders Group
I am sorry, but I cannot accept that Mr Murphy’s posting was “entirely factual” because I think he has conflated two different arguments (he is entitled to feel that the Isle of Man is badly governed, but damages his credibility when he claims that it is not a functioning democracy).
With regard to your own posting, I am obviously very sorry that your members emerged from their policies with less money than they put in. We can clearly argue for some time as to whether the policy should have been marketed as “low risk” (this may have appeared true when they were sold, but would certainly not be applicable now) but I believe I am right in saying that it was made clear to investors that these were endowment policies. As you know, almost everyone who invested in endowments during the nineties lost money, myself included. Thus, one cannot reasonably blame the island or its financial regulators for the outcome, although the issue of whether the policy was missold is certainly pertinent.
@ Richard Murphy
Yes, as a patriotic resident of the Isle of Man, I obviously would say that. However, if your statement was meant to imply that I am employed or connected with the island’s financial services industry, that is not the case. I do sometimes work with clients in the sector, but I would estimate that in the last year less than 5% of my income has come from such sources. In fact, I earn more from working with pan-European and global financial regulatory bodies.
I would agree with your comment that some of our politicians are “without any clue about what they are doing”, but I don’t think this is due to any malign influence from the financial services sector. Rather, it reflects the difficulty of finding more than 30 capable legislators from a population of around 80,000. All things considered, I believe we have done better than some other small jurisdictions — witness the truly shocking government that in twelve years has turned Bermuda from a peaceful backwater into a crime-ridden hellhole.
As to your statement that “the outcome [of elections] is pre-ordained”, I would disagree. The Marxist vicar I mentioned earlier secured 252 votes in my constituency — about a third of what he would have needed to win, but not at all a disreputable performance for a man holding such views. The island’s Left has to shoulder a large part of the blame, too — quite a few people might be willing to vote for Mec Vannin were they to raise their heads above the parapet and stand. (Their argument is that they would not be prepared to swear allegiance to the Crown in order to take their seats — not a scruple that has ever stopped Sinn F?©in from contesting and winning Westminster elections.)
Finally, fear of change is again not dictated by the finance sector: our parliament is generally seized by myopia when it comes to the big picture. I had high hopes that the seizure of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander funds and the unilateral renegotiation of the Common Purse Agreement might have led to serious questions being asked about the island’s constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom and the nature of its possible future within the European Union. To date, there has been no meaningful discussion on the topic in Tynwald, although they did find time to devote two hours to debating the disciplinary suspension of a lollipop man.