It is nearly eight years ago that I was last in Norway talking to members of its tax authority. It is not hard to recall the day: I watched the news that Obama had been elected President from near Oslo.
Today I am back. And Hilary Clinton, who Obama had beaten for the nomination back then, has just declared herself to be the Democrats presidential candidate. She's probably right, but just as I will be saying with regard to tax this morning, the world has changed since then.
No one could have imagined back then that the impact of 2008's crash would still be felt now. But it is. And no one could have imagined the change in voter sentiment in the meantime.
In the UK some of that change has resulted in the rise of racism. Justin Welby was right to say so yesterday. I share his condemnation of this.
The other major trend has been the rejection of the political elite. More than thirty years of neoliberalism and the policies of the Wahington Consensus, which always set out to redistribute wealth upwards, has resulted in the alienation of far too many people from the political process. This is not because, I think, they see no prospect of gain from it. It us because the neoliberal hegemony - and Labour were a part of this - set out to ensure that the odds were always stacked against most people. And, unsurprisingly, people have rumbled that.
The evidence is all too clear. Yesterday Sports Direct admitted that they had abused minimum wage regulations and reduced the working lives of many to situations of fear. I presume they thought they could get away with that.
And we learned that McDonalds negotiated a tax free deal with Luxembourg that meant that royalties paid to that jurisdiction were not taxed anywhere. I presume they were pretty confident that they would get away with that too.
This is the deliberate abuse of power.
People hoped Obama might change that. Maybe he did, a little. But by far too little.
Clinton does look like the representation of the old regime. No wonder those who supported Sanders will find it hard to embrace her.
And that is the issue. The far right is rising: the current environment is a situation made for them to exploit. Elites may have much to fear from them, because elites like stability. But whether it will be voting for Clinton in the US or for Remain in the UK the problem is much the same: voting for a failed elite wedded to an obviously outdated and malfunctioning ideology is not exactly an act of faith. It does instead have at least a whiff of the feeling of participation in that failure about it.
Which brings me back to tax, and this morning. So far, eight years on from 2008 we still have not got transparency. We are still in transition to it. And the elite is, whatever they say, wedded to the opacity of tax havens and major corporations. We know that because it still exists and they could have got rid of it. The reasoning does not require rocket science. This is why full public country-by-country reporting (to which, I should note, Labour recommitted yesterday with a vote in the Commons on June 28) is so totemic. It us about holding elites to accounts and in the process effecting change.
That has to happen.
It has not yet.
And so the right continue their advance.
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:
Sports Direct: “I presume they thought they could get away with that”…
Quite. And they were right: they have got away with it, and will continue to do so – what concessions and commitments did MPs extract yesterday?
Working conditions in ‘The Gulag’ are worse than Amazon; possibly (but not certainly) the worst in any national retail distributor; and probably better than anywhere in the food processing sector.
Sports Direct are ‘pushing the envelope’ but that envelope was made, licked and stamped by others; and they have been given no reason to stop, other than a smattering of bad publicity among the chattering classes, who mostly don’t shop there anyway. A couple of million in PR spend and advertising will fix it.
Does that mean that the elite are too stupid to realise that they the architects of their own undoing, or too greedy and drunk with power that they can’t see the pitchforks gathering on the lawn outside? It would seem the cycle of blame and hatred is rolling towards the next crisis, because ‘lessons will not be learned’.
An interesting take on Trump(ism).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/why_everyone_hates_marc_benioff/
I don’t think it just the “far right” rising. I think there is push back against the failure of governments all around the world that are trying to cover up their “shortcomings” (when compared to the standards you have set out in the “Courageous State”) by becoming increasingly tyrannically.
That is why I can no longer support the idea of power resting with centralised government all too too easy for the elites to hijack and co-opt.
“The writing is on the wall” for all those wishing to look beyond their “smart phone” bubble.
Lastly racism must not be confused with criticism of Islam, which it must endure (like Christianity) in order to be fit for purpose in the modern secular West.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCHHfBeu0QE
and for balance this intelligent retort:-
John Smith 7 months ago
Hitchens had a “Wikipedia” understanding of Islam. He never studied it; he simply assumed that what is true for Judaism and Christianity is also true for Islam. This fallacy is also very apparent in his books. Quran is fairly understandable in English or any other language; it’s when there is a dispute, one has to go to the original Arabic, as one would look at the Latin version for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Torah. Muslims like to read it in Arabic because of its rhythm, which is hard to produce in a translation. Furthermore, like most Westerners, Hitchens was unable to distinguish between the religion from the practices of its followers. The two are not the same. Islam made it clear, from the very beginning, that it was NOT going to be represented by its followers. If Quran is properly read and not have have its verses taken out of context (as most anti-Muslim critics do), it’s a marvelous book–admonishing but also giving comfort and hope, especially to those who are good but were wronged in this world
Freedom of Speech is sacrosanct and far too often I see those on the Left or members of minority communities screaming “racist” inappropriately or in order to silence any opposing viewpoint!
Indeed- religious institutions need to face intelligent critique as do political -in fact -they are both political in my view.
I strongly suspect most of the worlds current problems can be traced back to neo-liberalism and the Washington consensus,
I worry that Brexiteers have picked on the EU as a whipping boy when a lot of the things they cite as EU failings are more consequences of neo-liberalism and the adoption of the Washington Consensus,
as for the elites still being wedded to this pernicious ideology Chris Patten’s piece in the Guardian made me cringe,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/07/brexiteers-eu-economy
he boasts about Britain managing to steer Europe in a more neo-liberal direction and talks of our ‘booming’ economy…. booming?
the only point Patten makes I agree with is his observation on the crudeness of referendums,
in this respect I would quote Clement Attlee as saying,
“the referendum is a device of dictators and demagogues”
I find Clinton crowning herself Queen of the ball rather creepy, every picture I see of her has the same rictus grin which makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up,
well, I keep looking up the tunnel trying to spot the light but it does seem to be getting darker,
still… keep blogging Richard, nothing we face is new, may I quote some Edmund Burke for perspective?
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, – in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, – in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, – in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
and that’s from a Whig!
It does concern me that a vote for Remain is also a vote for neo-liberalism.
Brexit would enable a Corbyn government free of neo-liberal control.
Yes, there are EU standards on worker’s rights and so on that could be lost after Brexit.
But:
– To what extent are these rights required BECAUSE the EU is neo-liberal?
– An assault on those rights can only help Corbyn’s Labour party, surely, and 2020 is not that far away.
If neo-liberalism really is as grotesque and as entrenched as many believe, including in the EU, then a vote for the EU feels wrong. Lest we forget, we should ponder what was said and done regarding Greece.
But let’a be clear brexitvdoes not mean a Corbyn government and we could have one with Remain
We could have a Corbyn government with both Brexit and Remain.
My point is this:
– It is agreed that the EU is neoliberal
– It is agreed that neoliberalism has failed and wrong. Evil possibly.
There is no sign of the EU moving away from neoliberalism, as Greece is about to find out all over again.
Brexit creates the opportunity for a non-neo-liberal government in the UK.
Surely, a vote for the EU is a vote for neo-liberalism?
But the leave option is for a more extreme form of neoliberalism
There are only poor and very bad choices here
And given the politics of those suggesting leave that option is very bad indeed for most in the UK
Not really. Brexit just means leaving the EU.
Future elections would decide what sort of government we had.
Staying in the EU guarantees that we continue to live under neoliberal arrangements.
Indeed, were there to be a successful alternative operating in Europe, that may influence the EU and other neoliberal jurisdictions.
I have go say that I think that naive
If you really think that a post bremit torh government is going to be anything but deeply repressive I think you are seriously mistaken
Emulating Poland may well be their goal
A post-Brexit Tory government will be much as today, I suppose, until the election in 2020. After that it may be the government no longer.
This seems less of a risk than backing the neoliberal EU.
I thought neoliberalism was to be opposed, not supported.
Under Gove or Johnson it would be vastly worse
That is very possible
Good luck to the party going into an election on a platform of revoking working rights, even the tories were not that stupid, they do it through the back door.
Why are they required?
Because this country wouldn’t give the workers those rights.
Even today, MANY employers abuse employees and avoid those rights….who would have thought that a modern 21st century UK employer paid some of its employees via pre-loaded credit cards, which the EMPLOYEES had to pay £10 for, AND with a 10-quid-a-month charge for the card….hello, sports direct…
THIS country negotiated, at great length, an opt-out to the regulation governing employees working hours…yet even now, several decades after that, getting a job if you fail to sign the opt-out is common (even though that is illegal).
Employees in the UK are regularly abused by their employers…or maybe you never bother to look at the industrial injuries/illness happening today…6000/yr die through asbestos-related disease. many hundreds of thousands suffer physical illness caused by their employment.
Left to itself, this country would easily, or maybe happily, return to the 46-year-average-life-expectancy for workers-no pension-no healthcare.
I suspect that is why many on the right, and the right-of-left, want to depart the EU..
in reply to Joan Owens,
yes, the EU has become neo-liberal, as has most of the Western world since the anglo-american neo-liberal agenda rolled out in the 1980’s
and although there are no current overt signs that neo-liberal adherents within the EU are changing at the moment there are signs on a wider scale that neo-liberalism is being opened up for questioning,
and Richard saying that voting Brexit lays us open to a more extreme form of neo-liberalism is quite right as, well, face it, the UK is pretty much the epicentre of the neo-liberal virus,
I will vote to remain for now expecting the unavoidable economic crash which is looming to drive a stake through the heart of neo-liberalism,
I don’t really object to this referendum in principle but the timing is far from ideal, I’d vote Brexit if we were being forced into the Euro, I’d vote Brexit if the EU was signing TTIP… but neither of these things are happening,
Thanks, Joan. That’s exactly the reason I have voted Lexit. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but if the vote is Leave then there will be initial serious economic disruption – which can be laid at the door of the tories. But that’s probably going to happen anyway.
> More than thirty years of neoliberalism and the policies of the Wahington Consensus, which always set out to redistribute wealth upwards, has resulted in the alienation of far too many people from the political process.
Is there a citation supporting that “which always set out to redistribute wealth upwards” which can be used to silence neoliberals?
Thanks
No
I’m the source
But many would agree
David Harvey ‘A Short History of Neo-Liberalism’ (2007) – page 16:
“Redistributive effects and increasing social inequality have in fact been such a persistent feature of neoliberalization as to be regarded as structural to the whole project.”
Thank you
Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century,
Michael Hudson, Killing the Host,
John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman,
Dr Tim Morgan, The Perfect Storm,
Paul Craig Roberts, How the Economy was Lost,/The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism,
not so much a citation as a small library and I’m sure others can suggest further reading on the subject,
Thanks
‘has just declared herself to be the Democrats presidential candidate. ‘
She shouldn’t be doing that! The (corrupt) Super Delegate vote does not take place until July 25th. This is more arrogance and utter hubris, beyond disgusting!
But is is what you would expect from Hilary ‘we-came-we saw-he died’ Clinton .
In a way it all comes down to the concept of “self”. When we make the effort to look in biological terms at what is actually going on in our bodies we discover that there are a lot of separate organisms busy reciprocating with each other. Expand that notion of “self” to human societies as a whole and see them as a form of ‘super-self” and it becomes clear that the maintenance of a “reciprocating environment” is as important for human societies as it is for the bodies of the individuals making up that society. Failure of societies to operate an auto-immune system to protect their “reciprocating environment” results in debilitating parasitic behaviour within the societies. The root cause of such parasitic behaviour is the breakdown of a “reciprocating environment” for baby and child. That breakdown can have many causes but the lack of emotional and practical support for mothers or primary caregivers which again is a reciprocating process.
I think you rather miss the role of the father
That undermines your analysis, considerably
As history constantly reminds us you can declare yourself an independent state, write a high minded constitution, claim to be a democracy and the leader of the free world, you can eventually free your slaves and eventually give them equal rights, you can even put a black man in the big office on the hill (or even a women in future) – but you can’t change the underlying exploitation of your fellow men and women without fundamental systemic change of the finance system that drives the economy.
And so I admire Bernie Sanders for continuing the fight with Clinton to the bitter end, if nothing else to maintain the flame of hope in a large proportion of the American public’s minds that one day their nation will take the next big leap of faith into the unknown for the chance of a better life for all their children.
In the meantime, it is left to the likes of comedians, film makers and talk show hosts to demonstrate the pointlessness of the vulture financial crapitalists who continue to prey on the vulnerable, in this case the decaying bones of medical debt in a country awash with so much debt it is becoming an embarrassment even to its own people.
But it’s an interesting gesture in debt forgiveness, that for less than the speaking fee of an infamous politician or the ticket to a political party dinner a huge amount of fear and burden has been taken off the shoulders of a group of people who are most probably too ill or impoverished to do anything about it anyway.
So how about someone rich and famous people in the UK standing up and doing the same, perhaps with some equally obnoxious and worthless debt sold off to our own gang of merry debt collectors and bailiffs?
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/john-oliver-makes-talk-show-history-after-forgiving-15m-worth-of-debt-a7067966.html
Good post. Is there not an issue though that the current system has, until recently, been hugely successful at enabling hundreds of millions to be pulled out of poverty in the emerging economies, particularly China and SE Asia. It seems that they are the missing link in the Left’s analysis. Neoliberalism/capitalism has been phenomenally successful for huge numbers and global inequality has probably never been lower. The (huge) cost has been accelerated environmental destruction (biggest problem of all) and stagnant growth and rising inequality in the West…
Now that may be the past but it seems there is a parochialism which assumes things have just gotten worse and worse everywhere which is not true (except as I say for the environment)…
Are you so sure that it was neoliberalism that achieved that?
Why?
After all, when the UK et al achieved the same goal it was very definitely not neoliberalism that did it
That Globalisation/Free Trade has lifted people out of poverty is debatable.
Here’s a quote from Ian Fletcher’s ‘Free Trade Doesn’t Work’:
“Many optimistic figures on poverty reduction as a result of trade liberalization do not survive even casual scrutiny. For a start, the World Bank standard for poverty is $2 a day, so “moving a million people out of poverty” can merely consist in moving a million people from incomes of $1.99 a day to $2.01 a day. In one widely-cited study, there were only two nations in which the average beneficiary jumped from less than $1.88 to more than $2.13: Pakistan and Thailand. Every other nation was making minor jumps in between. This is better than nothing, but still small stuff to set against the costs of trade liberalization. It is definitely not the qualitative jump from material misery to a decent standard of living that people imagine from the phrase “lift out of poverty.”
He goes on to say about China:
“hose nations (China etc.) that have thrived in this era, and have lifted millions out of poverty, haven’t done it by embracing free trade. They’ve done it by taking the free trade of other nations as a given and embracing mercantilism, the deliberate gaming of the system by way of protectionism and state capitalism.”
It’s likely what ‘lifting’ HAS occurred is IS SPITE of Neo Liberalism
@TheMushyPea
Michael Hudson wouldn’t robustly attack your thesis, but would simply declare it wrong.
You are at liberty to deny his reasoning, but here it is – make of it what you will
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/michael-hudson-millions-around-the-world-fleeing-from-neoliberal-policy.html
Thank you Andrew
I am confused.
In essence are you coming diwn for Remain/Clinton or Leave/Trump
or a different permutation of these?
I have a choice of two options that retain the option of reform from a position where havoc has not been wrought (Clinton / Remain) or the choice of far right / fascist alternatives (Trump / Leave)
I have no love for the first option but I remain baffled that any thinking perosn might consider the other option with which they might be presented, so unpalatable is it and those presenting it
Richard
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
The Clintons are nothing more than Dixie land gangsters, everyday the evidence keeps piling higher and higher on this. Climton H’s policies have been a disaster….don’t you remember her crass comment about about Gaddafi’s death. “We came, we saw, he died” A vote for Clinton is a vote for WWIII!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/13/president-killary-would-the-world-survive-hillary-clinton/
As for that wasteful corrupt institution that has of late become self destructive …
Sometimes in life you must take a chance and at least have hope that things will turn out slightly better.
Why we continue to make it easy for a smallish group of people to pull the strings in the background to the detriment of most of the population of this planet…I do not know!
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/press-release.html
‘a position where havoc has not been wrought’
Richard, I think this rather depends on your geographical location:
Greece -no havoc?
Ireland-No Havoc?
Latvia -no havoc? (Population reduction causing demographic crisis).
Spain -no havoc?
Detroit,
Camden New Jersey,
Milwaukee,
Philadelphia
Memphis
Tuscon
Baltimore
Fresno
El Paso
Indianapolis
Boston
I’d say there was a good deal of havoc wreaked in these places thanks to neo-liberalism.
I’d disagree that Trump represents Fascism, despite his obnoxious pronouncements which are rabble rousing he has in fact made more statements critical of American Foreign policy than any of the others. He can’t be trusted but he has yet never come out with anything like Reagan’s ‘Let’s bomb Russia’ He’s even said he’ll talk to North Korea. In fact he’s said everything that’s goes against the establishment.
He can’t be trusted-but which one can certainly not Hilary ‘we-came’we saw’he died’ Clinton
None of this us disputed
I want to be rid of neoliberalism but voting for neocon extremists is not going to do that
That is my point
This is a massively suboptimal choice
I respect your reasons for positively abstaining
If Cameron signs up to TTIP under the EU, then there is nothing Corbyn can do about it in 2020 (other than leave the EU!).
If Boris signs up to TTIP under the UK parliament, then Corbyn can completely reverse that in 2020.
That *alone* should be enough reason to vote leave.
The problem with the EU is its lack of a Parliament Act.
In the UK, the elected chamber (for all its faults) can impose its will over court decisions and the choices of the upper chamber. It’s will always prevails. Similarly if it decides to do something and the people don’t like it they give the other lot a go and they can repeal *anything*.
In the EU, the ECJ interprets the treaties and directives of the EU. The common thread of all ECJ decisions is that they widen the provision and shrink the restrictions. If the EU parliament doesn’t like an ECJ decision or a Treaty provision there is little they can do about it, which is why they still have to go to Strasbourg once a month at a cost of €100m per year – even though they voted against it.
The sovereign nature of the UK parliament means you can try things, and if the people don’t like it they can change direction – because no parliament can bind a future one.
If you honestly believe that Labour is so completely unable to get elected that the Tories will be in power forever – join the anarchist movement. The EU won’t restrain them.
This feels like angels and pinheads to me
If you fail to use a veto in the EU, then it is enshrined in law for ever more and you can’t change it at all. The system is designed to prevent change and move towards the goal of a United States of Europe run on corporate creditor lines.
Every time a proposal goes to the civil service they say: “That’s very nice minister, but unfortunately that would breach EU treaty rules”.
The EU is a way of hog-tying parliament so that it can no longer protect its citizens from the ‘market’. That is by design. The process will continue until the power the individual member states have will be somewhat similar to what the Welsh assembly has, or perhaps a town council.
In simple terms the UK parliament has no mechanism, other than leaving the EU, to overturn a decision of the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of the EU treaty. Since the tendency of the court is to over interpret the provisions and under interpret the restrictions what you get is creeping federalisation.
Fernandes
“Is there a citation supporting that “which always set out to redistribute wealth upwards” which can be used to silence neoliberals?”
I think the source is actually the architests of neoliberalism themselves who always spoke approvingly of the “trickle down effect”. So if the wealthy got even more wealthy we were all supposed to get wealthier with them as trickle down was inherent in the economic system – though there neither is nor was any evidence for it.
And now we have done the experiment we know for certain that it doesn’t exist.
Quite the reverse in fact.
Can I ask what these select committee meetings and interrogations by MPs and widely televised and cover by the media achieve?
What exactly is their purpose?
What do they achieve?
Today we will see them grilling the thrice bankrupt dope that was in charge of BHS
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching them on TV, but I believe that they’re only purpose is to provide theatre and something to be watched by the masses who are to be left with the “feeling” that they got their cumuppance and that things will change, things will be put right
In my view these “feelings” are unjustified, that nothing will change, that the perpetrators will not get their cumuppance, they will not be held accountable, they will night suffer in any way, they will not pay monies back, they will not put things right.
I genuinely think they are one of the most effective bits of our parliamentary democracy
So what do they achieve?
We watch the televised meetings, we see MPs asking questions, we see the attendees giving answers.
But what then happens?
What follow up us there?
I suggest there is none
As I said before it is great theatre but it changes nothing
So really it is a pointless exercise
So you think Margaret Hodge achieved nothing?
Oh come on
And in this case I am expecting a hard hitting report
Will it be adopted? No. Butt may influence change.
That’s the best anyone does
I’m sorry. Hodge achieved zero. Amazon paid no more tax, Google paid no more tax. The big 4 carry on as normal. Nothing has changed. This blog has achieved more than her, and at least you aren’t linked to dodgy stemcor tax avoidance
I disagree
Margaret’s role was critical
Parliament is the highest court of public opinion in the land, and as lawmakers they have a responsibility to ensure that the laws of the land act in the overall public interest (in theory at least!).
The fact these select committees are televised have both a positive and negative effect e.g open to public scrutiny but subject to theatrical effect and non disclosure of much which is still held in private. But as a move towards real democracy I do believe overall they are a positive thing.
Bread and circuses
I am now convinced that Tony Blair has lost his marbles, perhaps under the stress of the forthcoming Chilcot Report but perhaps they’ve been running away from him for some time now?
When given the chance to have a pop at David Cameron who has been the Tory leader of the UK government since the Syrian civil war began, instead has taken a swipe at the current Labour leader of the opposition who is in the same party as he is and has not been in any government position of power to influence the war, whereas Cameron clearly is.
Now call me an old cynic, but that’s just not cricket TB and you really are batting for the wrong team in my opinion and should move over to the blue blooded boys straight away and join your ex-schoolboy chums.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-08/blair-slams-corbyn-for-standing-by-as-syria-is-barrel-bombed
I’m reading Tom Bowers book about Blair (with gritted teeth!).
His portrayal of Blair as someone who was more interested in being a world leader rather than the leader of the UK and the Labour party is all the more convincing when you hear stuff like this.
Blair is obviously more interested in the Syrian people than the British people. And too willing to send off British servicemen and women to intervene in foreign affairs in order to bolster the illusion of his status as an international statesman.
He is shameless. It’s disgusting.
Yes – I know that the situation in Syria is shocking, but any politician worth their salt would focus on his or her country first and not just jump in with both feet first into Syria.
Blair has not learnt a damned thing at all.
I don’t think blair really cares about anyone now apart from himself, he values power over humanity despite the fact he proved that power without humane morality is the most destructive force there is. Which is such a shame as he achieved so much in Northern Ireland but then lost his sense of direction so much in the middle east.
But the fact he has chosen to vent his anger at Corbyn who has been a long time peace campaigner is just bizarre and must reflect his own fear of prosecution which Corbyn has openly supported. But if a war crime may have been committed he must face the rule of law as everyone else must.
An interesting article from Patrick Cockburn who I have a lot of time for in providing a more balanced Middle Eastern perspective, in this case to Blair’s latest outburst of innocence and poke at Corbyn.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/what-tony-blair-accidentally-revealed-about-iraq-during-his-criticism-of-jeremy-corbyn-was-very-a7074631.html
” It is because the neoliberal hegemony — and Labour were a part of this — set out to ensure that the odds were always stacked against most people. And, unsurprisingly, people have rumbled that”
If only it were the case that people have rumbled what’s occurin’. Watched the film The Big Short recently where the depressing point is made that it isn’t Neoliberlism (and btw have you noticed the right’s attempts to silence the use of the N word?) but “Immigrants and poor people” who are blamed.
I thought the big short was disappointing.
The frightening thing is that it could all happen again.
As we know efforts to reform and regulate banks, audit firms, etc have all been watered down to the point of being once more ineffective.
In the UK we are once more praying at the altar of all things property. Everyone is highly geared sucking in that cheap money yet one third of the upper classes could not pay an unexpected £500 bill.
No one it seems has their own safety/rainy day money.
This to me makes it so so scary.
The thought of all these people living in expensive over priced real estate, driving posh cars that they do not own, yet unable to pay £500!
Anyone else worried?