I noted, belatedly, that Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian yesterday about the composition of the HMRC board, said:
Why isn't Murphy on that board?
There is a simple explanation for that. Such an appointment would, of course, be argued to be political when, however, the appointment of the former senior partner of KPMG and others from the tax profession and business community is not, of course.
That's how the neoliberal capture of the state is justified, even if it requires a straightforward lie to be told to do so.
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:
Why have someone on HMRC’s board, who might have the interests of small businesses and ordinary people up an down the country at heart, when you can parachute in a shill for the corptocracy?
Long live fascism – said with the utmost sarcasm!
small businesses should be read as small and medium size enterprises..
It may be of interest that HMRC has re-organised yet again and has formed a “Mid size businesses” directorate, but what is puzzling that HMRC considers a mid size business to be one with turnover greater than £10m but the Dept of Business considers it to be one with turnover greater than £6m – which just shows unjoined up Government is!
And I said I would never visit here again…one time only, if you’ll allow it!
No Richard, you know the answer to Polly’s question is you simply don’t have the expertise in the field. It would reflect well on you to achnowledge that.
And your reasons are? Why not present an argument rather than an ad hominem?
Promises,promises….
Richard is far more qualified than the worthless board HMRC has at the moment, none with adequate experience of working in HMRC, and many representing privatisers and tax avoiders more than the public interest.
A consequence of this is more bad news today. HMRC is to “consult” on closing another 12 offices. These are the offices where staff were offered voluntary exit in November. The staff leaving are almost all compliance staff, who bring in many times the cost of their salaries in evaded tax.
HMRC want to withdraw from Barnsley, Barnstaple, Bishop’s Stortford. Carmarthen, Colwyn Bay, Glenrothes, Irvine, King’s Lynn, Merthyr, Newry, St Leonard’s and Stevenage.
They say they are not pre-judging the result of the consultation, But they also say these offices have no medium to long term future and all the staff should look for other jobs.
I can’t speak for what goes on in the private sector, but in the public sector I know of very few occasions when a consultation is not pre-judged. And given the background to this specific “consultation” we can be confident it’s not an exception to that rule.
I’m afraid I did expect the deflecting ‘whataboutthem’ answer. No, the question was put by Polly Toynbee and the answer is “because he is not suitably qualified”. I really would have thought the Paul Flowers debacle would have taught us all a lesson about apoointing the unqualified; it seems not.
One question for lionsafterslumber and for Richard: to which individual are you referring when to talk of HMRC Board members “representing privateers and tax avoiders more than the public interest” and do you have any evidence to back that up?
Take as much time as you need over your answer.
I leave others to answer this absurd analogy
You didn’t bother to read the bit about HMRC closing its offices and getting rid of the trained staff it needs to fight tax evasion then?
You will probably be more effective off the Board. I think you would have been the
“token woman” (or token whatever) to present a gloss of independence.
Two points:
1. Since Polly’s fundamental question is whether you personally should or shouldn’t be on the Board of HMRC, ‘ad hominem’ doesn’t really apply here does it.
2. I suggested you might acknowledge that you are not qualified to sit on the Board of HMRC. You haven’t done that and so it seems you do feel you are indeed qualified.
So, based upon your pen-picture on this website: The nation has quite sufficient numbers of tax experts and doesn’t need to resort to approaching someone who picked tax up in the course of his accountancy career; they are separate disciplines. Your background is in advising SME businesses and individuals: ‘how to set up a personal services company for your domestic help’ etc. This is very good and worthwhile in itself and would certainly make you useful to HMRC IN SOME CAPACITY. That is not, however, at Board level. You do not have any relevant large business experience and certainly not of leading a business with tens of thousands of staff. Neither do you have any relevant experience – or formal qualifications – in tax policy and economics; writing a blog doesn’t provide you with that I’m afraid.
Anyway, the usual form for somebody applying for a job is for that person to demonstrate that they are qualified, not to challenge the employer to show that he isn’t. So, over to you.
I find you’re comment curious, and even bizarre, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the cast majority of people seeking tax advice will seek out a chartered accountant, and I suggest for good reason. A good chartered accountant should not only know tax very well (and so also know when to also take further advice ) but has the training to contextualise that advice. Your comment is ridiculous, as most reading here will recognise.
Secondly, because when I was 27 I decided not to complete my CIOT exams and instead concentrate on my already growing firm does, candidly, seem thirty years later utterly irrelevant to my current qualification for a job for which, it should be noted, no tax qualification at all is required (the vast majority on the HMRC board have no tax experience at all).
Third, if you think management is only learned in the rather cosy, safe, careerist world of big business you clearly know nothing of what managing at the sharp end of business is like.
Fourth, the vast majority of the businesses HMRC deal with are SMEs. Someone who knows the sector well would be an invaluable addition to the board, as would someone who knows tax outside the HNWI world.
Fifth, you seem to think NEDS run an entity. You show your own ignorance of the role as a result. Their role is to ask necessary penetrating questions to hold the executive to account on mutually agreed objectives.
In that case the requirement is for someone who knows tax policy, understands the framework in which tax operates in theory and practice reflecting economics, political economy,accounting, tax and management coupled with a robustness that ensures disasters like the lack of accountability in RBS under Fred Goodwin are not replicated.
Do I think I have those qualities? I think you know the answer to that.
I also never expect to be on the board of HMRC precisely for the reason that I would ask all the questions the executive would not want asked, which is, of course, precisely your objection too.
Richard
I don’t think anything could be added to your response to Ironman’s comments.
I’m fighting an overwhelming urge to deliver the response his comments deserve.
One thing I find comical is that Ironman sets so much store in that to be the head of a large organisation, you need “relevant large business experience” and the ability of “leading a business with tens of thousands of staff”.
I think he confuses this with real leadership.
Under the neo liberal paradigm one is more of “figurehead” than a real “head” of a large organisation.
“the relevant large business experience” is a euphemism for a skillset comprising:-
1) The ability to delegate anything that is likely to have the remotest chance of damaging one’s career.
2) The skill of throwing a knife into a colleague’s back from 50 paces with unerring accuracy whilst blindfold.
3) To practice “immaculate presentation” in front of a large audience. This is surrounded by the same “aura” as “immaculate conception” though should of course not be confused with the same.
On reading the phrase “leading a business with tens of thousands” an image of Sir Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend subject to revisionist airbrushing hoves into view.
Sorry I couldn’t resist 😉
OK so you really do think you are qualified to sit on the Board of HMRC, even if you do say so yourself. Although it is interesting that you have introduced the idea of being a NED; that definitely wasn’t Polly’s question!
But I think I have been clear enough and I will be clear again: you are not qualified to sit on the Board of HMRC, in any capacity.
This is especially true if, as you claim, they need tax expertise, tax experts in other words. You’re not a tax expert, blogging doesn’t make you one, you don’t have that expertise; plenty of others do. There is nothing in your evidenced skill-set that sets you apart from hundreds of accountants advising SMEs. As I say, all worthy enough, but not a qualification for the job for which you are campaigning.
For what it’s worth, I don’t either. I am just another provincial number cruncher.
You may be just anothe provincial number cruncher – and there’s nothing wrong in that
I never was
We will have to agree to differ. Your further contributions will be treated subjecti to the comments policy
But how much real freedom would you have? In a world where Osborne says austerity, so a wage freeze and at least 10 or 15% off your running costs, what do you say to your senior Directors who tell you that they have lose a few thousand staff to meet those requirements? You might question the effect on SMEs or compliance but they say we will give you more yield. How do you reverse the cuts and motivate the staff?
I will be candid: I would need a lot of persuading to do it