I was delighted to have contributed to a Guardian profile of Margaret Hodge published today. This is the relevant bit:
Richard Murphy, a campaigner and accountant at Tax Research, says it is true “Margaret is not an expert and she does muddle things up sometimes,” but her strength has been to ask the questions that any reasonable person might do without being intimidated.
“She sees over and beyond that,” Murphy says. “That is where she has been amazingly effective. Companies and HMRC rely on the detail to say they have stayed within the letter of the law. But Margaret points out that the outcome is not what parliament intended and therefore something must be wrong. She has upset the cosy relationship between HMRC and big business.”
While tax campaigners like Murphy, Occupy and UK Uncut as well as investigative journalists first highlighted the issue of systemic avoidance by corporations, Hodge brought it to political prominence by forcing executives and officials to justify their behaviour in public.
“Yes, she does a bit of grandstanding,” says Murphy, but there is an innate sense of justice and outrage to her questioning that strikes a chord with the public watching.
And people have been watching across the world. There is a story that she was asked for a selfie by a director of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at a conference in Paris on the grounds that she is now a “tax rockstar”. That's true, says Murphy: she has literally rocked the world of tax.
Her reputation is well deserved.
And the rest of the article is well worth reading.
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:
There was an article in the Independent the other day talking about her lack of accountability over her previous roles when she was implicated in some sort of failure over child protection whilst she worked for a local authority. It made out that she was behaving hypocritically by insisting that HSBC directors were accountable for the banks’ shenanigans.
I used to read the Independent in the 1990’s. I find that it is a very misguided newspaper these days – too often coming across as cynically clever. Too often it chucks the baby out with the bath water.
My view is that the Indy fails to recognise the context of tax evasion/avoidance as well as dodgy accounting behaviour seen in the finance sector. That for too long (pre-Margaret) not enough questions were being asked about what has been going on – how have the rich been getting richer whilst others have seen incomes fall. Hodge’s pronouncements and anger have certainly raised the profile of these issues and boy do we need this to happen.
I say this because looking at the pre-dominantly right wing press, everyday we are bombarded by negative messages about immigrants, Milliband, tax, etc., or are told that we should be interested in more superfluous stuff like the private lives of the famous – all whilst corrupt practices take place that do nothing but enrich others at our expense.
So I’m with Hodge on this one – and long may she keep upsetting people because fundamentally this issue affects everyone and they would not be as aware of it as they are now if it wasn’t for her.
I agree about the Independent. Sometimes you just want another progressive paper to read say apart from the heavier Guardian or a detailed international paper like the FT. The next few weeks will tell if the Independent is fit for purpose or whether it will just reflect the Conservative Home counties hegemony common in the rest of London’s papers. If it goes Tory in the final days -then it truly has lost its way in the UK where 66% are not Tory and would like to see changes in what has become a deeply divided unequal society.
We undermine ourselves deeply when we are seen to be applying double standards, or worse actually living double standards. Should one’s past (alleged) incompetence at HSBC bar one from a position on the BBC Trust? Should one’s past sins on Islington Council bar you from bring Chair of the PAC?
Respectfully, everyone knew Swiss banks were used for evasion
Awareness of child abuse was very limited indeed 20 years ago
To claim comparability is utter nonsense
I see Hodge’s work on the PAC as somewhat redemptive. I’m not excusing any past failings; everyone deserves a second chance and as I said given the circumstances (where these issues are competing with other issues for our attention) Hodge can be seen as doing a good job. I also like the vigour she brings to the role – she is obviously at that time in her life or career where she feels older and wise enough to actually tell the truth, rather than toe the line. It’s quite refreshing.
Hodge is also criticised for her treatment of whistle-blowers while leading Islington, and of victims (she had to pay damages to one I recall).
Their is truth in these criticisms, however context is crucial. At the time, Islington Council was one of those bodies engaged in the early but doomed struggle against Neo-Liberalism. Attacks on Islington were not helpful.
Hodge can be seen as having operated for the greater good in this case.
You have previously acknowledged that you haven’t read much on the facts of the Islington scandal. So I must say to you that, respectfully, you are not able to dismiss my comment as “nonsense”. In fact, as a matter of fact, Margaret Hodge DID know and had been provided with reports, including a whistleblower’s. Her response led to her paying considerable compensation to and issuing a personal apology to one of the victims; this most certainly was NOT trivial. I have said before I do not like tax avoiders and evaders. But this was terrible child.sexual exploitation and abuse; there is certainly equivalence AT LEAST.
So, again respectfully, may I pose.my question again and would you and others please treat it the subject matter with the respect they are due.
Hodge has admitted to shameful naïveté
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10747257/Margaret-Hodge-sorry-as-council-she-led-told-to-investigate-Savile-abuse-allegations.html
It was a trait she shared with millions – and I am quite sure with you if you were around – at the time
I include myself
I was chair of governors at a primary school in the 90s and was aware of child abuse, of course
But never imagined it on the scale that obviously happened
And that was my point
Any director of a Swiss bank this century knew they were used for evasion
The scale of child abuse was not known
And in that context your accusations are wholly unjustified
One has to remember a newspaper which has always stood by its principles on behalf of the greater good, is right more than it is ever given credit for and has not had the recognition that it richly deserves. I refer of course to the Morning Star.
So we accept she knew. We describe it as shameful naivety, although the dismissal of the victim as obviously deepl disturbed would seem to me to be something other than naivety. And we agree that child abuse can claim equivalence – and more – with other crimes.
My point, however, was about double standards wasn’t it. She herself held out the possibility that HSBC execs didn’t know when they shou9ld have known. So, again very respectfully, why should they not get second chances when Margaret Hodge gets one? What’s more, why is she of all people entitled to deny others their second chance?
You are fabricating wholly inappropriate claims
Read the article
But don’t bother to comment as you are now on the deletion list for reasons already explained
Fabricating! Evidenced child abuse! You are a disgraceful little man. But deletion comes to all who speak truth to you doesn’t it. It did when I wrote as Ironman and it has now.
So you admit your own deceit
And accuse me
Everyone knew what was going on at the time but it wasn’t considered child abuse.
A friend of ours, in 2001, was assured that she was infringing the rights of her 14-yo daughter by not allowing her to go out at nights drinking, smoking & seeing male ‘friends’. The social worker went on to assure said daughter that were she to opt to go into care, no-one would ever try to apply any sort of curfew to her.
I find it deeply annoying (& sorry Richard I know this is rather tangential to a blog on Tax & Economics) that everyone is now acting shocked as though these things weren’t common currency 15 years ago.
We all knew what was going on. What has changed is our opinion of the proper rights & responsibilities of a child.
We’re seeking to go back in our Tardis & apply today’s moralities to yesterday’s circumstances.
As for crucifying the police, enough already! Ask any member of the public which is more important property crime or girls from a bad background being raped & I can tell you the answer 99% will give.
I have to say I was not aware that this was as common as it clearly was and I did have a role in education throughout the 90s
I think you overstate that aspect
But you are right, understanding and awareness hve changed with time, for the better. That’s how progress happens
I accuse you because of what you and your friends here are. Margaret Hodge’s decisions, made in the full knowledge of what had happened are waved away with pious incantations of “the greater good” and “second chance”. The greater good? Greater than the right of children to be protected? Yes, in your twisted world, with yur double standards.
And finqally, you are a coward. You won’t publish this, you have no response.
I have published it
And I have responded in full
There is nothing more to say barring the fact that mitakes were very obviously made in Islington that would not occur now
I think that is fundamentally different from what happened in banking where I am not convinced change has happened
The question to ask is this: if Hodge wasn’t doing what she was doing now where she is doing it – who would be doing it?
I can’t think of anyone else WITHIN parliament who would have taken this job on and conveyed the outrage as effectively as she has done.
And yes – regarding child abuse she knew but not enough to have taken really effective action to deal with the problem at the time so we can safely say that she – like others – did not have the full facts. Forgive me but you are seemingly trying to time travel here with hindsight?
Did the general public know about Saville and the others? No – it was unthinkable at the time – even I wrote in to get on Saville’s programme – would my parents have let me had they known? Would they have been culpable for putting me in danger had he molested me had got on Jim’ll Fix It? No – because much of what was going on was being hidden – very cleverly.
Think it through a little more.
You forget that Williams is a neoliberal
They assume they know everything from now to eternity and nothing ever changes
They assume everyone else does
But all of that is complete nonsense
But never doubt he believes it
You can’t be neoliberal unless you do
Richard
I was directing my comments at David Williams who seemed to be inferring that you (and others here) support child abuse which is totally bizarre. He is also confusing hindsight with the facts as they were at the time.
I have to say that I did not ‘forget’ Williams is a neo-lib – I simply didn’t know. He just seemed to be getting a bit carried away. But it all makes sense now. The neo-libs have a habit conflating issues in order to claim false intellectual superiority.
Margaret was certainly more aware than nearly all the rest of us because she was given the reports.
However, she made a decision to protect the council from attack. This would have been done for the greater good of all our children. Yes there were some casualties, but the root cause, as ever, was neo-liberalism.
She is on the left, so personal gain can be ruled out. Us lefties can be too caring sometimes, but if that’s a crime then sue me “Ironman”.
Personally I’m amazed that Richard puts up with such comments, and even tries to engage with them. As with Margaret herself, I don’t believe you should have your authority challenged in this way and look forward to a society which has proper constraints.
“There were some casualties” but the “root cause was neo-liberalism”, and her response was for ” the greater good”. I doubt Margaret Hodge would think that. In fact I think she would find it an appalling comment.
Child abuse of such a sustained and abhorrent nature teated as casualties in a political struggle?
Of course not
Are you denying that the cause was neo-liberalism?
By ignoring the reports and the whistle-blowers, she risked her reputation in a brave and unflinching manner.
Why would she do this but for the greater good?
You on the right need to remember that selflessness is possible.
If you did, you might understand our host’s inspirational blog better.
I find this and your other comments re looking forward to a society which has proper constraints to stop challenges to authority rather scary, and to say that child abuse was caused by neo-liberalism and ignoring it was for the greater good leads to my question whether you can really believe this or are in fact trolling .
I think Williams raises a valid question as to why Margaret Hodge should be given a second chance. I think the answer lies in the information that Williams himself puts forward: from what he says Margaret Hodge has apologised and accepted that she was wrong and I assume would do things differently if she had the chance again or were faced with the same situation. Rona Fairhead does not accept that she was wrong. Given her responses, I think we are entitled to assume that faced with the same situation Fairhead would once again rely on policies and procedures and fail to question management appropriately or see the bigger picture that’s not being presented to her. It’s not hypocritical to attack someone for a mistake that you previously made and acknowledged: I believe Margaret Hodge would hold herself to the same standards as she was holding Rona Fairhead.
I have shared your concern re trolling but the email address appears reliable
Well said Deirdre!
For too long since the late 1970s petty-bourgeouis notions of conventional morality have been manipulated by neo-liberals and neocons as a means to obstruct the greater aims of progress, social justice and history itself for their own selfish aims.
Margaret (and Richard too, in this blog) are defending a greater truth.
Margaret is great of course, but you might give credit to the rest of the committee which was multi party. She would have been labelled partisan without their support.
I’m assuming Deidre and Ms Queef are taking the mickey here.
Funny thing: it is indistinguishable from how some of Lady Hodge’s defenders seem to think. They’ll jump all over their enemies on this issue (Catholic church? Private schools?), but look the other way when it one of their own (Margaret Hodge, Rotherham).
I can’t believe the excuse that ‘they were different times’ – by the mid-late 80s the understanding of these issues had changed.
Victims were already starting to raise issues.
The Evening Standard was reporting on this by 1992, and she was still smugly dismissive. She demonstrated that her own valuable backside trumped the well being of vulnerable children for whose care she was ultimately responsible as Leader.
I think many commenting on this issue know anything like enough to comment on it with the certainty they are offering, you included
In which case discussion is closed