For many years I spent a great deal of time dealing with the activities of those who used tax havens, whether they be the so-called professional advisers located in these places, or their clients. Without exception these people always had an excuse for their actions. Those actions were always within the letter of the law, they claimed. I responded in a variety of ways.
First, I pointed out that they had complied with what they thought the law to be. Others might well think differently about it. When the law had very rarely been tested who could be sure that their claim was justified?
Secondly, they were not acting ethically. They were seeking lowest common denominator justification for their actions, with there still being uncertainty as to whether compliance had really been achieved.
Third, this legal justification for action ignored ethics. Legal compliance is not the same as having moral justification for a cause of action.
And, fourth, legal compliance in places like a tax haven, where the legislative process has been captured by those intent on undermining the legal system of other jurisdictions was hardly indication of innocent intent.
In other words, legal compliance and ethics, or simple sound judgement, or risk averse behaviour, were very often completely unaligned with each other.
Why mention this now? Because what is, in my opinion, the Labour leadership's morally indefensible behaviour on donations has been defended on the basis that the rules of disclosure have been complied with.
Except we know Starmer was late in disclosures.
And now we know Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner were guilty of what look like more serious errors of judgement when it comes to their compliance with the rules, when both would appear to have been decidedly opaque in their declarations.
Looking as though you are relying on the ‘legal compliance' defence favoured by tax haven users to justify your actions is really not wise.
And what is very clear that sound judgement and ethics were not considered when donations for clothing were accepted.
I always did (and do) condemn those who used tax havens and methods of these sort to excuse their actions. I make no exceptions for Labour leaders using the same types of excuses.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
We need to condemn law avoidance – these people who don’t obey laws we would like to see but don’t have disgust me.
The acceptance of gifts is a very old human practice and confers the acceptance of the person who gives.
The voters of the this country gifted Starmer and his crew the gift of power.
Do some gifts have more value/significance than others?
I think that we are beginning to learn if this is the case.
There is a very fine line between a gift and a bribe.
If I buy Richard and Starmer a cup of coffee or a pint it is a gift. If they are too intoxicated to drive and I pay for a bus ticket or taxi fare it is a gift.
If I spend $10,000 on supplies to redecorate the PM’s private living quarters at Number 10 or buy King Charles III a polo pony, it is a bribe.
It is NOT that difficult to see in my Yank opinion.
Agreed
We can all do it
I am noting the symbolism of gift giving and why – in essence – it is better to decline politely.
Although according to 6 SCOTUS judges, a bribe given after a favour has been performed is merely a gratuity, so not illegal. But still corrupt as hell; in other words they have formally legalised bribery in the USA.
@Rick Jones
SCOTUS would say that, wouldn’t they!
@ PSR
Potlatch springs to mind.
The gift has strings (of reciprocity) attached.
John McConnell excoriating take in the Guardian today reminds us:
“When Keir Hardie was elected as the first Labour MP, he went to work in parliament in his working man’s tweed suit. He wasn’t expensively clothed by rich sponsors because, as a matter of principle, he refused to ape the Tories and Liberals in their expensive frock coats and silk top hats.”
STP indeed.
McDonnel?
The frock coats and silk hats were Conservative and Liberal (to be fair Hardie began life as a Gladstonian Liberal); but at least Starmer received Keir Hardie’s name; as a gift…………
If Starmer’s parents are no longer living, I am sure they are rolling their eyes in their graves.
At the very least I think these, ‘donations’ should be treated as taxable income. If they declare them late HMRC can decide if it was avoidance or evasion.
Starmer promised professionalism but most of the decisions I have seen have been awful. A fuss is made in the media about gifts of clothing and Starmer says he’ll no longer accept gifts of clothing, completely missing the point that it was really about the gifts, not the clothes. If he had wanted to turn this into a huge win, he could have said, “Sorry, I realise that receiving gifts is not something politicians should be doing we’ll stop accepting gifts.” Have some exceptions for cases where a gift would cause offence if it was not accepted – gifts from foreign heads of state, for example.
Guardian headlines like this are not good, “Keir Starmer’s popularity ratings will bounce back, Angela Rayner insists”. It doesn’t smell of support, it smells of a leadership bid positioning.
Starmer is even losing the support of the media because not even they can keep supporting this ineptitude. This is going to be a long and grim 5 years for him, let’s hope the left can get it together in the mean time.
There is little point in considering ethics, or morals; these are associated with properly held values and there is little evidence (or contrary evidence) that the current government has any interest in such mundane and unprofitable considerations.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between law and ethics, it also tells us a lot about the law and about the people who draft it, I think, almost like the difference is intentional.
I would say, though, that I do not believe that what Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and so on have done has anything to do with “errors of judgement”, which I think is too generous as it suggests a level of innocence, and fellow human feelings and concern, that they do not possess – MPs appear without shame or remorse. These people are political thinkers, and will have known all along exactly what they were doing, and any discrepancy between ethics and the rules. To seek power, to be selected as a prospective MP, these are not innocent activities. And they accused the Tories of these exact same activities, and the history of parliament is riven with sleaze and corruption, of which they cannot claim ignorance. It is not a place steeped in honour, but rather of lies, deceit, blood, and so the list goes on. Why we tolerate such a venal place I find utterly perplexing. Many people have died because of parliament and government in just the last century alone. When they were elected, they will have known where they were heading and exactly why they wanted to be there. And all evidence suggests that it had nothing to do with helping the majority of others.
Starmer became Labour leader by cheating.
He promised change during the election.
But he has shown that he has no understanding of the change that is needed.
Or he does understand but has no intention of making it.
All we have is a change of slogans.
I would be curious to know if the value declared for these ‘gifts’ was the price my wife would have to pay if she went shopping in Oxford Street* or if only the ‘cost price’ was being declared. As for glasses the most I have paid is £89 per pair – in Specsavers!
*It is probably obvious that we have never gone shopping in London.
My last glasses were over £300 for two in Specsavers – but I have trifocals and anti glare. I still can’t see how he spent so much.
It was for the cost of the designer frames.
Mine are unbranded, deliberately
Brands are for mass markets. Design is not branded; that is typically what makes it exclusive. When “Design” is branded it means it has been corporatised, and then it is mass market (it may still be expensive, but it is still a mass market business).
I’ve been on several different anti-bribery and corruption courses during my professional life. I suppose many of us have.
They all helped the participants to understand what could ethically be accepted and what could not. Including if it was the culture to accept ‘gifts’ as part of the negotiations, you notified the Ethics Dept, accepted the gift as a gift and it was given to/sold for charity.
From what I’ve seen of the STP politicians of both colours, they’d be fired from every company I’ve ever worked for. Mind you, the minute Starver started burbling about The Law, I could see where it was going. (Again, I suppose many of us could.)
Isn’t it dreadful to have to start a sentence “One thing you have to give the tories is…”? In this case it’s “…at least their attitude was openly ‘so what? We’re entitled.’ They didn’t try to say it within the law, like the labrators!”
I see that Labour miniters will no longer take clothes from donors.
I’m sure the donors are relieved.
I’m reminded of the response seen scrawled on a ’70s poster advertising The Times in a tube station. The slogan was – “70% of Bishops take The Times” – to which a wag had added -‘The other 30% pay for it!’
I think we know the feeling.
I wish our leaders would think about the effect of their example on the developing climate calamity.
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause”.[NASA} (1)
“Clothes are linked to climate change” [BBC] (2)
“Fashion fuels climate change, plastic pollution and violence [Greenpeace] (3)
“The fashion industry is highly greenhouse gas intensive, with estimated emissions ranging between 2 and 8 per cent of the global total.” [The situation] “can be described as an environmental and social emergency”. [UN] (4)
‘Fancy clothes’ is the ‘soft option’. ‘Hard choices’ might involve dressing like Volodymyr Zelenskiy
Real ‘hard choices’, would be taxing wealth. Cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance is a ‘soft option’.
(1) https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence
(2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60382624 29 July 2022
(3) https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/fast-fashion-climate-change-pollution-violence/ April 3, 2023
(4) ) https://unece.org/forestry/press/un-alliance-aims-put-fashion-path-sustainability
Much to agree with
Starmer et all might achieve very little in power, but, like Blair, won’t they enjoy the trappings ?
It’s all about the bling really, and freebies at the Emirates and Wembley.
Reeves had already been given several handbags with price tags of £1000 plus before the election, by business groups at events at which she had spoken.
All these quite small things and fripperies illustrate the mindset of both the power brokers and the power holders.
Seeking influence with gifts is expected behaviour in welcoming a new intake to the elite. You are one of us now.
However, the politicians themselves are hopelessly out of touch with their electorate, and remote enough from them already, not to mind that the voters’ daily struggles make these gifts, and their willing acceptance, (especially at Arsenal) look as if their seduction by the trappings of power is complete. And we don’t like it.
Both Roy Jenkins and Nye Bevan liked a good claret, and a decent Fronsac is a pleasure, but I think these were paid for, and not gifted in expectation by French wine growers.
McDonnell’s Guardian piece was correct. Labour politicians do need an underpinning value system that understands and reflects their constituency’s interests.
It doesn’t require a hair shirt, or even a replica No9 shirt, but the demonstrable shallowness of the current incumbents is a huge indicator of character, and I think Labour voters have a right to expect better.
I’m not really a ‘betting man’, but I’d be prepared to take a small wager that Harold Wiison never paid for a Gannex raincoat and that Michael Foot paid for his own duffel coat even if he did get it from an Oxfam, or army surplus shop.
I’d also take a small bet that the infamous Clinton/ Lewinsky cigar came from Havana.
What is it, I wonder, that persuades politicians that their actions become invisible when they achieve high office and their lives are subject to more scrutiny than ever before?
I remember reading that Michael Foot’s wife, Jill Tweedie, bought his much derided coat from Harrod’s.
Once a month, on market day in our small town, we stand out in all weathers collecting for the food bank. Our prospective Labour candidate came twice to drum up support for herself, but never came near us and didn’t contribute to the collection. Says it all really – didn’t vote for her.
Clearly Free Gear Keir has never heard of the Nolan Principles
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life–2