In 2013, Margaret Hodge, then a Labour MP, did in her role as chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons challenge Google executives over that company's tax affairs. I know. I was there. I briefed her in the hour before she grilled the people in question.
She specifically questioned why the company claimed its UK sales took place in Ireland when evidence suggested its sales processes occurred within the UK.
Hodge used strong language to criticise Google's tax practices, accusing the company of "doing evil", a term that was a direct play on Google's then-corporate motto, "Don't be evil".
Under Hodge's leadership, the PAC published reports demanding greater transparency from multinational corporations and urging HMRC to be more aggressive in challenging artificial tax arrangements. The result was the worldwide adoption of country-by-country reporting for tax purposes, a system of accounting I had designed for this specific purpose
Now, circumstances have changed. Hodge, now a member of the House of Lords, seems to talk more about Zionist sentiment than anything else these days, despite which fact she i
s in line to become head of Ofcom, which oversees TV, radio, video-on-demand network broadcasting, broadband, mobile and postal services in the UK. Few people seem less suited to head such an organisation than Hodge, in my opinion, given the very apparent biases that she has revealed in her work as an MP, where she unjustly vilified Jeremy Corbyn, attacked the left consistently, and has acted in a pro-Zionist fashion, which will inevitably alienate some.
Google's former Europe boss is closing in on becoming the BBC's next director general, the Guardian has been told.
Sources said that Matt Brittin, 57, was very advanced in the appointment process. Some insiders believe that, barring a last-minute development, he will succeed Tim Davie as the broadcaster's next director general.
Brittan is the man who appeared in front of Hodge in Parliament, representing Google. Not only does his past record on tax exclude him from consideration, in my opinion, but we also have to ask how it is that the stars have so aligned that, a decade or so on, these two appear to be destined to head major broadcasting organisations in the UK. What do they share in common? Their arch belief in
neoliberalism. That is it.
It used to be said that power corrupts. There is an undoubted element of truth in that. I do, however, think that neoliberalism corrupts absolutely.
The ability of those who believe in it to fail to recognise what might probably be called the public interest is quite extraordinary.
Neither of these appointments will serve that purpose, in my opinion. They do, however, serve the purpose of neoliberalism, which is to exclude all interests but those that promote
financial capitalism and the interest of wealth above all others. No one can doubt the commitment of Hodge and Brittan to the cause of neoliberalism.
PDF of article
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:
If this happens then it is totally out of order. Another cuckoo is being appointed to a public position as well as someone who does not really accept the sovereignty of a state.
But it is the pleonexic behaviour of people who have ‘made it’ – plain and simple.
When a system has worked for you and made you feel safe and comfortable, you are less likely to question it aren’t you? I see it all the time in British society. That in a nutshell is Margaret Hodge.
As for Brittin, it is obvious that the BBC ‘funding problem’ is too much hard work for our over paid MPs so they want someone else to make tough decisions for them to simply rubber stamp.
What experience does Matt Brittin have of working in broadcast media? Is lack of such experience seem as an advantage? Do we really want someone who literally won’t know what they are doing, and will have to learn on the job?
I expect we will hear about his experience at Trinity Mirror (in a commercial role, for a few years, after Cambridge and LBS, and roles in surveying and consultancy) and board positions at Media Trust in Nigeria, and at GMG since last year (only slightly more relevant than sitting on the Sainsbury’s board).
The BBC’s director general is also its editor in chief. So how would be approach difficult questions of independence, objectivity, and editorial balance?
Perhaps the most important event for the BBC in the next couple of years is renewal of its charter from the end of 2027. What are his views on that?
In a word: YouTube
It would be cheaper and more honest, to either abolish Ofcom or rename it “The Ministry of Truth” (“Truth” as defined by George Orwell). With Margaret Hodge at its head it will have no role as regulator whatsoever.
Margaret Hodge is being rewarded for her work in making Labour the party of the few, rather than the many.
Margaret Hodge’s own tax affairs were a touch pot kettle black if I recall
https://www.ft.com/content/4d9e16b4-ee3d-11e4-98f9-00144feab7de
“Ms Hodge became one of the UK’s best known politicians in the last parliament by denouncing businesses and individuals over their tax arrangements, and criticising Revenue & Customs for its handling of avoidance. But she has previously made no public statement about the use of offshore vehicles or the LDF associated with the family shareholdings.
Her committee has been particularly critical of the lenient terms offered by the LDF, not least last month during its investigation into alleged tax evasion by clients of HSBC’s Swiss bank.”
I would like to see Peter Oborne as head of OFCOM.
One could ask the same question wrt other MSM “organs” such as the Economist. Here is the latest attack on the Green party:
https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/03/12/the-green-partys-economic-plans-are-corbynism-on-steroids
Stopped reading the Economist years ago – a neo-libtard rag with little to say that is either original or of interest
indeed, neo-libtard rags are functionally incapable of producing anything that is original or interesting -Economist is no exception & its journos are not paid to do that, dearie me no.
I have thought about blogging about that one, Mike. However, there is nothing to it, barring paranoia and hype. The Greens should, however, expect more of the same.
I’d like to see the head of the BBC, and the Trustees elected by the licence payer, foreign national who can’t vote in UK gen elections included if they pay the fee. No taxation without representation. That way if an anti tax avoidance campaigner blogs they don’t like the appointment then they’re arguing against democracy, which is quite common to be frank.
Margaret Hodge helped vilify Jeremy Corbyn, and actively helped him and Labour lose the General Election.
She said so herself. https://x.com/jrc1921/status/1730607362577158398
Peter Mandelson was helping.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/21/peter-mandelson-i-try-to-undermine-jeremy-corbyn-every-day
Slightly off topic, but still related to Hodge, when she stabbed in the back those who helped her be re-elected as an MP:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/barking-racist-20193104