You are in the company of 
Roger Warren Evans
   

  Part of   www.LivePolitics.net                                 < Back to Home Page  
 


New
Living Diary
Index


New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited


RWE Biography

 

   

item0038E  688, 689

688  14 April 2003   

  • One pleasure of web-logging is that of checking on ones own consistency, although one also may stand accused of E-narcissism.  But where has this political story gone?  On 12 May 2002, I was much exercised by the privatisation of Airport Rescue Services...

Public Primacy Misunderstood

When I recently re-examined my own socialist thinking [ New Socialist Settlement ] I surprised myself by identifying the new doctrine of public primacy, by which I mean the presumption that public functions should be discharged by directly-employed public servants, unless the contrary were demonstrated. This week there have been two examples of incorrect PP analyses, each pointing in a different direction.

First, Airport Rescue Services.  The Government is unwisely planning to privatise the fire-and-rescue services at all military/RAF airfields. The contract would be for twenty-five years which is itself an indication that something is wrong with the idea. Services are currently provided by a civilian staff of 2,100, directly-employed by the Ministry of Defence, as near-military personnel. Their work is inevitably closely inter-related with that of the military personnel. Privatisation would effectively create a long-term monopoly, where the lucky private monopolist could eventually name his own price. There could be no effective long-term control of staff appointments, and control of the servce would quickly pass to the private company. Understandably, there are three eager bidders, to take over 96 airfields for the next twenty-five years. This represents a profound error of judgment by Government. The length-of-contract is unconscionable - proof alone, if it were needed, that this is a daft idea. It's the perfect licence to print money, for the private monopolist.

  • And who is the greatest opponent (apart from me)? The American Air Force. One-third of the 2,100 staff work on secret American airfields. AAF Lieutenant Colonel Lonny Baker is threatening to recruit his own directly-employed force, if the Government goes ahead with this barmy plan. Would it not be truly symptomatic if New Labour favourite Geoff Hoon were forced to abandon this privatisation - by the opposition of the American Air Force?

My advice to Geoff Hoon is to abandon these plans, pronto. Find an elegant excuse, and drop them. Simply make sure that the existing public service is better occupied. Geoff: I know that you must be desperate to privatise something, just to prove your NL manhood to Tony Blair - but don't go ahead with this one. It would make you the laughing-stock of the Labour movement, and wreck your prospects of advancement, once Tony has gone...

The second PP mistake is made by the Kings Fund, this week castigating the Government for building too many big new hospitals - in the wrong places. King's Fund Director John Appleby blamed PFI for "locking in traditional patterns of acute care".

What nonsense! It is the NHS that decides on the location and scale of each new hospital.  It is true that the sheer professional fire-power of the Hospital Doctors has resulted in a big-hospital-centred system, which has adversely affected cottage-hospitals and local clinics - but that is the fault of the medical profession itself. The King's Fund is disingenuous, in blaming the builders rather than the doctors. It is absurd to blame the construction industry for these manifest and self-serving professional errors of judgment.

I continue to favour PFI for the property aspects of both hospital and school construction. The provision of property facilities-for-rent is one sector in which private companies are extremely skilled and competitive.

  • However, let me come clean - as I am Director of a quoted public property company Estates & Agency Holdings plc, I should remind you of my perceived "interest" in this argument (although my company has no presence whatever in this sector)

That was all in May 2002 - nearly one year ago - did Geoff Hoon withdraw? Or has the barmy scheme got lost in the fog of war?

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


"Abdroid" - you will remember from the sci-fi vocabulary of Star Wars, that a droid was a robot slavishly subordinate to human direction, programmed to carry out tasks (both pleasant and unpleasant) for humans.  Well - an abdroid is simply my word for an abstract droid - a company, corporation. agency, Government department or Office" - any legal entity other than a natural person.  English law calls such an entity an "artifical person".  French law calls it a "moral person", with extraordinary incongruity.  But they are all imaginary "persons" - entities which have grown to the most enormous importance in the modern world.  And it is to tame the abdroids that I advocate massive international company law reform.

Back to text


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


689   11 April 2003  

March of the Abdroids

Budgets always throw light on corners of the economy that ordinary reporting does not reach.  And I can now reveal that this Budget will allow battalions of abdroids to march in and take over Lloyds of London, bestowing limited legal liability upon its huddled masses. 

Let me explain.  Many wealthy gamblers in the Lloyds casino (sorry, "Names - investors who selflessly pledge their wealth in the provision of insurance cover for wholly desirable social purposes...") have lost very heavily over recent years, and face personal and family ruin.  So the Establishment is rallying round to save them.  Lloyds of London, the market maker, has agreed to accept "abdroids" into membership of the market, thus enabling future gamblers to limit their liability for future losses, and conferring on them all the right to walk away from disaster by collapsing their companies and transferring the risks and losses to others, those whom they insured - the ultimate capitalist desideratum.  So far so good...

The stage, everybody thought, was set for the Relief of Middle-class Mafeking.  But they reckoned without an uncomfortable Inland Revenue rule.  It is that, when an "unincorporated business" (in this case, the present personal gamblers, the present "Names") become incorporated (i.e. hand their business over to an abdroid), they must first settle up the tax liabilities of the unincorporated business, and they are not allowed to carry forward losses from the first business to the second!  The abdroid cannot "inherit" the losses of the prior partnership or sole-trader business.  There must be a clean break between Business One, run by the "natural person" and Business Two - owned and run by the abdroid.  After all they are, in law, totally different people.  And the natural person, to boot, pays Income Tax, while the abdroid pays a special abdroid tax called Corporation Tax - introduced in 1965, designed especially for abdroids - and ne're the twain shall meet...

  • Yet these unlucky gamblers already carry massive "tax losses" which - if they remained unincorporated, they would be able to offset against future profits, giving them years and years of tax-free future profits!  If they incorporate, and thus limit their personal liability, they will lose all those tax credits! This same problem has bedevilled millions of small businesses, over the last 35 years, faced with precisely the same problem...

Gordon Brown now says he will offer relief, and allow Income Tax credits to be offset against Corporation Tax liabilities.  Joy unrelieved, for the upper middle classes!  For my part, I do not disagree with the principle - we need the wealthy to invest in insurance, for the benefit of the rest of us.  And the tax oddity is merely the effect of awkward legal reasoning - it is not "just" in its own right.  And the institution of insurance is, after all, one of the key societal mechanisms countering man's endemic sense of insecurity ( see my essay on the subject ). 

But if Lloyds Names are to be let off the Inland Revenue hook, the same tax leeway should be granted to all small businesses. Governments did not respond to the travails of plumbers and electricians and millions of minor entrepreneurs struggling to make their way as sole-traders or partnerships, when they reached the growth-point at which "forming a company" became sensible.  Under Labour, the "small man" should benefit from the concession now won by the wealthy Lloyds Names.  All unincorporated businesses should be allowed to carry-forward the accumulated tax-losses of the early struggling years, and use them to off-set against later Corporation Tax liabilities.

  • Gordon - even with the relief of Mafeking,
    there is a democratic option...

What do you think?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

 
 


 

 
 

 

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net
- is that a deal?  Roger WE