The BBC have found a new flag bearer for all that is right in the world ..yes, Margaret Hodge is the new Vince Cable. Leading the Starbucks Jihad, this hypocrite is treated as if she is the very incarnation of fiscal decency. She has been all over the BBC claiming all sorts of imagined “victories” for “the people” (Labour)…. the small matters of her difficulties over MP expenses and her million pound shareholding in a tax avoiding company has been sanitised. I am no fan of Starbucks but the BBC has been manipulating news today to damn them even when they do change their corporation tax strategy.
Great post! I am also sick to death with seeing this highly irritating and insufferable woman pontificating from the pulpit with such gusto. But the really jaw-dropping aspect to all of this is the fact that the BBC have the audacity to use this primary school headteacher-type lady as a source of ‘wisdom’ considering the legacy her party has left us all. It’s as if the years from ’97 to 2010 have been time compressed into a halcyon era of utopian plenty.
THank-you,because words failed me….the utter hypocrisy of that woman.
“….this hypocrite is treated as if she is the very incarnation of fiscal decency.”
She is treated presumably as the chair of the Public Accounts Committee who issued a report into the tax affairs of companies like Starbucks; which in turn led (in part at least) to this volte face by Starbucks.
But she goes unchallenged by the BBC with reference to her family business avoiding tax in the same way as Starbucks.
So Jim will we see her company volte face ?
I am not holding my breath, but your collogues at the BBC certainly are. Hypocrites !!
She’s never off the BBC at the moment, enjoying a free platform for self-promotion as the star of this particular piece, and never challenged on the hypcocrisy of her position.
Had she been a Tory, Jim, I wonder if the BBC would have treated her with just a little less reverence, not to mention a storyline developed and dragged out over weeks a la Mitchell?
Bias, plain as the bad haircut on Balls’ head.
Earlier this week (Tuesday?) she was interviewed by Humphrys on the ‘Today’ programme.
Not a single question from him challenging her own tax affairs. At least he could have given her the opportunity to clarify things that were all over the main stream press, the internet and in ‘Private Eye’.
Not a hint of question from the interviewer who is lauded as the most fearsome inquisitor on the radio.
Can you believe for a moment that Humphrys did not know about this controversy and her apparent hypocracy?
Can you believe for a moment that in the same circumstances he would have not grilled a Tory, mercilessly?
The handling of this interview beggars belief. I truly believe that the line of questioning was agreed beforehand.
The real question in all of this is, ‘Can you trust the BBC?’
‘“….this hypocrite ”
She is treated presumably as the chair of the Public Accounts Committee’
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Presumably?
If you can grasp and accept that, further questions on which powers don’t get held to account may become apparent to you.
As you are so into things like consistency and respect for position, Jim, your thoughts on this would be worth knowing…
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/12/07/bbc-radio-4s-eddie-mair-does-a-paxman-on-israeli-ambassador/
From the Guardian in 2003 –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/21/childrensservices.schools
“Made minister for children in June, she described it as her dream job and…..was determined to hold on to it.’She’s a survivor’ said a female minister. ”
Unlike her victims at Islington Council. As leader she closed down an inquiry into child abuse by council employees, thus allowing more children to be abused.
And when the truth finally came out Hodge used the BBC to smear one of the victims and was forced into a grovelling apology.
Of course the BBC which is never wrong on anything, ever, refused to apologise for being part of the smear.
What people say is not what matters. What they do defines who they are and I’m afraid Ms Hodge leaves a deal to be desired.
You have got to admire her chutzpa though. Socialist ? major family share holder in a £billion+ buisiness. This company pays as little tax as it possibly can, and she fronts it out as if……Do not as I do, do as I say. Go get the coffees luv. None of that starbucks crap either, nescafs will do ok.
Maggie, Maggie out, out, out. I kind of remember that chant. Now when and where would I have heard it. This early on set dementia has a real left(y) hemisphere feel to it. Yes that it the hemisphere of the brain that is the logical brain responsible for words, logic, numbers, analysis, lists, linearity and sequence. It is dying in metropolitan liberal lefty man.
Come on Jimmy
“She is treated presumably as the chair of the Public Accounts Committee who issued a report into the tax affairs of companies like Starbucks; which in turn led (in part at least) to this volte face by Starbucks”. Have returned to a age of deference. I am to start touching my forelock etc. when the local Labour Council walks pass. Am I to genuflect when local trade union boss/metro lefty acknowledges my existence.
I take it this new deference will not be extended to the enemies of the people.
She must be this year’s pantomime “Dame.” Oh, wait a minute, she is actually a dame. For services rendered to what or who exactly?
Jim doesn’t mean deference is due. He means to give (partial) credit to Hodge for forcing Starbucks to stop obeying the letter of the law and accept more punitive taxes, and is implying that the BBC is giving her the pride of placement due for her achievement.
Of course, if the result is deference from the BBC, he’s here to provide full deniability.
EU law states clearly that companies can pay tax in whichever country they nominate. So Starbucks nominates Lichtenstein, and pays their full requirement tax there. Nothing wrong with that. It is US and OUR membership of the EU that is causing this, and ‘asking’ or ‘boycotting’ international corporates for following the law in our countries is ludicrous.
The law is wrong and the EU is wrong, not Starbucks. BUT you will never hear that on the BBC. Or any anti-EU message in any media source, to be fair.
I was going to say the exact same thing.
‘Jim doesn’t mean deference is due’
What ‘is it ‘cos I makes no sense at all’ means is often up for interpretation.
One presumes he feels a blog commenter adopting the style of a BBC radio 4 interviewer with a senior public figure is being beastly.
Balls, Hodge… who else will be deemed uniquely exempt from any critique solely by belonging to a rather ‘select’ group (see what I did there?).
I understand that Margaret Hodge transferred a chunk of her Stemcor shares into a trust for her children to avoid inheritance tax. If that’s not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.
Pot, kettle, not white.
What an utterly contemptible person Mrs Hodge is; and she’s in the company of many just like her, and not only in the Houses of Parliament. In the case of all the thieving politicians, though, I find it incredible that the electorate thought they should be returned to office at the last election, that their respective parties allowed them all to resume their positions within the parties, with no punishment for their reprehensible behaviour, and that the judicial system has almost completely failed to put the culprits in jail.
As the days and weeks go by, it seems to me that rather than being shameful and repentant, they are all intent on continuing as though nothing has happened. I can only assume that the insouciance of our servants , and contempt for their paymasters will eventually be their downfall; and it will be despite organs like the bbc, the guardian and the other ‘newspapers’ and supposed investigative journalists that populate the media.
A spoilt rich kid who rose through the labour ranks via a disastrous career in local politics. She has been dogged by accusations that departments under her control were so inept that children died.
Parliamentarian of the year?
Inquisitor of the Year
Ronald Reagan once said the most terrifying phrase in the English language is: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ In Britain, the most terrifying phrase comes in a letter saying ‘You have been invited to give evidence to the Public Accounts Select Committee.’ Our Inquisitor of the Year is Margaret Hodge.
dont forget Mr Lammy he’s got blood on his hands remember baby p….
I awoke to hear the latest “spokeswoman for a generation”…dodgy Hodgy…holding forth on some extracts from Parliamentary procedures (Today 6.40am)
Are the BBC really editing all this truthfully?…or all the assorted “tax avoiding community” in front of Hodges Committee REALLY that sappy and defensive?
Anyone would get the idea that Stemcor didn`t exist, or that Hodge was not a beneficiary from creative accountants and lawyers that work for her and her own family.
Nor would they get the idea that the naifs that breathlessly talk up Hodges yeowoman work on behalf of the “hard-pressed” have no personal knowledge of such schemes themselves…imagine…a BBC reporter..a Today presenter..a comedian or two, or BBC manager…and not a clue about such other worldly things as fiddling your taxes.
Oh those poor journalists and MPs…having to listen to such alien unpleasantness….no-one with any clue that it ever happened.
Now if the likes of hedge fund managers or Starbucks types aren`t able to tell Hodge that she`s a personal phoney and mealy-mouthed hypocrite..tehn maybe we DESERVE the likes of Balls and Brown back…how much more broken-backed to they have to appear to be, in front of such Parliamentary titans like…well Vaz, Bryant and of course the Hodgerooney herself!
Pathetic!
or all the assorted “tax avoiding community” in front of Hodges Committee REALLY that sappy and defensive?
Something I’ve wondered as well. If I’d been treated like that, I’d have said something along the lines of “Did you want me to answer the question or are you just here to grandstand for the cameras? If you’re not going to listen, there’s no point in me answering.” I just wish someone would, and take these jumped up pipsqueak MPs down a peg or two. They are worthy of no respect.
Quite agree Roland, why on earth do these people tolerate being quizzed by Hodge when they must know her shady circumstances? If i were them i would have insisted that she be replaced by a truly impartial person with no connection to these tax-avoidance firms and walk out if refused.
And on Today this morning Evan brings on Prem Sikka to discuss Starbucks’ stupidity with John Redwood. What Evan didn’t tell us IIRC is that Sikka is a senior adviser to the Tax “Justice” Network and a Guardian commentator: in other words, a lefty propagandist and professional anti-business mouthpiece. By failing to mention Sikka’s stake in this fight, it was (more than) implied that Sikka is a disinterested academic able to give an impartial assessment of the matter. Apparently the welcome mat is always down at Today for those preaching the BBC gospel (eg the Tax Justice Network, Greenpeace and the Sutton Trust).
In itself proof of the BBC’s left-wing bias. We all know that any representative from an organisation they don’t like is announced as being from a “right-wing” pressure group etc. But ones from left-wing ones are virtually never named as such.
Given John Redwood’a presence, not sure this is quite the proof you think it is.
Do you just comment here for the sake of seeing your nom de blog in print? Despite the fatuity of your remark and, at the risk of being thought patronising, I’ll explain what happened here as simply as I can.
Evan chose not to tell the listeners that Sikka is a member of a pressure group closely involved on one side of this whole contrived issue of tax avoidance. OTOH most listeners would know that Redwood is a Conservative MP so would know – more or less – why he takes the position that he does.
Sikka was introduced as an academic; someone, in the absence of any other knowledge about him, who would be expected to give a disinterested assessment of the Starbucks kerfuffle.
Sikka, in fact, has a large dog in the fight, being associated with the Tax Justice Network and a writer of TJN-inspired agit-prop in the Guardian.
Sikka was not on Today as a disinterested expert on the mechanics of tax; he was on as an advocate of the policies the TJN espouses. Why would Evan choose not to disclose Sikka’s lobbying background? It’s hardly irrelevant. Doesn’t the failure to give such information concerning Sikka strike you as odd behaviour by an outfit claiming to be “impartial” in such matters.
See Rule #1.
It was clear from what Sikka said where he stood on the issue. No need or time to read out his CV! And if both sides of the debate were covered then we have something approaching balance.
Then there’s no need for the BBC to ever label anyone in their introduction. Uh-huh.