Rusbridger's defence of GMG's tax avoidance
Posted by Christie Malry on February 23, 2011 at 9:40 am
Tonight I watched an episode of My Life in Books, a show in which Anne Robinson talks to a couple of celebrities about their favourite books. In this episode, she was talking to Sue Perkins and Giles Coren. OK, so they're both a bit wanky, pretentious and hateful. But Sue Perkins chose a great book - Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. The book tells of Raskolnikov, who hatches a plot to murder his landlady and steal her money. He manages to justify this evil deed to himself by convincing himself that he'll be able to do lots of good things with the money. That's a gross oversimplification of the plot, but it'll do for now.
Alan Rusbridger today mounted a defence of Guardian Media Group's tax planning strategies, in the face of very severe criticism by Guido Fawkes. Guido has pointed out that it's hypocritical of The Guardian to put the boot in to companies that use tax planning and/or hedge funds while simultaneously signing off on GMG using hedge funds and undertaking some pretty pongy tax planning strategies. And, as coincidence would have it, Rusbridger's defence is broadly the same as Raskolnikov's:
"It's okay for me to do whatever I like with GMG because I'll be able to do lots of really good things with The Guardian."
Don't be fooled by Rusbridger's flowery language and wistful tales of the poor Scott family, faced with terribly difficult circumstances as a result of the death of both CP Scott and his son Ted, triggering a potentially catastrophic inheritance tax bill. This is no different to the choices ordinary folk face every day. The Guardian doesn't have sympathy for ordinary people seeking to reduce their tax bill just because they're facing tough choices - it expects them to make the choice that keeps their tax bills high. Similarly, we shouldn't tolerate Rusbridger's mealy-mouthed excuses for why he believes it's acceptable to keep The Guardian afloat, no matter the consequences for anyone else.
It's the same with hedge funds. If The Guardian wishes to criticise the use of hedge funds by others, then it needs to eschew them itself. It can't have it both ways. It's not alright just because it provides a bit of extra money to plough into The Guardian.
The Guardian simply isn't special. It's just like a retired person: it spends more than it earns. We don't accept that it's okay for Vodafone or Barclays, two recent UKuncut targets, to play fast and loose with their taxes 1 just because it keeps retired people afloat.
Even more amusing is Rusbridger wheeling out Richard Murphy and Richard Brooks to defend GMG's tax affairs. Both have written for The Guardian, so to apply one of Ritchie's favourite arguments straight back at him, neither can be considered to be independent. The Guardian has yet to correct its article on tax at Barclays, despite the obvious howlers being pointed out to them right here on this blog. The newspaper simply isn't a credible outfit in the realm of tax. And their failure to put their own house in order while they seek to criticise others is a rank hypocrisy.
It's commonly argued that the end justifies the means. Rusbridger's paper won't tolerate this argument for tax avoiders. And therefore this argument is closed off for The Guardian too, unless it wishes to expose itself to hypocrisy.
Notes:
- Even if they haven't, we don't accept that it would be okay for them to do so. ↩
