The government mustn’t fail this crucial test of international leadership

October 28, 2011 9:58 am

As next week’s G20 meeting in Cannes grows near, the prospects for a new “Robin Hood” or financial transactions (FTT) tax is growing. Significant voices such as George Soros, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs have expressed their support, and Microsoft’s Bill Gates is the latest to argue for the plan.

It is not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes was pressing for an American version 75 years ago and James Tobin proposed a levy on currency transactions 40 years ago. Labour put the proposal on the global agenda when Gordon Brown raised the issue at the G20 summit in 2009. Even George Osborne has had to begrudgingly admit that he has nothing against an FTT “in principle”.

But the British government is letting the side down. Despite George Osborne’s warm words, the reality is that Britain’s Chancellor has effectively ruled out British participation – even before the G20 has even considered the proposal. George Osborne is wrong to imply that he will not press the issue because other major countries remain opposed. He needs to think again.

Our starting point is the proposal Labour put forward in 2009 that all countries agree to work together to establish a tax of a fraction of one percent which could be levied on financial transactions, millions of which happen every day in the City. This would be a tax on the kind of speculative trading carried out by many banks and financial institutions who did the best out of the economy before the global financial crisis and who were bailed out by millions of ordinary tax payers after it.

Labour wants to see a Financial Transaction Tax but one that is implemented with the widest possible international agreement. Evidence from Sweden and elsewhere suggests that a single country levying a tax such as this on its own may risk losing business abroad. This is why concerted efforts are needed to broker a deal where any FTT applies in all of the world’s big financial centres, all of whom have much to gain from a new and reliable revenue stream to support jobs, growth and the developing world. The European Commission’s proposals in September for an EU Financial Transaction Tax fall short of the mark, not least because money raised would be used to simply top up the EU budget.

Whilst there are real barriers to winning this debate on the international stage there is also a real window of opportunity right now to do so. But by suggesting he thinks unanimous agreement at the G20 is not “terribly likely”, George Osborne seems willing to let the matter rest there, giving the impression there is no point even arguing for it.

This weak and defeatist attitude is an abdication of leadership, and a total abandonment of the gains made for this cause at the G20 meeting in 2009. Waiting for unanimity before even engaging with the issue means giving a veto to those who have vested interests in killing off the idea, or letting those with very different goals for the idea than the many millions of campaigners around the world set the terms of debate and potentially make it harder for Britain ever to join a scheme.

The time has come for Britain to step-up and show the leadership needed to broker a better deal, by being open to the idea that it is possible to win the argument for a different approach. That is why Labour is calling on the government to engage internationally, before we lose the chance to make a change which could make a real difference to the task of rebuilding a strong prosperous and fair global economy following the global financial crisis.

The current game in town is the proposal which France, Germany, the EU Commission and other key G20 nations are pushing for a Financial Transactions tax which would apply only in those countries which wanted to participate – letting those who are currently opposed stay out.

There are real risks with this approach. But because George Osborne is refusing to even discuss this proposal, the UK now risks being condemned to a spectator’s role and we will get the worst of both worlds. It will be harder for Britain to join an FTT in future because we have let others set the rules, and other countries which need persuading of the case for an FTT will go unchallenged.

There is a real battle to be fought not simply against the defenders of the status quo. Real leadership is necessary right now, yet David Cameron and George Osborne risk choosing a passive role and losing control of this agenda. What a great missed opportunity that would be.

Chris Leslie is the Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  • Anonymous

    Strange how a party sponsored by bankers doesn’t want to tax banks.

  • Anonymous

    But nor did labour, who spoke about it but actually  did nothing.

    Anyway this  should be called a Tobin tax, not a fictitious Robin hood who took from the rich gave to the poor, both Labour and the Tories aimed to take from the poor and give to the rich, Labour with it ten pence so called tax fiasco.

    But if the EU puts this tax into place by the time it comes down to the people 90% would have been scammed off.

    It should be a local tax  here and then the EU should do as they see fit, but the G20 not sure when this bunch agreed debts reduction and massive aid for Africa  most of the countries then decided not to bother.

  • Ross191

    so Labour supports the tax but would only implement it if it was done on an international scale? Isn’t that the same argument against its implementation in the UK given by the ConDems? 

    Be bold Labour and state it’s your policy to introduce the Tobin tax here regardless of the level of its global implementation. 

  • GuyM

    It isn’t a tax on banks, it will be a tax on bank customers as all that will happen is the charge will be passed on.

    Also even if it meant no bank relocatoins occurred (which is unlikely), how would the tax recipts be split? A proportional system with the UK getting a percentage matching the percentage of financial services in the UK? Somehow I think not.

    It’s a tax on customers and then that tax being taken out of the UK, just what the French and Germans would love.

    No thanks.

  • Sm

    It just won’t work. The only sane person that should be pushing the EU countries to do this is Obama as he would be getting a massive windfall if they were stupid enough to fall for it. America will never agree to this and whilst there is even one major financial area not committing economic suicide that is where the money will go. What on earth would be the point of pushing for billion o pounds more investment to drive growth and then losing twice by driving financial services out of the uk?

    Banks would be getting the double windfall o passing the cost directly to their uk customers and then still offshoring thereby avoiding the tax as well.

  • Carollloyd2011

    isn’t it a must that all countries do this if one does not surely financial services will go to them and leave the country in an even weaker position. I am all for bankers etc. paying for their mistakes but an not wanting a break down of financial services, we do need them and they do pay a lot to the Treasury

  • The Grunt

    Please sign this petition on the right to  peaceful demonstration for the OccupyLXE as the City prepares to evict the people.

  • The Grunt

    I just don’t give them my money with which to speculate.  I bank with and have my insurance with the Co-op Bank.  I have a savings account with a credit union.  I have placed money on deposit with lendwithcare (which I don’t expect ever to want again).   It starts with me.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I’d have expected a lot more intellectual crunchiness from the Shadow Chief Financial Secretary.

    Unless every country does it, all at once, it will be a massive failure.  Given that within the G20, the UK, America, China, and Japan are all publicly opposed, it isn’t going to happen.  Vladimir Putin, who wields more political than financial impact in the G20 is opposed.  That’s not including the 20 or so financial tax havens around the world that would positively lick their lips and look forward to massively increased revenues if “some” richer countries impose such a tax.

    What this article should be proposing is a set of benefits, to the opposed countries, that would accrue under a FTT. If those cannot be cogently stated, then there is absolutely no chance whatever of this actually happening.

    The 4 opposed countries in the G20 collectively account for 78% of global financial transactions, by value in 2009 (Economist magazine).  If those countries representing 22% of transactions by value wish to put themselves at a huge trading disadvantage in comparison to the 78%, how likely is it to work out in their favour?

    Supporters of the FTT need to make the case that it is beneficial to implementing countries.  Be positive.  Otherwise, it is like a five year old crying “it’s not fair”.

    As for the headline, given that this is a total non-issue and not going to happen, how is it a “crucial test of international leadership”?

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry to have missed this important article earlier.

    Some of us have been flagging up the idea of the Tobin tax for some time;
    maybe now a more opportune time?

    Enjoyed reading this, thankyou.

    Jo

  • Anonymous

    I agree; it’s got to start somewhere.

    And a “moral consensus” seems to be building again, which hopefully will apply more pressure to those vested interests (one assumes) against?

    If the burden was shared by the super wealthy companies, it would be a drop in the ocean for them, and raise billions for the wider economy and services.

    What is the rate of tax proposed?
    Something like 0.005%.

    Jo

  • Pingback: MP update – 30th October - Chris Leslie MP

  • Pingback: Robin Hood Tax update and holding the government to account - Chris Leslie MP

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →