The Robber Barons

At the risk of being a ‘grumpy old man’, it is a good time to round up the current state of monopoly capitalism in the UK. Post Marxist capitalism theory suggests that free markets will prevent the exploitation of consumers, as the consumer is sovereign and quality, service and honesty will be protected by the fact that ‘good’ capitalists’ will ultimately drive out the ‘bad’ capitalists. This is clearly not a happening. I don’t want to get into the reasons why. These might include quasi Marxist analyses, or the power elite model of C Wright Mills and Ralph Miliband, but it may be too early to say. What is clear, however, is that there is now a new class of robber barons, in the form of large corporations and their executives, who are using their market power and their conscious or unconscious collusion, to exploit consumers (the issue of worker exploitation is another thing altogether). I have compiled a list of ways in which robber barons operate, with prominent examples to illustrate: • Energy companies exploit and overcharge us by complicating tariffs and by not passing on reductions on wholesale prices. We all know very clearly that wholesale price increases are passed on in full, but reductions are not. They argue that large profits are needed for the purposes of investment, but there are no signs that investment is benefiting consumers in any significant way. • We all know about executive pay and bonuses. This is now clearly a conspiracy, with excessive remuneration packages being passed by remuneration committees that contain members who receive similarly excessive pay. The argument that, ‘to get the best you have to pay the best’ is palpably nonsense in view of the incompetence we have seen lately. Look at Barclays and G4S for perfect examples. • Aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Remember – if large corporations or wealthy individuals avoid tax, we – you and I – pay the tax on their behalf. This is not a ‘victimless crime’. We are the victims. • Budget airlines seek to deceive us on hidden charges. In particular they `lump on extra charges such as for travel insurance and place obstacles in our way if we want to tell them that we do not need these service. Try avoiding paying travel insurance with Ryanair. • Credit card companies add disgraceful charges and interest rates for those who do not pay off their balances regularly. The charges, fines and interest charges are way in excess of the real cost to them. • The behaviour of banks is very well documented. No need to elaborate. These are just a few examples of hos free market capitalism has become corrupted. It’s not all bad, of course. The Internet does seem to be serving the interests of consumers in terms of good service, choice and prices. I also think the jury is still out on the supermarket chains. They may be exploiting their suppliers, of course, but I’m not convinced that we customers get that bad a deal.

After Leveson

Leveson’s recommendations. By way of both a prediction and set of suggestions, here is what I think Leveson ought/will suggest : 1 A piece of UK legislation guaranteeing freedom of the press. This is necessary to underpin the ECHR and head off the expected objections by the press. It is placed first deliberately so as to emphasise the balanced nature of the recommendations. 2 A new independent press body, avoiding any ‘regulatory’ connotation. Call it the ‘Press Review Board’ or something similar. It should contain no government or press representatives (past or present). 3 A new press code of conduct, with very specific criteria on privacy, public interest, permitted and prohibited activities etc. 4 The Press Review Board to make judgments on the basis of the code. 5 The Board could be proactive or react to complaints. 6 The Review Board also would hear complaints by elements of the press if they believe their freedoms are being threatened in any way. 7 The Board should not have judicial powers, but will be charged with the role of referring some complaints to the Crown prosecutors if there is a prima facie case of invasion of privacy, phone hacking etc. The Board’s decisions could also be used as authoritative in any future civil action. In other words, the Board should not have enforcement powers but will be required to refer cases to the courts where appropriate. 8 In criminal or civil cases, where a defence of ‘public interest’ is being used, the onus will be on the defendant to prove public interest, and not the other way round. In other words, it will be assumed at the outset of any case that there is no public interest where privacy was invaded. 9 Some strengthening of existing legislation and arrangements to ensure more assiduous pursuit of criminal cases.