BRIAN READE: 'We must shame rich into sharing fortunes to rebuild Broken Britain'
Politicians often use working-class names to show that they are down with the common folk.
The Republican 2008 US presidential hopeful John McCain constantly evoked 'Joe The Plumber' to signify his blue-collar credentials. Although the plumber couldn't stop his campaign going down the toilet.
When Margaret Thatcher privatised British Gas in 1986, ad men urged us 'If you see Sid, tell him' to buy some shares. Sadly many did, then flogged them to City firms who scammed us, and we ended up wanting to gas Sid.
But I think I've found a winner for Labour as they seek to do what everyone knows they need to do but are too scared to: force those whose wealth has soared since the bankers' crisis to share some of their fortune with our skint Treasury.
They should put posters in City clubs, adverts across right-wing media and project images on to all the HQs of FTSE 100 companies saying: 'Be more like Gary.'
Let me explain. Gary Grant who owns Britain's biggest toy retailer The Entertainer is retiring and giving his £80million business to the firm's 1,900 workers.
He is transferring ownership of the family's 160-shop chain to an employee trust, meaning staff get to share the profits and decide its future, rather than flog it to cost-slashing corporate hawks.
'If the business had been sold just for money that would not have been passing on the baton in the way the family wanted,' said the practising Christian, with one of the delighted workers saying: 'He always looks after us. It's a typical Gary thing to do.'
'Gary things' have happened before. In 2019, Julian Richer handed control of his audio chain Richer Sounds to staff, giving them 60% of his shares, triggering a windfall of around £4million.
Also challenging the stereotype of the vampire capitalist obsessed with multi-million pound bonuses is a selfless group called Patriotic Millionaires UK, who are campaigning for people like them to pay more tax.
They point out that the top 10% owns 57% of the UK's wealth, while the bottom half owns less than 5%, and believe making those at the top pay more tax would drive down inequality and help rebuild Broken Britain.
They also dismiss as a myth the notion that Labour is driving out the rich, pointing out that 'less than 0.3%' of the country's three million millionaires are projected to emigrate.
The likes of Gary Grant, Julian Richer and the Patriotic Millionaires should have a seat in the Cabinet to advise Labour how to incentivise other CEOs and millionaires to 'do a Gary thing.'
These are the people who understand that success and happiness is not defined by the width of your wallet but the depth of your compassion. That the most patriotic thing you can do is share your wealth with the people who helped you make it.
Patriotic Millionaires (motto: 'Proud to pay, here to stay') also point to a recent poll carried out by Survation which claimed 80% of millionaires support a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10million.
Why don't Labour test that? Why not hold a summit with the CBI, invite prominent millionaires, and call on them all to 'do the Gary thing'. Then name and stain the non-patriotic refuseniks.
Maybe if Labour can't soak the rich into paying more, it's time to shame them into it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump offers Putin, Zelensky contrasting approaches
The two superpower leaders exchanged flatteries, with Putin saying the war wouldn't have started it Trump had been president in 2022. Andrei Gurulyov, a Russian parliament member and retired general, described it as a "breakthrough" moment that was played up heavily on Russian state television. Putin's foreign ministry said it marked an end to the foreign country's reported isolation. That showcase is in sharp contrast to a fiery exchange Trump and top administration officials had earlier this year with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy when the foreign ally's leader was told in the Oval Office he was being disrespectful to the U.S. and risking World War III. More: From no-deal to Putin's deal? A flummoxing summit, a Trump flip Zelenskyy was teased by Trump and others for his attire and eventually booted from the White House. Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., suggested Ukraine's president should either resign, change his tune or "send somebody over that we can do business with." The administration went as far to pause intelligence sharing and weapons shipments to Ukraine after the incident, and while Trump has threatened to impose sharp economic penalties on Russian if an agreement to end the war wasn't reached, he suspended those sanctions after the Alaska sit-down with Putin. Now, Trump is poised to welcome Zelenskyy back to Washington on August 18 to discuss a peace agreement. More: Trump to meet Zelenskyy at White House after Putin summit in Alaska Republican praise Trump's strength, Dems fret 'it was just theater' After being hyped by the administration and its congressional allies as an opportunity to end the more than three-year conflict in the region, Trump's dealmaking skills are being tested in an international negotiation that could backfire on the country and globe. "The goal is always peace," the White House said in an Aug. 15 post on X, amid the talks. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, said in an Aug. 16 post on X that Trump "stood firm in defense of U.S. interests," and that the summit marks a critical first step to a "durable and stable peace that protects Ukraine's territorial and economic sovereignty." But Democrats and other detractors warn that the summit has largely benefited Putin, who is facing war crime charges from the International Criminal Court and seeking legitimacy on the global stage after starting a war that has resulted in more than 1.4 million casualties, according to studies. "Our fear is that the Trump-Putin meeting wasn't diplomacy--it was just theater," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said in a post on X ahead of the talks. Trump seeks reset in pursuit of peace as Europe worries Trump returned to Washington on Aug. 16 carrying plenty of compliments from Putin, but without a deal the administration appears to be skipping cease-fire discussions altogether and pivoting quickly to reset its public relationship with Zelenskyy, who will be returning to the Oval Office on Aug. 18 for a talk that remains inconclusive to most observers. Trump began to tip-toe away from Putin and toward Zelenskyy in late April after Russia bombarded Kyiv with missiles. The president, however, is also reportedly considering land swaps including Ukraine areas not currently occupied by the Russians, according to the New York Times, something U.S. allies have opposed in the past. Zelenskyy said in an Aug. 16 post on X that he spoke with Trump and European leaders, adding that the "killings must stop" but that the battling must pause first before a larger peace agreement can be made. "The positions are clear," he said. "A real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions." In a joint statement, European leaders echoed that sentiment and expressed support for a Putin-Zelenskyy summit with some, such as French President Emmanuel Macron noting Russia's "tendency not to honor" peace agreements in the past. "I'm disgusted that Donald Trump met with Putin on American soil and did so with no representatives from Ukraine," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, a retired Army helicopter pilot, said in an Aug. 16 post on X. "Trump and his inflated ego may not realize it, but it's clear that Putin is not engaging in good faith to end this war."
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Lord Kinnock urges Labour to scrap two-child benefit cap with ‘Robin Hood economics'
Labour must scrap the two-child cap on benefits to lift children out of poverty, the party's former leader Neil Kinnock has said. Rising levels of poverty 'would make Charles Dickens furious', Lord Kinnock said in an interview with the Sunday Mirror, in which he urged ministers to introduce a wealth tax. Lord Kinnock, who led Labour in opposition between 1983 and 1992, is the latest senior party figure to pressure the current government to end the two-child limit on benefits. Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown recently said ending the two-child limit, as well as the benefit cap, would be among the most effective ways of reducing child poverty. Lord Kinnock acknowledged the government may not be able to scrap the two-child cap 'all at once'. He added: 'But I really want them to move in that direction because the figures are that if that did occur it would mean that about 600,000 kids fewer are in poverty.' Lord Kinnock suggested such a move could be funded by a wealth tax on the 'top 1 per cent'. 'I know it's the economics of Robin Hood, but I don't think there is anything terribly bad about that,' he said. He warned that over the decade and a half the Conservatives were in power child poverty gradually rose. The Labour peer said: 'In 15 years, starting from a position where beneficial change was taking place, we've got to the place that would make Charles Dickens furious. 'It's been allowed to happen because the kids are voiceless and their parents feel powerless. I defy anybody to see a child in need and not want to help.' The two-child limit has been long-criticised by Labour backbenchers as a driver of child poverty. Ministers are expected to set out plans to tackle child poverty at the budget in the autumn.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Ministers have a duty to protect freedom of speech and end this insanity
The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is a collection of essays edited by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As is often the case during the Edinburgh Fringe, the material was weak and the delivery unconvincing. While authoritarian bullies rampaged across Scotland's cultural landscape last week, the response from senior politicians was predictably - depressingly - poor. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In saner times, an apology from a publicly-funded venue for allowing the Deputy First Minister to enter the premises would have provoked justifiable outrage from the very top of Government. Likewise, the decision to ban a book from an exhibition at the National Library of Scotland would, surely, have seen the personal intervention of the First Minister. Instead, last week we witnessed yet more of the lack of leadership which has allowed trans activists to wreak havoc across the public sector. First, and I cringe for those involved as I type these words, we learned that management at the Summerhall venue in Edinburgh set up a 'safe space' for staff and performers while Deputy FM Kate Forbes was in the building. The presence of Forbes, a devout Christian who previously revealed that, had she been an elected member at the time the law was changed, she would have voted against gay marriage, was dangerous. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes (Picture: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire) Management at the venue later apologised for letting her in. 'Summerhall Arts' primary concern,' said a spokesperson, 'is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.' This is insanity. Kate Forbes is a democratically elected politician whose faith-born opposition to gay marriage, while controversial, is perfectly legal. Her presence in Summerhall created no danger for anyone, LGBTQ+ or otherwise, and those claiming otherwise should be embarrassed. The only danger, here, is in Summerhall management's attack on free speech. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Another enthusiast for undermining this fundamental freedom is National Librarian, Amina Shah. It emerged last week that the excellent book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been withdrawn by Shah from an exhibition highlighting the importance of libraries and the ways in which they can 'empower individuals and the communities they belong to'. The editors of the book, a collection of essays by women involved in the ultimately successful campaign to defeat the SNP's plan to allow anyone to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, discovered through a freedom of information request that it had received more public nominations for inclusion that any other. They learned that the book had, initially, been selected for inclusion in the 'Dear Library' exhibition but that, after protests from members of staff, Shah - with the backing of the board, chaired by Sir Drummond Bone - withdrew it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Shah's actions are indefensible and stand fully in contradiction to the responsibilities that come with the position she is unfit to hold. I suspect the National Librarian's decision is one that will whisper in her ear for years to come. Faced with threats of disruption from staff if 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest' had been included in the exhibition, Shah should have turned to the National Library's disciplinary code. Rather than capitulating to authoritarian bullies, she should have reminded them that gross misconduct is a real thing with real consequences. As these twin scandals unfolded, finance secretary Shona Robison spoke of the need for 'tolerance'. In her reaction to the Summerhall scandal, Robison revealed at least some of the reason that we find ourselves where we do. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I don't think,' said Robison, 'it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech.' Any weaker and the pulse would be undetectable. Something that sends out entirely the wrong signal over freedom of speech is members of the Government sitting back while others deny the free speech of others. When culture secretary Angus Robertson eventually spoke up, he served a weak cocktail of bromides. While he was a 'strong supporter' of free speech, there would always be 'tensions' between that right and views that some people might find 'unpopular or unjustifiable'. It would not, he added, 'be easy all of the time to please everybody'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Robertson waffled: he was a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression; there was an important distance between government and cultural organisations; there were issues of 'public concern' and 'public debate'. Over the two decades that I've known former journalist Robertson, I've always considered him - in common with most in our trade - a fundamentalist on freedom of speech. His unwillingness to take a stronger stance, here, does not chime with the values I've long understood him to hold. Robertson spoke about the important distance between government and cultural organisations and it is, of course, correct that ministers should have no say in the decision making of bodies such as Creative Scotland but that does not mean he should not intervene when things are going catastrophically wrong. Robertson is entitled to demand the presence in his ministerial office of Summerhall chief executive Sam Gough. The culture secretary is perfectly within his rights to point out to Gough that Summerhall - a venue recently propped up with more than £600,000 of public money - must operate within the law and that failure to do so will mean the tap's turned off. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The National Library of Scotland is funded by the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Robertson has the right - the duty - to act here, too. Amina Shah, cowed by activists, removed a book from an exhibition that includes, satire fans, George Orwell's '1984'. She's a censor and Angus Robertson should sack her and remove Sir Drummond Bone from the library's board. Freedom of speech is under attack as never before in living memory. The culture secretary's presence on the frontline of this battle would be very much appreciated.
