Corbyn’s past just keeps tripping him up
The charge sheet is grim.
He defended a mural depicting hook-nosed Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of the poor. He claimed Israel exerts “unbelievably high levels of influence” over “the upper echelons of parts of the media”.
He presides over a party struggling to deal with complaints of antisemitism among its members and this week we learnt of his deeply misguided endorsement of a disturbingly and unambiguously antisemitic analysis of history.
Writing a glowing foreword for the 2011 edition of JA Hobson’s 1902 study of imperialism, Corbyn praised – without equivocation – the “brilliant… powerful… correct and prescient” work. Hobson’s theories were of course wide-ranging but included the assertion that the media and financial institutions were “in the hands of the Jews” – described as “men of a single and peculiar race who have behind them many centuries of financial experience”.
Corbyn has since distanced himself from the worst of Hobson’s views, but why didn’t he take the opportunity to do so when writing his foreword?
Yesterday, the Campaign Against Antisemitism said they “had no option but to conclude” that “he himself is antisemitic”. A generous defence of Corbyn would be that he sometimes struggles to recognise antisemitism when he sees it – but that hardly fills one with confidence.
A grand night out in the City
By the time I was invited to deliver my speech, we’d drunk so many toasts that I was grateful for the silver lectern to lean on.
I was addressing the annual dinner of the Stationers’ Company, the City guild of printers and publishers – celebrating the granting of their royal charter in 1557.
There was plenty of ancient tradition – including much drinking from the grand, silver Loving Cup – but alongside the pageantry and history was a very clear sense of just how forward-facing this guild is – with a particular focus on training and apprenticeships.
They’re a credit to the City.
The flaw in the Four
The Competition and Market Authority’s conclusion that audit firms should be forced to split their accountancy and consultancy operations has provoked a mixed response from the industry. Some firms will suck it up, others will challenge it.
Wading into the debate is a forensic critique by Paul Boyle, the first chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council. While he accepts some of the CMA’s recommendations, he launches a stinging attack on the main proposals in a new report published by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation.
Boyle says the CMA’s proposed remedies will be “expensive, disruptive and ineffective”, and he makes the case for liberalising the rules of ownership for UK audit firms.
At present, a majority of a firm’s equity must be held by qualified auditors – something he describes as “anti-competitive” and a barrier to market entry or investment-led growth.
It’s a compelling argument in favour of market forces in place of red tape.
Nosy parkers
What do you do if you’re on a train and you notice the person next to you is reading highly sensitive market information on their phone? Well, French authorities have ruled that acting on such a glimpse does not constitute market abuse.
A UBS banker caught sight of some juicy deal information on a fellow traveller’s phone and used the info to try and muscle in on the deal.
All’s fair in love and banking, according to French regulators. Incidentally, spooks at GCHQ have just developed an app that shuts down a phone if it detects it’s been read over your shoulder.
Bramson or bust?
Edward Bramson didn’t deserve a seat on the board of Barclays and yesterday shareholders formally rejected his offer to serve.
Barclays board members will allow themselves a glass of two champagne but it’s worth remembering that while Bramson lost the battle he still considers the war worth fighting.
The bank’s third-biggest shareholder claims to have support for his agenda to shake up the investment bank, even if that support didn’t translate into votes.