Politics. The dreaded words that we the British public hear once, twice maybe three times a day now. It’s all over our television screens, our newspapers, we have to face the fact that we can’t escape it. Even if we scream from the rooftops our voting apathy (much like our favourite attention seeking comedian turned political activist Russell Brand.) Whatever our opinions towards it, whether we agree with it or not, its part of everyday life in Britain. Of course, we as the general public are allowed an opinion, but should everyone be allowed one? The word opinion it what I want to focus on. In particular the opinion of huge business/cooperation owners, should they have a political bias?
Stefani Pessina has recently and extremely controversially hit the headlines over the last couple of weeks when his political comments caused outrage. He said that a Labour government would ‘not be helpful’ and could be a ‘catastrophe’. These comments were made in The Sunday Telegraph. As a typically politically conservative newspaper, one would believe that Pessina also allied himself with the Conservative party. Leader of the Labour party Ed Milliband also thought this to be true, he said that Mr Pessina and many others of his position were in an ‘unholy alliance’ with the Conservative party. Milliband also said that he ‘ought to pay his taxes’ rather than ‘lecture people on how to vote.’ It is true that the company Alliance Boots has been questioned on whether it pays its fair share of UK taxes. So of course the people of Britain are not going to take kindly to an individual who doesn’t pay tax, when most of the population are working their finger to the bone to secure a decent standard of living and still paying their share of tax. Pessina lives in Monaco with an estimated fortune of £7.5 billion, he moved the companies formal tax residence from Britain to Switzerland in 2007. With this factual evidence in mind, does Pessina have a right to voice his political allegiance? Apparently not according to Secretary of State Vince Cable who said ” I am afraid that the head of Boots lost quite a lot of moral authority once it was discovered he was lecturing political parties from the standpoint of paying his tax in Monaco. We do want people to be paying their taxes if they are here and running businesses here. Certainly my party has always taken a strong view on non-dom taxation, that the regime for non-doms is too generous.”
A few select people have told me their views on the matter, agreeing to answer a simple questionnaire. Over half said they do not think it is appropriate for a business to show allegiance to a political party, most of the reason being money related, one person said that ‘I do not believe it is fair that customers of certain businesses should give their hard earned money to find that just because of their alliance to a political party their tax avoidance goes unnoticed and unpunished.’ Overall, the focus group believe that business leaders should be neutral and definitely not voice their political opinions, as this can lead to political scandals, such as businesses funding political parties, therefore getting their views and ideas supported by said party. A well-known political scandal involving funding from cooperations took place in 1997. The chief of F1 donated £1million to the Labour Party whilst under the control of Tony Blair. Later that year, Health Secretary Frank Dobson announces the ‘government will ban all sports sponsorship by tobacco companies.’ The government then announces that Formula 1 will be exempt from the ban on tobacco sponsorship, suggesting that Formula 1 were in a scandalous alliance with the Labour Party. From an ethical point of view this was extremely wrong, especially when the government was so close to making a breakthrough in the banning on tobacco advertisement. Smoking was considered the norm just a few years before the bribe from Formula 1 bosses. Many considered it a leap into the future, but obviously the sponsorship brought too much money into the racing industry. The Labour party were seen as corrupt, however it has not had a lasting effect on the party.
This also presses the point of newspapers and their allegiance to political parties. If newspapers can be counted as a business, which most would agree that they are, then should they have a political bias?
The image above shows the political stance of newspapers through the years. The Mirror and The Telegraph have never changed their stance, whereas The Times and The Guardian have often changed their allegiance, does this show their unreliability as a newspaper? Reverting back to the questionnaire, I asked whether they thought newspapers should have a political alliance. One person said they think it is ‘extremely important’ that newspapers have a political opinion. He said ‘If newspapers had no political opinion, then there would be no news to report on. If there was no political opinion then Britain would only need one newspaper to report on news stories. Politics gives us a wider array of newspapers and a different opinion on news stories.’ Most people who took part in the questionnaire said they wouldn’t bother to read newspapers if they contained no political opinion. They also only read newspapers that have the same political stance as they do themselves.
Personally, I think that huge cooperations and business leaders should not be able to influence the way that the British public vote. Being a country that is part of democracy means that we always should and always will be able to have the right to vote the way we want. the British public found it quite insulting when Stefano Pessini was publicly degrading the Labour party. In particular it is my belief that the working class are the most affected by political party allegiances with businesses. Especially as we, the tax payer, are being subjected to rich business tycoons who have avoided millions of pounds worth of tax, which they can blatantly afford.
By Chloe Tomkins.
chloetomkins1 