THE SCANDAL MONGERS ARE THE SCANDAL
The Indian wife of Rishi Sunak, Akshata Murty (AM), in a dignified and decent announcement has renounced her entitlement to save herself a lot of UK tax in the interests of her husband, Rishi Sunak as the UK Chancellor, and out of respect for the British people’s idea of fairness. Some people spread innuendo that perhaps her previous exercise of her legal right not to pay UK income tax on foreign income not used in the UK was odious. However, undoubtedly her behaviour in regard to tax, on facts available, has been totally legal and she had done nothing wrong.
There has been a body of commentators and politicians who, without distorting facts, have questioned the appropriateness of a spouse of a UK Chancellor exercising such a right, when her husband presides over deciding the taxes payable by the British public generally; and especially so as the tax burden, combined with rises in the cost of living for reasons outside any UK Politicians’ control, is creating tough pressures on many UK families. A sensible and balanced debate was required. Instead, a witch hunt with much fake news ensued.
Have the smearers and sneerers, who wished to paint a canvas of impropriety when there was none, tainted the discussion? Perhaps, they have tarnished their own reputations more than those of their victims, by making personal dishonest smears and sneers over wealth and tax.
Is it right that smears against Rishi Sunak and AM about their wealth and tax can be made into a major news scandal, when they have done nothing wrong? The use of the label “optics” now is used to disguise the truth and destroy reputations. To listen to broadcasters such as Sky News and certain of the Chancellor’s political opponents attacks on this subject was to witness a degrading manipulation, hypocrisy and dishonesty in the creation of false news.
The scandal is not AM’s tax affairs, it is the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who seek to create scandal out of “optics” and destroy decent people, who have done no obvious wrong, which is the scandal.
FACTS
Simple facts are as follows: Rishi Sunak and his wife are both wealthy, all such wealth having been, as far as is known, obtained entirely legitimately. By all accounts both have paid all the taxes they are obliged to pay in the UK and elsewhere. Infosys is a publicly listed company, its shares widely held. AM’s father founded Infosys, but only has a small stake in it (he does not own it). AM herself has a small stake (less than 1% of Infosys shares) but it is worth a lot because Infosys has a value around $100 billion. AM is Indian citizen and domiciled in India. She is not domiciled in the UK and so under UK tax law is, if she wishes, exempt from paying UK tax on foreign origin income, such as dividends on her shares, but has to pay any due foreign taxes on that income. Like most UK taxpayers who are entitled to tax exemptions, including politicians and journalists, lawyers and accountants and lorry drivers and workers generally and tax experts, she has used them.
The tax arrangements for UK resident but non-domiciled people in relation to their non-UK income have been a matter of decided UK tax policy for a long time under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. Parliament approves of them, while there may be a valid debate to be had on non-domicile status, exercising tax exemption rights so arising is entirely proper. So, what is the problem?
THE SMEAR AND UNPROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM
Is it possible that sometimes news presenters and interviewers are more about themselves than their audience and the views of their interviewees? More interested in promoting controversy and smear than the truth? On 6 April, the SKY Breakfast show hosted by Kay Burley included her interviewing the Minister for Business and Energy, Kwasi Kwarteng. The UK strategic energy plan was the matter of the day, but Kate Burley decided to ask for comments on the non-domicile status of AM and her not paying UK tax on foreign income, in the light of tax increases imposed by her Chancellor husband? Sadly Mr. Kwarteng, caught off guard, answered weakly rather than dismissing this issue as not a Government matter but a private one between HMRC and AM, that being the end of it.
Kay Burley wallowed in her smugness for smearing AM and the Chancellor and catching the Minister out. She was joined on her sofa by Alli, another Sky correspondent, who indicated a lack of gravitas by congratulating Kay on her clever catch and interrogation. Kay recited her pleasure in giving Mr. Kwarteng a “squeaky bum” moment (her words). They got some facts wrong, such as saying Infosys was owned by AM’s father. They bathed in the poor “optics” for Rishi Sunak – only poor if the facts are blurred and the innuendo that wealth is bad is the cheap underlying message and spun accordingly, with the unevidenced assertion that the public are appalled or similar description. This campaign continued all day and the next and more, and indeed in other news channels and papers. Perhaps, a classic example of dishonesty, spinning presentation to manipulate the public.
THE SMEAR AND MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS
This whole story, started in the Independent, created a real opportunity for political opponents to cash in, and so they have. This is part of political rough and tumble, whether by Conservatives, Labour or others. Fair game is fair if done honestly and does not mislead.
Keir Starmer, leader of Labour, and Tulip Siddiq, Shadow Economic Minister, both described AM’s tax status as “staggering”, both suggesting that she was using tax “schemes” to reduce her UK tax bill, the innuendo always being that the wealthy abuse schemes. Louise Haigh, Labour’s shadow transport Secretary described Sunak as using a tax “loophole”, when he was responsible for the cost of living crisis. Non-domicile tax status is not a loophole, nor is the Chancellor responsible for the entire cost of living crisis. Of course, honest attack using right facts by one politician on another is legitimate. So too is exaggeration. Here of course the wife of the Chancellor, not a politician, is under attack. These three assailants all know neither the Chancellor nor AM have done anything wrong. They suggest tax schemes and loopholes knowing there is no cunning use of tax schemes or loopholes to avoid tax in this case but simply an Indian domiciled person rightly paying tax abroad (if any) and who does not have to pay tax in the UK on foreign earnings. The impression they deliberately create is one of wrong doing.
Another example of UK politicians dishonestly distorting facts to smear. All Parties do it, but every time it happens, that is politicians promoting false news, they should be called out. No news journal or broadcaster has done that, rather the journalists feast on misleading innuendo. SKY News was unprofessional, motivated by the desire to create a “squeaky bum”, the politicians being dishonest in the pursuit to discredit. Or is this a case of simply discrediting the wife, unfairly, in order to diminish the husband? If so, is that right? Is not AM entitled to an independent existence?
CAN A POLITICIAN BE WEALTHY AND A MINISTER OR EVEN AN MP?
Rishi Sunak opponents, such as Keir Starmer, and even some voices in the Tory party, suggest that being so wealthy he must be out of touch with the average British person. There have been suggestions, for example by Clare Foges of the Times, that perhaps any person who is too wealthy cannot be Prime Minister. But do not most voters aspire to be wealthy? Voters of all social standings seem happy for people to become millionaires and billionaires from football or music or acting professions. So does the voter care? Do not a great many voters try hard to get wealthier? Or is this yet again the age-old journalistic stirring of selective hatred of success and wealth to generate malice? So, what is too wealthy? One million, 10 million, 100 million? Perhaps, it is the wrong point.
Assailants bellow “conflict of interest”, how can a rich man be Chancellor when his wife, very rich, has non-domicile tax status? Yes, a conflict, but no more than all MPs face when considering legislation which affects them as citizens. Most obvious, and much more conflicting, than AM’s tax affairs, is that all MPS are higher rate tax payers due to their salaries, and so are seriously affected in their pockets when considering tax legislation such as income tax rates, allowances and higher rate thresholds. Indeed, in the Sunak case, their wealth is such that whether or not AM pays UK tax does not impact at all their lifestyle.
Arguably, the wealthier the better, whereas scrimping MPs may be more prone to corruption? Is the day approaching where a person will be barred from public office because they exceed a wealth threshold, or perhaps because they fail to reach a sufficient wealth threshold? Being an MP, or a Minister, may be an act of ambition or ego, but it is also public service. Whether a person is fit to serve, or is in touch, is not a matter of personal wealth but of integrity, values and the ability to balance competing interests to produce a rough and ready fairness. Neither poverty nor riches have a monopoly on those. The task of the Chancellor is impossible as there will always be the dissatisfied.
A recent snowballing criticism of the Chancellor is that he is not “politically savvy” (the Observer) and too straightforward to be a politician: he does not get the “optics”. If he is dumped for this reason, that would be a sad conclusion indeed.
SMEARING IS INAPPROPRIATE AND DEMEANING
AM has done nothing wrong, and the Chancellor has done nothing wrong. But those who want to extract political capital, distorting reality as they go, will keep this narrative alive as long as possible. On another level, will there be allegations against her attackers that she would not be attacked if she was not Indian? If she was not of colour? A lot is said by some about the inbuilt colour prejudice of white people, and anti-racists may find cause here. In this case she seems to have few accusers of colour. Strangely or perhaps not surprisingly the anti-racist aggressors are silent. Or would a racist suggestion levelled at the white people who are her accusers be inappropriate? Surely yes, just as inappropriate as the smear and slur which has been promulgated that AM has been wrongly avoiding paying UK tax and so the Chancellor’s tax policies are hypocrisy? The dishonesty and hypocrisy are not in the Sunak family but in the hearts of the assailants. Broadcasters, journalists and politicians should do better.
Why is the UK establishment of illiberal belligerents so keen to rid the UK of a smart, financially literate, obviously imperfect, like all people, but likely a genuinely honest and caring Chancellor, who has sought solutions to the biggest financial challenges facing the UK since 1945? His measures in the pandemic and now in global cost of living problems can be challenged but not reviled. Hard to fathom? Maybe the Chancellor should have required his wife to deny her non -domicile rights, as if that was his call, to pacify the sneerers and smearers. Or to satisfy the “optics”? His wife has tried to resolve the issue by surrendering her rights. Perhaps the UK should cease its hypocritical desire, via the media, to destroy those who are financially successful, and want to give back through public service. Being wealthy or poor is not a moral quality. The way others are treated is. If only the sneerers, smearers and misleaders could reflect on their own egoistic righteousness and look rather to the interests of the wider country, before their desires to score petty points for themselves.
If Rishi Sunak is forced out of office, and perhaps politics, due to this anti-wealth campaign, a slippery slope of intrusion on privacy based on “optics”, not wrongdoing, could seriously impact and damage British Democracy.
