Monthly Archives: February 2017

The Daily Mail attacks its own campaign over Guantanamo Bay story

The Daily Mail was outraged last week by the news that Jamal al Harith, an ISIS suicide bomber had once been interned in Guantanamo Bay until the Labour government obtained his release. Even worse he had been proclaimed innocent and paid £1 million in compensation. Signal for a scornful attack on the bleeding heart liberals who campaigned on his behalf and their media friends like … erm … The Daily Mail.

Yes, the Mail had campaigned for the release of Britons held without trial at Guantanamo Bay and greeted the release of Jamal al Harith and four other Britons with the headline Freedom at last for Guantanamo Britons. Its editorial on 20th February 2004 chimed with similar sentiments across the media, including the Times, Telegraph and Independent.

“Welcome though the impending release of five British detainees may be, the fact is that they have been kept … for more than two years, without charge, without access to their families and without legal representation. This isn’t the justice America insists on for its own citizens. This smacks of crude revenge by a nation so traumatised by the horrors of 9/11 that it subjects prisoners to an ordeal that should shame any civilised society …
“It has taken long months of hard negotiations to get five Britons out, even though it is clear the US authorities had no evidence against them. What confidence can there be in the likely treatment of the four remaining?”

In fact Prime Minister Blair had been criticized by the Conservative opposition for being too eager to please President Bush and slow to act on behalf of British detainees. The compensation payment marks another twisted encounter with the truth for the Daily Mail. A number of ex-detainees, including Jamal al Harith, were taking civil action against the British government for its alleged complicity in their detention without trial and torture by the USA and its agents. They claimed that British secret service agents were present during interrogations and provided the questions, even if they did not participate directly.

But attitudes in the UK had hardened in the wake of terror attacks in London in July 2005. The Mail was grudging in its approval for an out of court settlement agreed by the coalition government led by Cameron  in November 2010. According to Max Hastings writing in the Mail,

However our government had little choice save to approve this out-of-court settlement. It was advised that, if these men’s cases went to full hearings, the legal costs would be enormous, sensitive intelligence would be made public and, in any case, the Government was bound to lose.

The sum of £1 million per detainee was being bandied about at the time. Relatives of Jamal al Harith deny that he ever received such a sum. It is likely that the £20 million total for all the out of court settlements  would have been substantially reduced once legal costs had been paid.

So congratulations to the Daily Mail. In the words of New Statesman blogger, Media Mole, its attack on its own campaign over Guantanamo Bay,

will cause much heartache for its leftier readers – so do address your dilemma by telling us who you side with in this Alien vs. Predator setup: which monster do you side with? Tony Blair or the Daily Mail?


Should Robots Pay Taxes?

A worker makes technical measurements with robots on the carbon chassis at the serial production BMW i3 electric car in the BMW factory in Leipzig on September 18, 2013. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

The growing attraction of populist ideas and parties, sometimes of the left, but more often of the nativist right is in part fuelled by the alienation of those left behind by globalization. The rise of the robots threatens further disruption. Perhaps we need to rewrite Asimov’s Laws of Robotics for the 21st century.

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Now Bill Gates has proposed a Fourth Law in an interview with Quartz Magazine.

4. The robot that takes your job should pay taxes.

Gates’ idea is straightforward. There are plenty of jobs that machines cannot do, jobs that require empathic humans, especially in the caring professions. With an aging population we need more of these jobs. But how to pay for them with a declining workforce and the consequent decline in revenues from income tax? Taxing the robots gets round this. They would still offer significant savings to employers. Robots do not need salaries, pensions or healthcare plans. But governments need tax revenues.

There is also the human cost of disruptive technology. Rapid change might create wealth in one sector. But it frequently destroys wealth and jobs in the disrupted sectors. Gates thinks that a robot tax might disrupt the disruptors by slowing down the take-up of technological change so that society has time to adjust and forestall the mass unemployment and deskilling of whole communities that we can see today in America’s Rust Belt or the old industrial towns of the UK.

Gates is less clear on how such a tax could be implemented but he remains optimistic.

There are many ways to take that extra productivity and generate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do it, measure it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about now. Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some type of robot tax. I don’t think the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax. It’s OK.

I think he is being over optimistic there. When has any industry ever welcomed a new tax? In fact the International Federation of  Robotics has welcomed a recent decision by the EU to reject a robot tax while proposing an ethical framework for their introduction.

Gates is, to his credit, a billionaire philanthropist who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is by funding healthcare programmes, especially those promoting vaccines in poor countries with high infant mortality and projects to tackle climate change. According to Wikipedia the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation had an endowment of $44.3 billion as of 31 December 2014. Gates has donated $28 billion to the foundation. Warren Buffet is another generous donor, effectively match funding the foundation’s charitable donations year on year. As a result the foundation had disbursed an average in excess of $3 billion every year from 2009 to 2014.

It is ironic that this wealth is, in part, derived from the success of Microsoft in pursuing an aggressive form of tax efficiency that some have characterized as tax avoidance amounting to US$4.6 billion a year. And Gates was not so keen on a robot tax when his own robots were taking over the world. OK, his robots were beige boxes running Microsoft office and other software. But this software was definitely a disruptive force to the white collar workers whose skills it replaced.

Bill Gates’ thinking is influenced by his position. He is a technocrat whose life experience is one of developing technological solutions to problems and seeing them implemented, usually at a profit to himself and in fierce competition with rivals. Thus Microsoft achieved a near monopoly in things it was good at like software licencing, was slow to appreciate the potential of the internet and almost missed out completely on mobile technology. Whatever the outcome in terms of success or failure, he took decisions based on market share and profitability, not on measures of social justice or out of regard for civic responsibility. Bill Gates has shifted his priorities and is now seeking solutions to social problems. There is no reason to believe that the present generation of technocrats share his vision or that they will behave any differently to the  “old” Bill Gates. Remember when Microsoft was the Great Satan and Apple was cool before we learned about conditions in the Apple factories in China? It is not just in the third world or the newly industrializing countries either. Amazon have nothing to boast about regarding their tax records in the UK or the conditions of their workforce here.

Gates thinks governments have to take action and hold companies to account because he recognizes that competition  precludes individual businesses from going it alone as ethical trailblazers. Here again he is being optimistic. The economy of many countries is dwarfed by the size of some corporations. According to the IMF in 2017 only 85 out of 191 selected countries had a GDP in excess of $100 billion. There were 50 companies worldwide whose revenue for 2017 exceeded $100 billion. Incidentally, Microsoft did not make the list. But its $4.6 billion annual tax “savings” exceeded the GDP of 25 countries on the IMF list.

When first world economies struggle to collect tax owed by global corporations and some of the most powerful economies in the world are complicit in tax avoidance, (Britain operates its own tax havens via its crown dependencies) and many countries are poorer and less powerful than the companies they seek to police, I have to conclude that Bill Gates eminently sensible proposals to tax robots will remain a utopian dream until we can find a way to collect the taxes that currently go uncollected. These are estimated at $600 billion worldwide with losses of at least $200 billion being borne by the newly developing countries.

So many of the worlds financial transactions take place online, everything from everyday retail transactions to the operation of complex financial markets. And in many cases tax is part of the automated process. We cannot avoid or evade VAT on purchases or PAYE for income tax. It should not be beyond the wit of the technocrats to devise similar automated procedures for collecting corporaton tax. The question is, do they have the will to disrupt the disruptors?



Churchill or Bust?

President Barack Obama shows Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom a bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the private residence of the White House, July 20, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

There are so many big lies in the world – think Brexit Bus or the current outpourings from the Whitehouse – that there is a danger that the little lies slip through unnoticed. I am not talking about the run of the mill little white lies or the exaggerations and omissions that happen all the time. Instead I want to talk about seemingly minor inaccuracies that become significant further down the line.



The story of Churchill’s bust is one such tale. According to the myth Barack Obama removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and returned it to the British Government when he became President in 2009 because of his alleged antipathy towards the United Kingdom.

That is the version that the Daily Telegraph published at the time and it returned to prominence in 2012 when Charles Krauthammer used it again as evidence of the Obama regime’s antipathy to Britain in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

There was initial confusion in the Obama team when they issued a denial.

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

The denial was wrong. The bust had been returned. But that was because it had only been on loan to president Bush while the original White House bust of Churchill, which has been there since 1965, was either undergoing restoration work or was in its usual home outside the Treaty Room in the private residence on the second floor of the White House. As the same Obama White House Archive post makes clear in an update:

On January 20, 2009 — Inauguration Day — all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence.

They even provide a picture of President Obama showing the bust to Prime Minister Cameron in the White House residence. But that initial error by President Obama’s staff was seized on as a lie by opponents who ignored subsequent corrections. They  used the return of the bust to build a case against President Obama. Never mind that the fact of the return did not support the proposition that President Obama was hostile to the UK. The initial denial of the fact of the return of the bust and the subsequent correction were themselves taken as evidence to support the proposition. The correction was described as a humiliating climb-down and further doubt was cast on President Obama’s motivation. This interview of Krauthammer by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News is especially interesting.

B. O’REILLY: Here’s the back story. Some people believe that President Obama doesn’t like Winston Churchill because of British colonialism in Africa, particularly Kenya. So that he didn’t want old Winnie looking at him because he didn’t like him. That he sent it back because of that. That’s what’s been around.
Now, your point on even bringing it up, the bust deal was, what?
KRAUTHAMMER: My point was I don’t read into people’s minds. If I wanted to, I would have remained in psychiatry. All I know is that the British reaction to the return of the bust was extremely negative, and it felt like it was an insult, that this was a gift after 9/11 to show solidarity. The British had soldiers serving with us at the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, really standing shoulder to shoulder and this was a slight. That’s how they saw it.

Krauthammer is taking his cue from the Telegraph, who in turn were quoting the British Embassy. But the bust was not a gift. It was a loan. And it was not a sign of solidarity after 9/11. It was loaned to President Bush in July, months before the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. So on one hand we have a genuine mistake because President Obama’s staff were confused by the fact that there were two Churchill busts in the White House in 2009, and they quickly issued a correction when their mistake was pointed out. On the other hand we have an attack on President Obama’s motivation and his state of mind that had no basis in fact. President Obama’s critics have yet to issue a correction to their mistaken apprehension of the facts.


The supposed antipathy of President Obama to British colonialism based on his Kenyan roots was to return during the Brexit referendum campaign. President Obama intervened on behalf of his old ally, Prime Minister Cameron to dismiss the idea that a trade deal with the USA would replace our access to the single market. President Obama pointed out that the EU was a major trading partner and Britain outside the EU could expect to find itself at the back of the queue for trade deals. I find it inconceivable that Barack Obama would intervene so flagrantly in the internal affairs of an ally without the express approval of David Cameron. But it proved to be yet another misstep by the Remain Campaign.

Boris Johnson for the Brexit camp responded by reviving the tale of Churchill’s bust and expanding on Bill O’Reilly’s anti-colonial argument by claiming that President Obama disliked Churchill because he had sent British troops into Kenya to quell an uprising. In a Brexit campaign pandering to the fears of immigration by those in Britain’s equivalent of the Rust Belt in the USA such dog whistle racism was condemned by the Remain camp and went unchallenged in the Brexit camp. President Obama answered the claims of anti British and specifically anti Churchill bias at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Cameron but to no avail.


The best timeline of events is here. The short version is that the right wing Daily Telegraph put an anti-Obama spin on the original return of the bust in 2009 that erroneously linked the original loan of the bust to 9/11. In 2012 Christopher Krauthammer revived the tale and also played up 9/11, claiming that the return of the bust was an insult to the solidarity shown by Britain to the USA and showed where President Obama’s real sympathies lay. Though he was not so explicit as Dinesh D’Souza who said in his The Roots of Obama’s Rage.

Obama views Muslims who are fighting against America in Iraq and Afghanistan as freedom fighters, somewhat akin to Indians or Kenyans fighting to push out their British colonial occupier.

The myth was revived by anti EU campaigner Boris Johnson to undermine President Obama’s support for Prime Minister Cameron and the Remain campaign. The UK subsequently voted to leave the EU. Then, employing a similar populist strategy with complete disregard for the facts, Donald Trump successfully ran for president on a blatantly racist and sexist ticket.


And it is not over yet. President Trump’s election has aroused protest on both sides of the Atlantic. 1.8 million people have signed a petition condemning the proposed state visit to the UK by President Trump. On February 6th the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, was adamant that the democratic values of the UK parliament, its anti racism, anti sexism and respect for the rule of law were inimical to an invitation to President Trump to address the UK parliament. In opposition to John Bercow Churchill’s bust was evoked by Republican Congressman, Joe Wilson. He suggested that it was the Republican Party that had restored this bust to its place of honour in Congress. This is yet another bust of Churchill that was not presented to Congress until 2013 and was then placed inside Congress’s statuary hall  in the Capitol Building were it remains to this day.

So some misreporting in the Daily Telegraph and a misunderstanding by President Obama’s white House staff about an obscure piece of statuary has morphed into a symbolic battle with anti EU campaigners in the UK and pro Trump supporters in the USA, claiming Winston Churchill as an ally against  Barack Obama, the pro Europe camp within the UK and the Democratic opposition in the USA.

The Nazis coined the phrase that, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” But before them Lenin had claimed that, “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

And no lie is too small to become truth. We ignore all lies at our peril.