Rip-off News round-up. Our pick of the last week's media (Thu 7th Jun)

Lycamobile is Tories' top corporate donor - but pays no corporation tax. 
Lycamobile has given Conservatives more than £300,000 in last nine months, but has paid no coporation tax for three years. GUARDIAN

How to turn around the economy? History shows austerity has never worked.
It's not just about the current economic environment. History shows that slashing budgets always leads to recession.  GUARDIAN

Savings accounts with the same name but different rates - a new trick to baffle savers.
Banks and building societies are offering different rates on the same deal — depending on the day customers opened the account. Providers routinely launch waves of accounts to attract (surely "confuse" - Ed) new customers, putting out 188 easy-access accounts last year. DAILY MAIL

Personnel bosses call to reject 'objectionable and unnecessary' Beecroft plan for easy sackings
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the proposals outlined in the far-reaching report by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft would fail to achieve the intended result of kick-starting recruitment.  DAILY MAIL

High Court rejects £100m claim by sports stars against failed tax planner.
 A £100m tax dodge "sold" to wealthy sports stars failed in the end to get past HMRC. The sports stars sued the tax planner, but lost the case.  DAILY MAIL

Cut in police numbers has contributed to rise in crime, police chief warns. 
Burglary and violent crime is rising in some parts of the country because of the swingeing cuts in police numbers, a police chief has warned. TELEGRAPH

Read More

How much are we Britons, and also our fellow Europeans, in hock to bail out the banks?

As governments around Europe impose grim austerity on some of their citizens ("some" because the claim that "we are all in this together" is a fib), we show how generous these governments have been to the banks.


These graphs, using data provided by governments to the European Union, show the Assets and Liabilities of the UK government and also for the European Union as a whole. Note that these figures relate purely to government and the bank bailouts - and don't include assets/liabilities from other government activities or non-governmental support. The Eurostat briefing note states the data "is only intended to show government interventions directly related to the support for financial institutions. Support operations by central banks, government support measures for non-financial institutions and general economic support measures are not included."


The 'Assets' are mainly the shares in banks bought by the governments (e.g. Lloyds, RBS etc), and the money owed to the governments by the banks. 


The 'Liabilities' are mainly money borrowed by the governments to hand to the banks, plus the potential cost to the governments if the 'too big to fail' banks need to be prevented from failing.


Assets: Shares bought by government in financial institutions (Lloyds; RBS; etc), and loans made by government to financial institutions:

·        Loans granted by government or acquired from financial institutions (assets);

·        Debt instruments issued by financial institutions and bought by government as provision of liquidity (assets);

·        Equity subscribed by government in financial institutions as a counterpart for a provision of liquidity to the banks (assets).

Liabilities: Money borrowed by government to buy bank shares and make loans to prop up the banks:

·        Loans incurred (directly or indirectly) by government in order to finance various interventions (liabilities).

·        Debt securities issued by government to finance the interventions (liabilities).

Contingent Liabilities: Includes cost of the ‘too big to fail’ guarantee given by government to banks. These liabilities would hit should certain events happen - e.g. a run on banks, a collapse in bank assets, crumbling of the euro...

·        Value of the assets and liabilities of financial institutions guaranteed by government (except for guarantees for special purpose entities).

·        Securities issued by government under liquidity schemes, e.g. repurchase agreements and securities lending.

·        Liabilities of special purpose entities created during the crisis, including those to which certain impaired assets of financial institutions were transferred.

And here is the same information for governments in the European Union as a whole - liabilities exceeding 1.5 trillion euros.



In January 2011 the chief of Barclays, Bob Diamond, said to a parliamentary committee:


"There was a period of remorse and apology for banks - I think that period needs to be over". 


How wrong he was then. How wrong he continues to be.

Read More

How tax dodgers see their dodging as a fight against evil!

“Taxation means that Smith is forcing Jones to hand money to Bloggs under threat of imprisonment. That is treating Jones as Smith’s slave.”
Taxpayers' Alliance report "The Single Income Tax"

The key factor that drives companies and conmen who rip-off people is greed. The reason banks rarely steal candy from babies is not that they care for babies, it is that they don't care for candy. 

But have you ever wondered why some people with pots of money strive so hard to dodge tax? And why a huge multibillion pound industry of lawyers, accountants, bankers, politicians and lobbyists - many of them decent people - has grown to support them? Leaving a £35 billion (estimated by some to be as much as £120 billion) hole in public finances that has to be filled by higher tax and cuts in services for everyone else? Is it simply greed?

An insight into their reasons was published in May 2012 when the Taxpayers’ Alliance, backed by the Institute of Directors (who should know better), released a 420 page report, “The Single Income Tax”. 

In this report, apart from the stuff about why taxes on the wealthy should be radically cut, we also see why tax-cutters are so fervent. So fervent they are prepared to tell fibs and consign others to economic, mental and physical ruin by withholding their taxes thereby impoverishing public services. It is because they believe they are fighting wickedness! And by characterising what they do as a fight against wickedness it gives them licence to fight without scruple.

Throughout history powerful people have argued that the things they do are a battle against wickedness. Like the crusaders centuries ago invading the Holy Land, claiming to be doing god’s work, with the coincidental benefit of bringing them great wealth. The head of the Cistercian monks in the thirteenth century, during a war between types of Christians, when asked how to distinguish between the good and the bad on capturing the citizens of a city in France advised “Kill them all. God will know his own”.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance report seems to take the Cistercian’s view on taxes. The report comments “Tax maybe a necessary evil – but it remains an evil”, asserting in these extracts from the report that

·        Tax is coercive. “taxation relies on the use of force…. Coercion is a serious business: it imposes an awesome responsibility on the authorities to ensure that the money that is raised through it is spent wisely and effectively. Bureaucracy and waste are not just a loss to the economy – they are a moral outrage.”

·        Tax eclipses personal morality. “Not only is taxation a form of confiscation under threat of force. It is confiscation by people who believe their values and priorities are superior to those whom they force to pay up.”

·        Taxation raises the state over individuals. “the argument that some people must be forced to pay money for the benefit of others is extremely fraught. The state has no prior moral right to people’s property. If it did, there would be no logical stopping point; no level of state expropriation which any of us had any right to resist.”

·        Taxation undermines personal responsibility. “taxation also – malignly – relieves them of personal responsibility. They may wish, for example, to take care of elderly relatives, or to provide educative activities for their children, or to give themselves training that might enhance their employment prospects. By eating into their income, savings and capital, taxation reduces their ability to do these things.”

And it goes on about the effects of tax:

·        Higher taxes are morally corrosive.

·        Ethical corrosion in government.

·        War between social groups.

·        Creates perverse incentives.

·        Taxes reduce human prosperity.

Perversity, corrosion, immorality, slavery and social war – what’s there to like? Thereby the report asserts that dodging tax is not for the dodgy. Tax dodgers are actually dodging wickedness. And the only way to stop the dodging is to abolish the taxes - hence the report.

In spite of copious evidence that lowering taxes neither helps to spread wealth nor encourage growth, the report goes on to make six main recommendations. All of which mean that those who have much can keep more. The Taxpayers' Alliance recommends:

1.  "Taxes should be cut to 33 per cent of national income"

According to government figures, taxes in recent years have hovered around 37% of GDP. Cutting this by 4% would take over £22 billion out of government coffers at a time when, in an attempt to save money, we are compromising our security with cuts to armed forces and police, our health with cuts to healthcare, our brains with cuts to universities and schools, and our old age with cuts to pensions.

2.  "Marginal tax rates should not exceed 30 per cent, and the personal allowance should rise to £10,000"

Note that ‘marginal tax’ is not the same as ‘income tax’ – as it includes all taxes such as National Insurance. This would reduce top rate taxpayers' tax rate by over a third, dropping to 30% from 47% (for the year 2012-13, 45% income tax + 2% National Insurance). Those on average salaries would see a much smaller drop from 32% to 30% (for the year 2012-13, 20% income tax + 12% National Insurance). A massive tax cut for the wealthiest, not much change for the rest of us.

3.  "Taxes on capital and labour income disguised as business taxes should be abolished, and replaced with a tax on distributed income"

In case you were wondering, this means abolishing corporation tax. No, really it does. The report claims that “The fairest way to tax people on their income from capital is to abolish all corporate taxes entirely and tax the income as and when it flows to people.” Which means no tax on corporate profits – just tax dividends paid to shareholders and interest paid to lenders.

4.  "Transaction, wealth and inheritance taxes should be abolished"

Transaction taxes, e.g. stamp duty, wealth and inheritance taxes are largely taxes on the wealthy. Of course the wealthiest find ways to dodge these taxes in any case. Multimillion pound houses are sold via companies to avoid the 5% stamp duty on property transfers. The ‘seven year rule’ and properly created trusts enable the wealthiest and best advised to avoid inheritance taxes. Of course, if these taxes were abolished, there would be no need to dodge them.

5.  "Other consumption taxes need to stay for now, but transport taxes should be cut"

Consumption taxes – such as VAT – hit the poor much more than the wealthy, so it is no surprise the Taxpayers Alliance are relaxed about them. The assumption that the rich consume more and therefore pay more consumption taxes is false. Consumption tax is paid on the flow of cash, and while the wealthy have almost all the wealth ordinary people have most of the cashflow. The reality is most ordinary Britons consume (i.e. spend) their whole month’s salary in a month – effectively paying 20% VAT on much of their income. The wealthy consume a fraction of their monthly income, paying VAT only on this fraction, salting the excess away. Consumption taxes are already a ‘hidden in plain sight’ tax avoidance measure for the wealthy. On the other hand, cutting transport taxes – car tax, fuel tax, air passenger duty and the like - benefit you more the bigger your car, the more you drive it, and the more you fly.

6.  "Local authorities should raise half of their spending power from local taxes"

The result will be to reduce the contribution paid by affluent areas to low income areas. Get the poor to pay for themselves.

So there we have it. Now we know: tax dodgers, their consultants in the tax professions, and their allies in Parliament believe they are on the side of the angels. Fighting the wickedness that is tax. And in that fight there are no holds, dodges, dives nor dissembling that are barred. 

As we hear their arguments about how giving them more will make us all better off, don't you believe it. In the last two decades Britain did get richer - but the riches went to the rich.

Read More

Calling all public servants: if you want more cash in your pocket you have to put your arguments effectively. To see how this is done: nobody does this better than our Honourable Members of Parliament.

Doctors, nurses, teachers, and all other public servants - if you want some tips on how to plead for more money you have no better example to follow than our members of parliament. You all may be having your pay and pensions sliced. But remember our poor Parliamentarians too had a chunk taken out of their incomes - when they were stopped from making dodgy and fraudulent expense claims that netted some of them tens of thousands of pounds.

Frustrated at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) having the cheek to check on their reimbursements, and wanting to get a boost to their incomes from more carelessly doled out expenses, our Members of Parliament produced the following survey of themselves and statistics from their navel-gazing report published in 2011, which aim to show:

a) They reckon they work much harder than MPs from previous years, citing the number of pages of legislation, the number of meetings, number of reports, and the number of questions asked. They skate over the probable reason of the increase - computers and word processors spewing out padded verbiage that 30 years ago had to be laboriously produced by hand.
b) IPSA, the people who control their expenses really don't understand what they do, and why they really do need moats and duck houses.
c) We Ripped-off Britons really don't appreciate how lucky we are to have them, and they are cheap at twice the price, and they are really high calibre people, and we should be grateful, and... (I think you get the message)

In short, while the rest of the country's public servants are required to accept cuts to pay and pensions for the sake of the nation, the MPs want IPSA to get out of the way and hand the public purse back to the Honourable Members.

Questions in the survey include:

4. Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA's expenses system is adversely affecting MPs' family lives.	Response %	Response count
Strongly agree	41.0	84
Agree	36.6	75
Neither agree nor disagree	16.1	33
Disagree	4.4	9
Strongly disagree	2.0	4
answered question		205

5. Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA understands what I do in my role as an MP.	Response %	Response count
Strongly agree	1.0	2
Agree	3.4	7
Neither agree nor disagree	8.7	18
Disagree	34.0	70
Strongly disagree	52.9	109
answered question		206

Annex 2

Statistical information on the workload of MPs

Number of electors/people per MP 1922-2010

Source: Railings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts: 1832-2006 (2007), pp 88-92.
House of Commons Library data.
Office for National Statistics population data.
B R Mitchell, British Historical Statistics (1988), pp 13-14.

Pages of legislation (Public and General Acts and Statutory Instruments)

Source: Parliamentary Trends: Statistics about Parliament, House of Commons Library Research Paper 09/69, 12 August 2009, Table 2.

Select Committee meetings per sitting day

Liaison Committee, Second Report of 2009-10, HC 426, The Work of Committees in 2008-09; First Report of 2008-09, HC 291,The Work of Committees in 2007-08; and Sessional Returns for 1985-86 to 1996-97.

Select Committee reports per sitting day

Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2009-10, HC 426, The Work of Committees in 2008-09; First Report of Session 2008-09, HC 291,The Work of Committees in 2007-08; and Sessional Returns for 1985-86 to 1996-97.

Written Parliamentary Questions per sitting day 

Parliamentary Trends: Statistics about Parliament, House of Commons Library Research Paper 09/69, 12 August 2009, Table 2; and Sessional Returns for 1987-88 to 1989-90.

Annex 1 Survey by the Committee of MPs' views on the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 206 Members completed the survey between 30 November and 6 December 2011. 1. When did you enter the House?    Response %   Response count   2010 or later   38.8   80    before 2010   61.2   126    answered question       206    2. Do you agree with the following statement? The current IPSA Board offers MPs effective support in carrying out their parliamentary duties.    Response %   Response count   Strongly agree   1.0   2    Agree   6.3    13   Neither agree nor disagree    11.7   24    Disagree   48.1    99   Strongly disagree    33.0   68    answered question       206    3. Do you agree with the following statement? Independent regulation of the expenses system is important to improve public confidence in Parliament.    Response %   Response count   Strongly agree   34.1   70    Agree   43.4   89  Neither agree nor disagree   15.1  31   Disagree  6.8   14  Strongly disagree   0.5  1   answered question   205   4. Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA's expenses system is adversely affecting MPs' family lives.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  41.0  84   Agree  36.6   75  Neither agree nor disagree   16.1  33   Disagree  4.4   9  Strongly disagree   2.0  4   answered question   205   5. Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA understands what I do in my role as an MP.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  1.0  2   Agree  3.4   7  Neither agree nor disagree   8.7  18   Disagree  34.0   70  Strongly disagree   52.9  109   answered question   206   6. Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA should publish the receipts it receives in support of claims.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  6.9  14   Agree  24.0   49  Neither agree nor disagree   29.4  60   Disagree  26.5   54  Strongly disagree   13.2  27   answered question   204   7 Do you agree with the following statement? IPSA was right to introduce more direct payments to suppliers.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  59.3  121   Agree  35.8   73  Neither agree nor disagree   3.9  8   Disagree  0.5   1  Strongly disagree   0.5  1   answered question   204   8. Do you agree with the following statement? The time taken for MPs and their staff to submit claims to IPSA is such a burden that it hinders them from doing their job.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  52.7  106   Agree  32.3   65  Neither agree nor disagree   7.5  15   Disagree  5.5   11  Strongly disagree   2.0  4   answered question   201   9. Do you agree with the following statement? Since June 2011, I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount of time my staff and I spend dealing with expenses.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  0.5  1   Agree  17.6   36  Neither agree nor disagree   23.9  49   Disagree  39.0   80  Strongly disagree   19.0  39   answered question   205   10. Do you agree with the following statement? The extension of the travel card represents an improvement to the system.   Response %  Response count  Strongly agree  21.5%  44   Agree  46.3%   95  Neither agree nor disagree   26.3%  54   Disagree  5.4%   11  Strongly disagree   0.5%  1   answered question   205   11. In the last six months, can you estimate   0  1-2   3-5  6-10   More than 10  I don't submit claims  Response count  on how many occasions you have received inconsistent advice from IPSA?   15.8% (32)  32.2% (65)   35.6% (72)  8.4% (17)   4.5% (9)  3.5% (7)  202   on how many occasions IPSA has lost paperwork that you submitted in support of a claim?   34.2% (69)  39.6% (80)   17.3% (35)  5.0% (10)   1.0% (2)  3.0% (6)  202   on how many occasions you received particularly helpful service from IPSA staff in relation to the processing of expenses claims?   23.6% (48)  42.4% (86)   22.2% (45)  4.4% (9)   4.9% (10)  2.5% (5)  203   how many of your claims have not been processed and paid by IPSA within their target of 12 working days?   3.1% (6)  13.4% (26)  20.1% (39)   20.1% (39)  39.2% (76)   4.1% (8)  194  how many of your inquiries to IPSA by email were not responded to within their target of 5 working days?   29.6% (56)  25.9% (49)   21.2% (40)  9.0% (17)   9.5% (18)  4.8% (9)  189   answered question   204   12. Since June 2011, how useful have you found the advice provided by IPSA?   Very useful  Fairly useful  Not very useful   Not at all useful   No opinion  I haven't contacted IPSA   Response count  (a) by telephone   9.9% (20)   48.0% (97)  17.3% (35)   13.9% (28)  3.0% (6)   7.9% (16)  202  (b) in writing  2.0% (4)  16.2% (32)   22.3% (44)  13.7% (27)   12.2% (24)  33.5% (66)   197  (c) by email  3.0% (6)  38.7% (77)   24.1% (48)  16.6% (33)   6.5% (13)   11.1% (22)  199   (d) in person  9.9% (19)  13.6% (26)  3.1% (6)   4.7% (9)  15.7% (30)  52.9% (101)   191  answered question   203   13. How easy or difficult have you found it to submit your most recent claims?   Response %  Response count  Very easy  2.5   5  Fairly easy  40.4  82   Fairly difficult   40.4  82   Very difficult  12.8  26   No opinion  3.9   8  answered question   203   14. In the last 6 months, have there been items of expenditure (for accommodation, utility bills, travel, subsistence, refreshments for constituents, office and staff costs etc) for which you have not claimed even though you were entitled to reimbursement?   Response %  Response count  No, I've claimed for everything for which I am entitled to reimbursement   7.4  15   Yes, totalling less than £1,000   55.7  113   Yes, totalling between £1,000 and £5,000   26.1  53   Yes, totalling over £5,000   10.8  22   answered question   203   15. What are your main reasons for not submitting legitimate claims? (rate the importance of each reason)   Very important  Quite important  Not very important  Not applicable, I submit all legitimate claims   Rating average  Response count  It takes too much time   34.4% (63)   43.7% (80)  15.8% (29)  6.0% (11)   1.93  183   The submission system is too complicated  32.8% (59)   43.9% (79)  18.3% (33)  5.0% (9)   1.96  180   IPSA won't pre-approve claims   26.8% (44)   28.0% (46)  37.2% (61)  7.9% (13)   2.26  164   I want to protect my reputation by avoiding media coverage   56.4% (101)   25.7% (46)  10.6% (19)  7.3% (13)   1.69  179   It's not worth the trouble submitting small claims   42.8% (80)   40.1% (75)  11.2% (21)  5.9% (11)   1.80  187   answered question   198   MPs know how to play the system. Over the last few decades MPs have a barnstorming record on getting above inflation increases in their allowance. An MP’s allowances in 1975 of £3,200 would have risen by 2007 to £19,367 if RPI inflation had been applied. The actual 2007 figure is £90,505.

Read More

Rip-off News round-up. Our pick of the last week's media (Thu 31st May)

Bankers' salaries up 37% over the last 4 years since the Banking Crisis.
To get around the regulation of their bonuses, they are switching the money from bonuses to salary. It looks like overall pay has dropped, but not as much as their share prices. FINANCIAL TIMES

Financial companies were forced to remove or amend more than 300 advertisements last year for breaching regulations, but details of the offending promotions have been kept secret. FSA more worried about protecting rippers-off than protecting you!

This leaves consumers with no way of knowing if they were misled. Which?

Shoppers can save 32% or more on fruit & veg by shunning supermarkets for street markets. 

It’s simply not true that supermarkets are cheaper. DAILY MAIL

MP’s report criticises staff cuts at HMRC. These staff could have enforced the collection of £1bn in tax avoided/evaded. 

For every £1 which has been saved in staff cuts, it has lost around £10 in tax revenue. DAILY MAIL

Inequality matters economically, not just politically. If poor families are hamstrung by low income and unpayable debts, spending and demand may be held back for years.

References work by National Institute of Economic and Social Research, and economist James Galbraith (son of the famous JK Galbraith). GUARDIAN

Inequality matters horticulturally with the hosepipe ban. If you put out a sprinkler or hold a hose to water your garden you are liable for a £1,000 fine. If you have invested in 'trickle irrigation', leaky pipes installed into your lawn, you can turn the taps on.
Thames Water rules for the hosepipe ban.

Firms that help fund people and small businesses to sue (whilst taking a cut of winnings) are growing. London is becoming the global litigation centre. 

Will it help the little guy take on big corporates and government, or just make the UK more wastefully litigious as people and businesses “try it on”? GUARDIAN

Christine Lagarde, scourge of tax evaders, pays no tax.
IMF boss who caused international outrage when she suggested that Greeks should pay their taxes earns a tax-free salary. DAILY MAIL

Gas rebranded as green energy by EU. 
You couldn't make it up! Victory for gas lobby as aims of €80bn EU renewable energy programme altered to channel money to 'low-carbon' fossil fuel.  GUARDIAN

Regulator accuses dentists of failing to tell patients of free or cheaper NHS care.
Office of Fair Trading says half a million patients a year may mistakenly pay for private dental care. GUARDIAN

Read More

The government's new StartUp loan scheme for under-25s won't inspire young entrepreneurs

Forget whether we should be steering the young into setting up a business in the middle of a recession. A small loan makes no difference to most entrepreneurs, who are driven not by money but by emotional factors.

By Stefan Stern, visiting professor of management practice at the Cass Business School. 

You can't keep a good entrepreneur down. Take David Young, Lord Young of Graffham, who as a minister tried to rebrand the Department for Trade and Industry (as was) as the "Department for Enterprise" in the 1980s. In spite of a slight mishap 18 months ago, when he stepped down as a business adviser to David Cameron for talking insensitively about the recession, he has bounced back to speak up for entrepreneurship and the government's new StartUp loan scheme for under-25s. You can see what Margaret Thatcher saw in him, famously musing that "David brings me solutions" while other ministers merely whinged.

Young displays many of the characteristics that mark out a true entrepreneur. He is energetic, he is resilient, he is driven and he doesn't give up. These are the qualities that all business people need when the economy is as troubled as ours is today. The question is: can a new loan scheme for young people really help the economy by making entrepreneurialism more likely to flourish?

That is not at all clear. As Neil Lee, senior economist at the Work Foundation, points out, the failure rate for startups is high, and young people are less likely to be equipped for success than other more seasoned operators. "Successful entrepreneurship requires either a rare talent or skills, which most entrepreneurs only develop through time," Lee says.

While £2,500 may be enough to set up a modest office at home, it won't do anything to boost demand in the part of the economy you are trying to do business in. And while some mentoring is apparently going to be available, it will be a lonely task for a sole trader keeping a business going in this market.

Entrepreneurs are different. They don't take no for an answer. They pursue obsessions, beyond the point where other more conventional or conservative types would back down. They are also, crucially, often not really in it for the money. Their inner drive is emotional and may not have a rational basis. Sometimes entrepreneurs are trying to right a perceived wrong: they grew up in poverty and want to prove themselves, or perhaps they were bullied at school for being eccentric or a slow learner. Maybe a parent was unusually demanding, cruel or remote.

Whatever lies behind their ambition, true entrepreneurs will put up with a great deal of hardship and uncertainty in pursuit of their goals. So for many, while a small loan will be welcome, it is actually neither here nor there in terms of providing an incentive to start a business. They are going to do it anyway.

Young is right that today is not necessarily a terrible time to start a business. Some costs, such as office space, are low, and if you can keep revenue coming in at a time like this you should be well set for the moment (it must come, surely?) when the economy is more vigorous again. The growth in self-employment in recent times has kept official unemployment figures lower than they might have been. Clearly, many people are having to work hard and be "entrepreneurial" just to survive right now.

Still, we should be realistic about what this new loan scheme is likely to achieve. In an 80s TV commercial that trumpeted the then DTI as a "department for enterprise", a frustrated business leader declared that while his business was doing OK, it was "not doing great". In the summer of 2012 our problem is that the economy is not even doing OK, and there is not very much a new gang of enthusiastic wannabe entrepreneurs can really do about that.

The writer is visiting professor of management practice at the Cass Business School, London. He was a columnist for the FT, and now writes occasionally for the Guardian and the Independent.

This article was first published in the Guardian

Read More