David Cameron thinks corruption is a
bad thing and wishes Britain to set a global example of virtue. He is worried that his capital city, London, might become “a safe haven for corrupt money from around the world”, indeed for “plundered and laundered cash”. According to Transparency International, a tenth of the properties in Westminster alone are now owned offshore and anonymously. Streets and apartment blocks across the West End, Kensington and Chelsea are lying empty and silent. It is obscene.
Cameron’s concern is strangely tardy. Some have been screaming about “buy-to-leave” for years. They have been protesting against ludicrously low property taxes and the permitting of towers blatantly aimed at foreign money littering the Thames bank, towers that will stand as lasting totems of the Cameron era. Indulging money-laundering property purchase – coded as “inward investment” – has been government policy under the chancellor, George Osborne, and the London mayor, Boris Johnson.
As for corruption, Britain really should shut up. Why did the prime minister pay a sudden visit two years ago to the ostracised dictator of Kazakhstan, who showered him with gratitude and praise? Kazakhstan holds the Olympic gold for corruption, with its former police chief being linked to the ownership of £147m-worth of London properties. The visit was reportedly organised by Tony Blairunder a £24m reputation-laundering “contract” with the Kazakh ruler. What did Cameron think he was doing in such company?
The truth is that hypocrisy is the occupational disease of British leaders. They lecture Africans and Asians on the venality of their politics, while blatantly selling seats in their own parliament for cash. I hope some insulted autocrat one day asks a British leader how much his party has garnered from auctioning honours. The government suppresses any inquiry into corrupt arms contractsto the Middle East. And when does lobbying stop and corruption start? The Cameron government is the most susceptible to lobbying of any in history.
As for London property, the promised transparency may yield a fund of wisdom, but it will not stop the sales. That requires a determined programme of regulation. If rural councils can restrict house sales to local people, so can London. If other cities can curb foreign buying-to-leave, so can London. If New York co-ops can restrict ownership to occupiers or renters, so can London. A London property left unused for a year should simply be sold or let. And it should be properly taxed. This is not about being left or right. It is about a civilised city proofed against corruption.
All such measures were available to Cameron five years ago. He did nothing. They are still available. I suspect he will do nothing but make another speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment