Controversy as council decides to lobby over Robin Hood tax

Worcester News: Duncan Sharkey, the managing director of Worcester City Council Duncan Sharkey, the managing director of Worcester City Council

THE managing director of Worcester City Council is to write to the Government calling upon a "Robin Hood tax" to hit the banks.

Councillors have backed a controversial motion asking for financial institutions to be slapped with a new tax in order to raise funds for local authorities.

The so-called financial transaction tax, an internet based campaign launched in 2010, calls upon Governments to hit the money industry with a fresh levy to re-balance public spending.

The motion, by Worcester Green Party, called upon Mr Sharkey to ask for it to start in the UK in order to offer councils better funding.

It was voted through after Labour teamed up with Green Councillor Neil Laurenson, despite angry opposition from the Conservatives, which said it would be "terrible" for the economy.

Cllr Laurenson said: "The Robin Hood tax is a tiny tax of about 0.05 per cent on transactions like stocks, bonds, foreign currency and derivatives, which could raise £250 billion a year globally.

"It would raise up to £20 billion a year in the UK.

"It would see the financial sector help clear up the mess it caused, rather than ordinary people paying with their jobs, frozen or lower wages and declining public services.

"Local government has felt the cuts more than most and should be at the forefront of the fight back against these centrally imposed measures."

But it led to retorts from the Tories, which said the tax could endanger jobs rather than create them.

Councillor Robert Rowden said: "I'm amazed at this resolution, it's most peculiar.

"I know sections of the European community are very keen on this but such a tax would be a drain on the City of London, it would hit our economy really hard.

"This is not good, it's really bad - anti-prosperity, anti-business and anti-jobs."

Councillor Marc Bayliss, Conservative group deputy leader, said research showed how it could end "up to a million jobs".

But Councillor Richard Udall, from Labour, said it was "about fairness, something probably lost on the Conservative benches".

During the vote the Liberal Democrats abstained, with Councillor Ken Carpenter saying although he wanted better funding for councils, it was the wrong way to ask for it.

The Tories voted against it, but support from Labour and Cllr Laurenson saw the motion get the nod.

In Worcester the yearly city council Government grant has been slashed 15 per cent and cuts of around £4.1 million are being factored in by 2019.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:15pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Har 111 says...

Totally unfocused fantasists trying to rule the world while making a mess of running the city.
Totally unfocused fantasists trying to rule the world while making a mess of running the city. Har 111
  • Score: 6

3:29pm Thu 27 Feb 14

i-cycle says...

Har 111 wrote:
Totally unfocused fantasists trying to rule the world while making a mess of running the city.
Just like the banks then!
[quote][p][bold]Har 111[/bold] wrote: Totally unfocused fantasists trying to rule the world while making a mess of running the city.[/p][/quote]Just like the banks then! i-cycle
  • Score: 1

4:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

thesquirrel says...

I'll tell Councillor Udall what would be fair: if public sector pensions were replaced by money-purchase schemes equivalent to those in the private sector. That would save billions.

Fairness is not just lost on the Conservatives, it's lost on Labour too.
I'll tell Councillor Udall what would be fair: if public sector pensions were replaced by money-purchase schemes equivalent to those in the private sector. That would save billions. Fairness is not just lost on the Conservatives, it's lost on Labour too. thesquirrel
  • Score: 2

10:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Stuart 1 says...

not the councils finest day!, the council has been naive and foolish to follow this through!
not the councils finest day!, the council has been naive and foolish to follow this through! Stuart 1
  • Score: 2

10:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

PrivateSi says...

It sounds expensive to administer but if not, acceptable.. Personally I prefer SIMPLE TAX SYSTEMS FIRMLY IMPLEMENTED...Extra Corp tax for banks (25% ideally) and a crack-down on evasion may punish shareholders & banks a tiny bit but we are being punished to the tune of £60 billion DEBT INTEREST a year - and growing.. And we did bail out the sector and print them loads-a-free-money..
.
It sounds expensive to administer but if not, acceptable.. Personally I prefer SIMPLE TAX SYSTEMS FIRMLY IMPLEMENTED...Extra Corp tax for banks (25% ideally) and a crack-down on evasion may punish shareholders & banks a tiny bit but we are being punished to the tune of £60 billion DEBT INTEREST a year - and growing.. And we did bail out the sector and print them loads-a-free-money.. . PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

PrivateSi says...

It sounds expensive to administer but if not, acceptable.. Personally I prefer SIMPLE TAX SYSTEMS FIRMLY IMPLEMENTED...Extra Corp tax for banks (25% ideally) and a crack-down on evasion may punish shareholders & banks a tiny bit but we are being punished to the tune of £60 billion DEBT INTEREST a year - and growing.. And we did bail out the sector and print them loads-a-free-money..
.
It sounds expensive to administer but if not, acceptable.. Personally I prefer SIMPLE TAX SYSTEMS FIRMLY IMPLEMENTED...Extra Corp tax for banks (25% ideally) and a crack-down on evasion may punish shareholders & banks a tiny bit but we are being punished to the tune of £60 billion DEBT INTEREST a year - and growing.. And we did bail out the sector and print them loads-a-free-money.. . PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree