Ritchie’s new job application

Or there is a new body, to which a body like the LAPFF might lend support. I have not asked the LAPFF if they might want to take on such a role, but that option of a body linked to that investor forum which has a unique role of being engaged with real investors, being diverse in location, having political representation upon it and having been technically heavily engaged on accounting issues seems to me the preferred way of going forward.

However such a body would then need membership. This would need to reflect a wide range of interests. I would suggest that the IASF be excluded for reasons already noted but that some or all of the following would need to be present:

1) Business, probably via the CBI or the like;

2) Unions, probably via the TUC but they might nominate someone else;

3) NGOs, and a sample of those who have been engaged on this issue would have to be represented;

4) Accounting bodies, but without having the chance to outvote others;

5) HMRC;

6) The Financial Reporting Council – the current body with oversight on accounting issues, but only as a representative as it has shown no inclination to engage on this issue to date.

7) Academics with a noted interest in this issue;

8) Politicians, maybe via the APPG on Responsible Taxation;

9) Journalists, to include a representative of those engaged in reporting on corporate issues over the years when such matters have sprung to public attention.

I do not see a reason for lawyers to be involved. Nor do I see a reason for individual companies or firms to be engaged but very clearly they should from the earliest stagaes of the work of this body be asked to submit evidence and hearings may also be required, although time would be of the essence.

So finally, who might fund it? The biggest source should be the government, by far. Research foundations should be approached to fund the remaining costs. Bloat should be avoided, of course. The Financial Reporting Council might also be expected to make a contribution.

3) and 7) give him a chance to get his oar in, no? Or perhaps his ladle into the gravy.

30 thoughts on “Ritchie’s new job application”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    If he does get in it will provide more entertainment and probably put in spanner in the works.

  2. I haven’t the vaguest idea idea what he’s talking about but, looking at the list of invitees, if he does manage to get all these people in one room, is there any chance of cutting a deal with a capable terrorist group to bomb it?

  3. I like the exclusion of lawyers.

    Because it’s just not that important if something is illegal if you are doing good works.

  4. Tim

    I think he also thinks 2) might work for him – trade unions might want to “nominate someone (who perhaps has worked for them and written propaganda for them) else”

  5. Who the f*** has asked him to give his opinion? It seems totally unnecessary anyway and if such a body were set up, it should receive no funding. Failing that, as BIS suggests, it should be bombed out of existence.

    He does not think his professional body should be represented. What does it take to get struck off the ICAEW?

  6. Basically it sounds like he’s realised he won’t ever be taken seriously by accounting standards groups so wants to form his own organisation to freeze them out

  7. I’d also go with Two as the favourite. Three and Seven are certainly contenders but their disadvantage is that both groups could contain more than one individual whereas the TUC rep might grandstand as a solo act.

    Add to that that the TUC wouldn’t bother to involve itself further in the detail of what he got up to and the more powerful platform it would give him and the gig looks irresistible.

    Ahhhh Bisto!

  8. “NGOs, and a sample of those who have been engaged on this issue would have to be represented”

    Why? They arent membership organisations, just organisations that usually gouge public funding and say things they think. Its the least representative group on here. Everyone else would exist anyway with a clearly defined political relationship with it (except maybe academics).

  9. Tim N:

    Bloat should be avoided, of course.

    Aye, sure it will.

    You just have to look at the Prof to see the waddling incarnation of bloat.

  10. One of Murphy’s synapses seems to have become permanently stuck in the on position.

    He is using “candidly” in almost every post these days. Early onset senility, fingers crossed?

  11. Note the number of positions he proposes who will agree to particular types of issues. And any adults in the room who can do maths get voted down or sidelined.

    Tell you what, how about 5 people in a room as permanent members and invited attendees relevant to that session who cannot vote.. Two nominated by the TUC, two by the largest business organisation and one chair nominated by government who cannot vote except in a tiebreaker.
    And their proposals only being recommendations.

    Someone want to suggest that to Ritchie?

  12. worth noting that the LHTD has already tried to cut out the establishment and set up his own standard with the Fair Tax Mark. Total sign ups so far? 21 companies. There are 5.4 million SMEs in the UK, and there are 2.45 million companies large enough to be VAT registered. His market penetration would appear to be, well, “vanishingly small” would be over-generous.

    Still, as we know from current Labour thinking winning and/or achieving something is some kind of neocon/neoliberal/neofascist construct

  13. NGOs? Fucking journalists? Whut?

    He’s creating the biggest, most useless and unneeded corporatist jolly in history and he thinks there won’t be ‘bloat’? He’s fucking built in ‘bloat’ from the very beginning. The whole fucking edifice is ‘bloat’!

    Which non-problem is he ‘solving’ with this crap?

  14. > being diverse in location

    He must be getting tired of the weekly commute from Downham Market to City University.

  15. They could call it Ritchie’s Big Trough, couldn’t they.

    “I’m an RBT member and get paid eighty thousand pounds a year of tax-payers’ money for five hours hours a week. As do all my mates.”

  16. Talking of Trade Union interest, I wonder how Murphy’s denunciation of Corbyn has gone down with the pro-Corbyn unions?

    If I were a member of one of those Unions who funded Murphy I’d be writing to the union demanding that funding of the turncoat be stopped.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    “6) The Financial Reporting Council – the current body with oversight on accounting issues, but only as a representative as it has shown no inclination to engage on this issue to date.

    More like have rightly dismissed his rantings as those of a bombastic, self publicist who is invariable shown to be wrong whenever he opens his mouth.

  18. Tim – Matthew L’s comment on the ‘money’ thread deserves a wider audience….

    Richard Murphy – the only man who could go to Dachau and make it about himself.

  19. Andrew C

    I feel it’s about time a new crew of brown-nosing commenters started to post on TRUK. Has Amon Goth ever appeared there? They would certainly fit in well with the existing Gang of Four and be topically appropriate given the recent Dachau trip apparently experienced by Murphy through the prism of his own fat spotty arse.

  20. It’s quite funny in a way – he realises he has royally screwed up with his usual lickspittles by backing SMith over Corbyn and by rejecting Mcdonnell so he urgently needs to find something (anything) where he can justify actually doing nothing other than coming out with bullshit.

    You omitted to mention the first section of the post – what we need is a body who can urgently make a compelling case why any request for CBCR should be rejected as an unnecessary breach of privacy/national sovereignty, and furthermore people from all walks of life willing to hit its advocates with a ‘Socialist tax’ along the lines of the Windfall levy on the privatised utilities enacted by Gordon Brown, as a prelude to offering them a choice of destitution or exile to Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela. His ideas aren’t a great contribution to that I fear.

    P.S The Forbes post on the Property fund closures deserves consideration here I think!!

  21. “Basically it sounds like he’s realised he won’t ever be taken seriously by accounting standards groups so wants to form his own organisation to freeze them out”

    I keep saying he’s the Ellsworth Toohey de nos jours………………

  22. BF

    I agree – hence my mention on another thread of his pooterish comment that people ‘like him were there’ (which at least is accurate – there were several hundred people in the SS detachment at Dachau) it would be fairly easy to get the likes of a Max Koegel, Franz Ziereis, Arthur Liebehenschel through I would think (although Murphy has read articles on here so we have to be careful)

  23. I do not see a reason for lawyers to be involved. Nor do I see a reason for individual companies or firms to be engaged but very clearly they should from the earliest stagaes of the work of this body be asked to submit evidence and hearings may also be required, although time would be of the essence.

    So, companies *should not be allowed* to have any say in their defense? Just answer the questions, guilt has already been determined, this is simply a sentencing hearing.

  24. Agammamon

    As one of the most accurate commentators on his blog, the late Lavrenti Beria (at least until he was exposed by a certain stool pigeon sometimes of this parish) said:

    ‘You find me the man, I’ll find you the crime’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *