Note: this series of posts was written before the full financial crisis—and scandal—erupted in the U.S. and the U.K. Lord Leitch was, and presumably remains, a part of the controversial Lloyds Group. He was one of a string of neoliberal ‘financiers’ who were tapped on the shoulder by Gordon Brown to draft policy in a variety of areas far beyond public finance itself. Where is Leitch now? And what is the value of his review now that we know what was really behind the so-called ‘success story’ of British & U.S. banks?
By way of an epigraph:
From the Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1989:
Mr. Gordon Brown : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will publish in the Official Report a list of Sir Alan Walters’ outside interests;(2) what are Sir Alan Walters’ connections with the Centre for Policy Studies.
* * *
I don’t normally listen to the Today programme’s ‘Thought for the Day’. However, just before 8am on Wednesday, November 7, Martin Palmer offered an interesting thought. He considered the manner in which modern culture has normalised usury—the old name for the charging of interest.
Palmer prefaced his remarks by suggesting that the main culprit behind the American ‘sub-prime’ debacle was ‘the greed of banks’. He went so far as to suggest that Charles Prince, the former CEO of Citigroup, was one of the ‘perpetrators’ of the financial crisis faced by thousands—in fact, probably hundreds of thousands—of families in the U.S.. In so doing, he contradicted news reports that rather disingenuously referred to Prince as ‘the latest victim’ of the sub-prime crisis.
Palmer went on to explain that while Taoism (or Daoism) and Islam continue to reject usury, ‘sadly, not least for those families in the USA, Christianity started abandoning its opposition to usury in the Reformation, in the 16th century, so opening the floodgates to capitalism’. Palmer quoted the Tao Te Ching, the classic Taoist text, as saying that ‘if people want more, and more, it can only lead to disaster. Greed is the seed of apocalypse, it is the fuel of selfishness’(1).
* * *
UK readers will probably know that in this week’s Queen’s Speech Gordon Brown made public his decision to sell off the state’s student loans. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, much of the financial aid for university students is provided by the state-owned Student Loans Company. The Queen’s Speech announced the privatisation of this organisation, or rather, of its loans, and thereby, of most of the finance for learning in higher education in the mentioned regions of the UK.
It was actually the Tories who began this form of privatisation when they started to abolish the old grant system and forced university students to take out what they described, rather cunningly, as ‘top-up’ loans. The former Labour MP Tony Benn was his prescient old self when he asked John MacGregor, the Secretary of Education and Science, if he was
‘aware that there is a fourth aspect of student loans to which he has not referred? Last Sunday, Price Waterhouse advertised the post of managing director of a student loans company, with a salary of £55, 000 plus bonus and a car, in Glasgow, to be under contract to the Government. The advertisement was drawn to my attention by students at Glasgow university, and, of course, it already anticipates the legislation.’ ‘A good deal of money will be made by financial institutions at the expense of students—many of working-class origin—who will depend on top-up loans. That is the pressure and the vested interest behind the scheme.’(2)
That was in the House of Commons back in 1989. When New Labour was elected to power eight years later, a loud cheer was heard across the land; we cheered in jubilation at the prospect of the end of an increasingly corrupt ‘regime’, but also in the relief of knowing that the Tories’ nakedly elitist agenda might now be set right by a party whose history aligned it with the interests of the new middle and working classes. Indeed, those of us in higher education were particularly hopeful that the new government would begin to set right decades of neglect when it came to funding teaching and research in universities.
Of course, history, or rather New Labour, have shown how naive our expectations were. The New Tories not only continued with, but actually made more aggressive the Thatcherite ideology in domains that Thatcher would never have dared to touch. Along with New Labour’s ‘top-up’ tuition fees introduced in 2006 — notice the use of the same cunning name as the Tories chose for the loans — the sale of the student loans to private banks is simply the latest in a series of de facto privatisations. These contradict both the letter and the spirit of New Labour’s now infamous 2001 manifesto pledge that ‘We will not introduce “top-up” fees and have legislated to prevent them’(3).
* * *
There is another reason why I found Palmer’s piece on the normalization of usury to be a useful thought for the day. The New Labour bible on ‘skills’—the party’s new word for ‘education’—was authored by a man who readily admits that he has spent all his working life in the financial services industry, and ‘has the scars to prove it’ (4).
As I noted in the post on The UWE Experiment, Gordon Brown commissioned Sandy Leitch to produce the grandly titled Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills. Leitch is a New Labour peer, and at the time of the review he was the chairman of BUPA (the UK’s largest private healthcare provider). He was also a non-executive director of Lloyds TSB, United Business Media and Paternoster. Before that he was Chairman and Chief Executive of Zurich Financial Services (UK, Ireland, Southern Africa and Asia Pacific) and Chairman of the Association of British Insurers. Soon after I published the post on The UWE Experiment, it was reported that the Lloyds TSB group had appointed Leitch as chair of its insurance arm, Scottish Widows. [Update: By 2009 Leitch was the deputy chair of the board of the semi-nationalised Lloyds Banking Group].
As I also noted in that post, Leitch made a donation to Gordon Brown’s virtual leadership campaign (5). While we have no reason to believe that Leitch is a ‘cash for honours’ peer, it is clear that he is part of a corporate elite that has been willing to provide New Labour with rather more than ‘fresh ideas’. In this and in the next two posts, I would like to consider one of those ‘fresh ideas’: the substitution of independent and critical forms of higher education for so-called ‘demand led’ and increasingly vocational forms of education. I have used the word ‘education’ twice now, but we may gain a sense of the kind and scope of changes that are at stake by noting that, as of 2007, the UK no longer has a Department of Education, or even of ‘Education and Skills’. Instead, there is a Department and Secretary of State for ‘Children, Schools, and Families’, and a Department and Secretary of State for ‘Innovation, Universities and Skills’. Significantly, the second of these departments merges the departments of Trade and Industry with part of the old Education and Skills. Note that in the process, New Labour has jettisoned the ‘E word’ (Education) and replaced it with the ‘S word’ (Skills) [update: by the middle of 2009, even this last department was eliminated, and as been swallowed up by Mandelson’s new ‘super-department’ of Business, Innovation, and Skills].
What is at stake in this change? I will argue that it is the educational equivalent of Margaret Thatcher’s infamous suggestion that there is ‘no society’:
‘…you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.’ (6)
Indeed, I will argue that we might rephrase Thatcher’s famous statement to represent the transformations that are about to be implemented via Sandy Leitch’s Review: ‘There is no such thing as education. There are individual employers and employees, there are skills and there are businesses. And no government can do anything except through businesses.’ In this and in the following posts, I will explain why I think that this sums up New Labour’s thinking, and I will show how the transformation is both dissimulated and legitimised firstly by Leitch’s Review of Skills, and secondly by the emergence of universities devoted to the so-called ‘knowledge exchange’.
* * *
In today’s post, and by way of a preamble to an analysis of aspects of the Review’s contents, I would like to focus on the significance of the fact that it was Sandy Leitch that was chosen to lead the review. While philosophers of language have long noted that a text’s meanings must be held to be at least partly independent of its author’s intentions, there can be no doubt that Lord Leitch’s involvement in the Review of Skills is a very significant aspect of the Review’s context. To my knowledge, it is the first time in the UK that someone leads a review of educational matters who is not him/herself a specialist in education (or in some field relating closely to education), and who has few if any qualifications other than those associated with being a businessman.
Why, then, did Gordon Brown choose Leitch? Clearly, Leitch must have a number of—dare I say it—skills that go beyond those most obviously associated with the financial services. For a start, he clearly has a very real skill in connecting himself to people in the highest places. In 2002, an article in the Observer (7) noted that Leitch was ‘a friend of Tony Blair’ and ‘a confidante of Gordon Brown’. An article in the Scotsman  also linked him to Charles Clarke and to David Blunkett.
It seems that Leitch also has skills when it comes to bringing together big business and government. The Observer article noted that Leitch was the former chairman of the New Deal taskforce, and that he chaired the National Employment Panel, which advises the Government on workplace issues at home and abroad. As I noted earlier, the article was written five years ago, so I had a quick look at the NEP’s website to see if Leitch was still the chair, and indeed he is. In the process I discovered two things that I found relevant to my analysis.
First, even before the NEP website has a chance to describe the NEP or its aims and objectives, it states that ‘The NEP welcomes the recommendations of the Leitch Review of Skills. We particularly welcome the establishment of an employer-led Commission for Employment and Skills. We have long advocated the importance of the demand-led approach and are pleased that this is a central tenet of the Leitch Review.’(9)
But second, and contrary to what might be inferred from the word ‘national’ in its title, the NEP describes itself (after lauding the Leitch Review) as an ‘employer-led organisation’ which ‘advises Government on labour market policies and performance.’(10) The ‘about’ page strengthens my suspicion that ‘employer-led’ might a euphemism for ‘big-business led’: ‘The National Employment Panel is composed of top business executives along with public sector and community leaders. We provide independent advice on welfare reform and labour market issues to Ministers in the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Education and Skills.’(11) And indeed, along with some ‘public sector and community leaders’—for example, Lord Victor Adebowale CBE of Turning Point and Mark Thompson of the BBC—the panel includes executives in KPMG LLP, Accenture, CBI West Midlands, Cobra Beer Ltd, Dixons Groups Plc, BAA Plc, Centrica Plc, Hilton Group Plc and the Royal Bank of Scotland (12).
The predominance of big business executives led by an (unelected) big business executive makes it somewhat surprising to find that the address of the NEP website address is http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk — does the ‘gov.uk’ mean that the NEP is a government organisation? This may seem like an insignificant detail, but I suggest it is symbolic of the way in which big business and government in the UK have become increasingly indistinct. Here I should also note that the Observer article also suggested that Leitch ‘qualified for university at a youthful 16, but shunned higher education in favour of a career in computers’(emphasis added by me), and that ‘As a Scotsman, Leitch takes his heritage seriously—he is a lover of fine malt whisky and Scottish antiques.’
Another article, this time in the Independent, represented Leitch in 2001 as the ‘chief executive of the UK division of Europe’s third-largest insurance company’, but also as ‘the miner’s son from Dunfermline – who still supports the town’s football team because it’s “nice to have something that has been constant in your life for 40 years”’(13). The Independent article also noted that Leitch was ‘refreshingly open’ and prepared to be critical of his own industry. In the wake of the Equitable Life debacle, he was quoted as suggesting that ‘”Trust is fundamental to the insurance industry,”’ and that ‘”You are trusting your hard-earned savings to an organisation. That trust was dented by pensions mis-selling, dented by Equitable. As an industry, we have to push as hard as we possibly can to restore that trust.”’
As the above quote makes clear, Leitch clearly has the ‘skill’ to know when an industry needs to launch a public relations offensive. Whether this is part of that offensive or not, he has, finally, the ‘skill’ to recognise the value of being seen to be a Peter Drucker-like advocate of caring capitalism. The Observer article noted that Leitch believed that ‘“the strong and powerful in our society should put something back”’…‘“Of course there is a commercial pay-off. If your company has a good reputation with the public, that will hold you in good stead when it comes to recruiting young people from universities and colleges.”’. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that Leitch’s former employer Zurich won the Whitbread Company of the Year Award for its work with voluntary organisations, and that under Leitch, Zurich was regarded as ‘a trailblazer on the charitable front.’(14)
A similar discourse seems to guide the NEP. After foregrounding its support for the Leitch Review, the NEP website notes that its ‘principal objective is to help disadvantaged people move from poverty into jobs that contribute to business productivity and growth’. As I noted earlier, the NEP board includes representatives from charities such as Turning Point.
* * *
Now it might be argued that a couple of articles in the newspapers are hardly the basis with which to consider Leitch’s credentials. But that is to miss a fundamental point: Leitch has clearly allowed himself to be interviewed by a string of journalists who have portrayed him in a mostly sympathetic manner. He has surely done so in an effort to provide himself with a public persona that suits, however complexly, his business and political interests. Insofar as this is the case, then it is important to analyse this image, and to consider its validity.
On the basis of the above and other articles I have researched, one can deduce that Leitch—and presumably Gordon Brown—would like us to regard Leitch as a paragon of efficient but caring capitalism, an advocate of the kind of Third-Wayism that was once the ‘Tao’ (a ‘pro-usury’ Tao) of New Labour. Leitch’s personal history might well also make him a kind of model for what he describes as the ‘disadvantaged’. His father died when he was very young, he was a miner’s son, and now he’s ‘up there’ with the highest, and this despite the fact that he never went to university.
Insofar as this interpretation is taken at face value, it is difficult to find fault in Leitch’s role in, or ‘with’ the New Labour government. On the contrary, the association seems to be not just a ‘natural’ one, but one that is clearly in the interest of ‘the nation’.
But is it ‘natural’, and is it in the interests of the nation?
As I explained earlier, most of the newspaper articles that I researched were sympathetic to Leitch. There was, however, one interview that touched on the central problem with Leitch’s—or the newspapers’—attempt to portray him(self) as something of a rags to riches philantropist (apparently the term now in vogue is ‘social entrepreneur’). The interview in question was conducted in 2005 by the Times’ Andrew Davidson. After reporting that Leitch encouraged his employees to give to charities after raising their pay, Davidson noted that
‘Just occasionally that commitment [to the good causes] led to some interesting juxtapositions, such as when Leitch was laying off thousands of Zurich’s workers after a profit slide, and simultaneously chairing the government’s National Employment Panel, which aimed to get the unemployed and disadvantaged back into work. […] “No,” he [Leitch] butts in, “I never found myself in a twist about that. There is nothing more unsettling than to work in a company that doesn’t make a profit. Your job is to make good returns for shareholders by delivering good value to consumers, and you need to make some harsh decisions to do that, but I’ve no doubt we were doing the right things.”’(15)
In the context of critical social theory, what Davidson delicately describes as a ‘juxtaposition’ is better known as a contradiction. And indeed we can point to at least one ‘local’ contradiction in Leitch’s career, as well as to a rather more general contradiction, both of which undermine the notion that Leitch is no more than a well-meaning, if very wealthy and powerful insurance man who is eminently qualified, for that very reason, to advise the government on matters pertaining to education.
To start with the first contradiction: Leitch professes to be keen on ‘putting something back’, but this is arguably tantamount to recognising that his work involves ‘taking things out’. And indeed, aside from the venture capitalist Ronald Cohen (another famous Brown ‘groupie’ — or is it the other way around?)(16), it is difficult to think of anyone in Brown’s inner, or at least in Brown’s dinner circle that is closer to one of the most aggressive sectors of capitalism in modern culture. It is not in vain that in his Report on the Equitable Life Enquiry of 2004, Lord Penrose wrote that
‘I have come to the view that the only acceptable approach to the many, and unpredictable, issues that are peculiar to the mutual life office is to ensure that they are subject to a level of regulatory scrutiny that takes account of the reality that, apart from the regulator, there is no-one who can intervene effectively to influence the activities of what must remain a form of organisation managed by a self-perpetuating oligarchy [emphasis added], selected on an unaccountable basis by current directors as their successors in office, and vulnerable to the influence and, in an extreme case, control of professional actuaries who are answerable, if at all, only to those same directors who are fundamentally dependent on their advice.’(17)
Even if we assume that Leitch himself isn’t part of that ‘self-perpetuating oligarchy’ and is accountable (I assume he isn’t because he hasn’t been elected), it is certainly contradictory to be firing thousands of workers at Zurich one day to then don one’s National Employment Panel cap on another day to say, as the NEP’s website does, that ‘The Panel is widely recognised as source of fresh ideas on employment and skills issues. We are interested in what works—in understanding what will help more unemployed people not only to get the right jobs, but to keep them [emphasis added] and advance on their chosen career path.’
To be sure, it is equally if not more contradictory to be looking to help the ‘disadvantaged’ (disadvantaged by whom?) even as one leads an entity that is an integral part of a strategy designed to eliminate what is left the welfare state. Make no mistake: what the NEP describes euphemistically as ‘welfare reform’ is the process begun by Margaret Thatcher in the light (or rather, the shadow) of her comments about there being ‘no society’.
* * *
Now I can well imagine the kind of rejoinder that Leitch, or Brown might hurl at the above argument: after waving the big stick of globalisation, they would almost certainly condemn the welfare state as a recipe for laziness, social malaise or class immobility. In so doing they might well echo Thatcher’s mantra that (I’ll quote her one last time) ‘no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.’
It might seem difficult to take exception to this apparently robust common sense. Certainly it would be foolish to dispute the idea that any state aid to individuals or social groups must include an element of accountability that is based on a critical, and two-way understanding of the relation between individual and state obligations. But it must also be based on some notion of ‘fairness’, or to put the point more sharply, on the redistribution of income (I can imagine Leitch reaching worriedly for the telephone as he reads this), especially when those that have the highest incomes have achieved their wealth thanks in no small part to their disproportionate capacity to mould state policy to suit their interests.
In another post, I’ve commented on the problem with appeals to ‘common sense’. The problem with the Tory—and thereby with the New Labour—’common sense’ is that it serves to dissimulate the fact that there is another logic, another interest behind the moralistic statements concerning ‘welfare reform’: the real logic, the real interest is arguably to shift the balance of social obligation in such a manner that the wealthy have the lightest obligations and the best ‘opt-outs’ even as the poorest are provided with less and less protection, and are controlled by means of more and more draconian forms of legislation to ensure that they cannot resist the imposition of more and more onerous obligations. The use of ASBO’s, more and more surveillance technologies, and more and more laws regarding a variety of social aspects must be interpreted with reference to this dynamic which, to be sure, is increasingly being used to control people in ‘non-comformist’ middle class groups as well. It would of course be a mistake to regard this as the result of some gigantic conspiracy; it is more of a matter of a machine-like dynamic that is being driven by individuals and institutions which may themselves be dragged along by its vortex.
Again, I can imagine the accusations of ‘pamphletarian socialism’ that might be hurled at me by Leitch, or by the ‘big clunking fist’ himself. But in the wake of the social debate about the taxes paid by venture capitalists such as Cohen—and in the light of the extraordinary comments made by people like Warren Buffet about how much tax they pay (19)— it is increasingly difficult for neo-liberals such as Brown and Leitch to shrug off these critiques. If Leitch really is that interested in getting people not only back to work, but back to meaningful jobs, then his point of departure would have to be a very thorough critique of the kind of capitalism represented by his own statement about shareholders and consumer value.
Indeed, returning to that statement, and to the absurdly managerialist perspective that ‘there is nothing more unsettling than to work in a company that doesn’t make a profit’, Leitch would have to start by admitting that there are at least two things that are far more unsettling: the first is to work for a company that has decided that it is not making enough of a profit to satisfy its shareholders, and so sacks someone despite the fact that s/he has done a great job. The second is, of course, not having a company to work for at all thanks to decisions taken by people like, well, Sandy Leitch.
If any ‘charity’ or ‘philantropy’ is needed then, it is the ‘charity’ of someone who, having reaped the benefits of extraordinary wealth and power, comes to reinterpret, and to reject not just the ‘greed’ — we return to Martin Palmer’s ‘thought for the day’ about the consequences of ‘usury’ — but the very mode of production that leads to poverty and to joblessness in the first place. Anything short of this is little more than a return to a Victorian form of paternalism.
* * *
Earlier, I suggested that we could find in Leitch’s career two contradictions, one ‘local’, that is to say, ‘internal’ to his career, and another ‘general’, that is to say, one that transcends his career. Actually, just as the personal is always the social (and vice-versa), an ‘internal’ career contradiction is always bound to be linked to more general social contradictions. In Leitch’s case, his career trajectory and involvement with New Labour can be clearly linked to the more general contradiction faced by New Labour as a post-Thatcherite party in government. On the one hand, New Labour has been both happy, and compelled to embrace the neo-liberalism of Thatcherism. However, a significant sector of New Labour’s, or rather, of Labour’s political ‘base’ rightly associates Thatcherism with the ‘usury’ that has historically dispossessed the poorest groups in society. The advocates of a more refined version of this neo-liberalism now seem set to produce another chasm by way of the cycle of financial boom and bust that continues to characterize British capitalism. If the idealised American model is anything to go by, Gordon Brown’s assurances to the contrary are likely to be as weak as the banking regulations that he’s instituted.
In this context, New Labour must engage in a kind of political hopscotch whose lines are drawn increasingly by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Cohen, but whose markers are thrown from time to time by that critical ‘base’. It is on this level of analysis that a miners’ son turned London City star provides what is arguably a false, but still potentially a useful image of and for ‘reconciliation’: reconciliation between two worlds that New Labour’s own neo-liberalism is increasingly driving apart. One university study after another has shown that Britain is increasingly divided by social class, and indeed, that the gap between the haves and the have nots has actually grown since New Labour came to power (20).
Returning to matters educational, it is hardly surprising that in the context of such a contradiction, New Labour seems quite keen to abandon the E word: the Latin root for education is educat—, which is in turn related to educere, which means ‘lead out’— in this case, leading people out of the way of thinking and doing advocated by the Thatcherites. Conversely, it is also not particularly surprising that New Labour would much rather speak of ‘skills’, in particular of ‘business skills’ (or as the Leitch Report refers to them, as ‘economically valuable skills’), and that this shift should be accompanied by a wholesale ‘outsourcing’—another codeword for privatization—of teaching to private or semi-private institutions devoted to providing such ‘skills’. Indeed, one might well imagine the attraction for Gordon Brown and for his business barons of encouraging the kind of partnership between universities and (big) business which might allow the two sectors to ‘make good returns for shareholders by delivering good value to consumers’ (Leitch) even as they ‘prepare people to compete successfully in a competitive, knowledge-based economy’(NEP).
Is this not the kind of change that Leitch and New Labour want to achieve, and if so, what is its official rationale? In Part 2, a critique of the Leitch Review itself.
* * *
By way of a postcript, a question for the UK’s National Union of Students: might people with student loans present a class-action suit against the government (or the Student Loan Company) for breaching data protection laws? After all, part of what New Labour will be giving to the banks is the current and former students’ identities, i.e. their personal information.
Update May 12, 2009: For a recent critique of the way in which the UK’s funding councils have started to be controlled by the corporate sector, see George Monbiot’s ‘Captive Knowledge’ at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/05/12/captive-knowledge/
1) Palmer in BBC Radio 4, Wednesday 7 November 2007. The piece can be listened to at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/.
2) Tony Benn in the House of Commons Hansard Debates of October 20, 1989, as transcribed at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-10-20/Debate-1.html, accessed November 7, 2007.
3) see http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml, accessed November 7, 2007
4) Quote taken from a statement made by Leitch in the House of Lords, as transcribed by the Lords Hansards for June 6, 2007. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70606-0015.htm#0706072000185, accessed November 7, 2007.
5) ‘Brown’s £113,000 war chest for the leadership contest that never was’, May 31, 2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,2091743,00.html, accessed August 24, 2007.
6) Margaret Thatcher, in Women’s Own Magazine, October 31, 1987.
7) ‘The salesman with a policy for everyone’, in The Observer, January 6, 2002. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,628187,00.html, accessed November 7, 2007.
8 ‘Lord Leitch returns to his roots with financial services launch’, in The Scotsman, October 24, 2005, http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=2135432005, accessed November 7, 2007.
9) http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk, accessed November 7, 2007.
10) http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk, accessed November 7, 2007.
11) http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk/about.htm, accessed November 7, 2007.
12) http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk/panel/index.htm, accessed November 7, 2007.
13) ‘Sandy Leitch: the man who wants you to trust him’, in The Independent, October 21, 2001, http://money.independent.co.uk/personal_finance/insurance/article162884.ece, accessed November 7, 2007.
14) ‘The salesman with a policy for everyone’, in The Observer, January 6, 2002. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,628187,00.html, accessed November 7, 2007.
15) ‘Interview: Andrew Davidson: New chapter for Labour insurance grandee’ Times, October 23, 2005, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article581597.ece?token=null&offset=0, accessed November 7, 2007.
16) ‘Ronald Cohen: The high priest of money-making’ in the Observer, November 4, 2007, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2204868,00.html, accessed November 7, 2007.
17) Penrose Report, March 8, 2004, p. 334. An electronic copy can be obtained at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/penrose_report/indrev_pen_index.cfm, accessed November 7, 2007.
18] http://www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk/about.htm, accessed November 7, 2007.
19) ‘I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffet’, in Guardian, October 31, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews, accessed November 7, 2007.
20) See for example, ‘Vital Statistics’, in The Guardian, February 8, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/feb/08/socialexclusion.guardiansocietysupplement2, accessed November 7, 2007.