James Dyson: Legs-it rather than Brexit. I used that phrase last time but enjoyed it so much I decided to use it again.
James Dyson has defended his decision to move his company’s head office to Singapore, saying Brexit played no part in the decision.
Instead, he reckons the eight-hour time difference between a head office in the UK and a production plant in Singapore could seriously affect the viability of his business there.
Isn’t it more feasible that he just wants to avoid having to pay increased import-export tariffs, and wants to avoid increased taxes that are likely if Brexit harms the economy in the way the experts expect?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The inventor of the famous Dyson vacuum cleaner was one of the most prominent UK business leaders to support Brexit in the run-up to the EU referendum in 2016.
After the result became known, he said leaving the Single Market would liberate the UK economy and allow the country to make trade deals around the world.
He said the UK should leave the EU without an interim deal and that “uncertainty is an opportunity”; and he said “we should just walk away and they will come to us”
How interesting, then, that he has decided not to be here when they do. Or should that be if they do?
Rather than stay in the UK and take advantage of all that opportunity he mentioned, Mr Dyson is moving his headquarters from Malmesbury to Singapore.
Angela Rayner articulated the feeling of many, I think, when she responded thus:
Brexiteer James Dyson accused of "staggering hypocrisy" after moving HQ to Singapore. Not so much #Brexit but legs it! 👎https://t.co/IV1r3p2Qyy
The message is clear: Mr Dyson doesn’t have faith in the UK’s ability to sustain his business, post-Brexit.
His words about “opportunity” and claims that foreign investment will “come to us” seem to have been just gusts of air, which is ironic for a maker of vacuum cleaners.
The announcement has attracted a wealth of criticism from those of us who don’t have Mr Dyson’s opportunities:
Does perfectly illustrate the utter folly of Brexit that one of its principal supporters has finally realised it will be terrible for business.
A Twitter user identifying as “Doogs” wittily suggested Mr Dyson was “taking vac control”.
Another, identifying as “Shop Steward” put our suspicions into words: “The thing is he’s a multimillionaire so he could stay here and still make a profit In fact he could stay here, improve workers pay & conditions, and still make a profit …but greed won’t allow that. No, profit must be maximised at all costs because enough is never enough.”
And the blogger Paul Bernal asked the question that formed the basis for this article’s headline:
I’m not sure how many Brexiters moving their money or businesses out of the UK it takes before the voters realise they were being conned.
There are – and will be – loads more who aren't making it public because they don't want to be attacked by the journalists of the Four Horses of the Apocalypse
I’m not sure who “the journalists of the Four Horses of the Apocalypse” may be, but they would be right to attack such people.
While P&O isn’t on record as having supported Brexit, its decision to abandon the UK is a clear signal to other businesses: Get out – if you can.
Dyson is on record, not just as a Brexiteer but as a Brextremist, and his decision reeks of the worst kind of hypocrisy.
He supported Brexit; he influenced other people to support it; and now he is abandoning us to the consequences while he scarpers, taking his business and any benefit it has for the economy with him.
Make no mistake: This man is toxic.
He has helped inflict economic ruin on the UK, both by encouraging us into Brexit and by taking his business out of the country before it happens.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The problem in a nutshell – and this cartoon was drawn in 1972! [Image: Alan Hardman]
It’s terrific when an article makes you think.
Why Capitalism needs unemployment, by Cheltenham & Gloucester Against Cuts, tells us that unemployment is used as a weapon against the workers – with the threat of it used to force pay cuts on employees, while we are told to fear inflation if unemployment falls.
So fatcat company bosses win either way, it seems.
The article commented on Margaret Thatcher’s ideological mentor, Milton Friedman, who “understood that low levels of unemployment give confidence to workers, who can fight for better pay and conditions. When they’re successful, the profit margins of capitalists are reduced, causing them to put their prices up in response“.
We know this happens; we have seen it many times. Some may argue that it is different from cases in which shortages of particular commodities push up their prices and the prices of products that are made from them – but, with fuel prices as the only notable exception, have you ever seen prices drop after these shortages end?
The system is rigged to ensure that working people stay poor, either through pay cuts during high unemployment or inflation in low unemployment; meanwhile the employers and shareholders ensure that they stay rich, by sharing out extra profits gained by keeping pay low or by putting up prices.
What do they do with this money?
The answer, it seems, is nothing. They bank it in offshore tax havens and leave it there. This is why, we are told, Britain’s richest citizens have more than £20 trillion banked offshore at the moment.
That’s more than £20,000,000,000,000! Enough to pay off this country’s national debt 18,000 times over and still have plenty to spare. Enough to solve the problems of the world, forever. It is, in fact, more money than we can comfortably imagine.
It is doing nothing.
Faced with this knowledge, there can only be one logical question: Why?
Why rig the system so that ever-larger sums of money pour into these offshore accounts, if nothing is to be done with it? Where is the sense in that?
The only logical answer appears to relate to its effect on workers: Keeping the profits of their work away from the workforce means they are kept in misery and servitude to the ruling classes – the parasitical board members and shareholders.
There are knock-on effects. Taxpayers are hit twice – not only are they forced to grapple with ever-more-hostile pay offers, but their taxes pay for in-work benefits that subsidise corporate-imposed pay levels; they support people who have been forced into unemployment unnecessarily and the silly make-work schemes that are forced on those people by the Department for Work and Pensions, under threat of sanction.
It’s a protection racket. There should be a law against it. And this begs the next question: Why isn’t there a law against it? How can this corrupt system be dismantled and what should replace it?
That’s a very good question, because the other cosh being held over our collective heads is the possibility that firms will move abroad if new laws in this country threaten their massive profits. This is where an international agreement between nations or groups of nations would be very useful, if it was carried out in the right way – a Transatlantic, or Trans-pacific, Trade and Investment Partnership, perhaps.
And what do we see? Plans for such agreements have been put together and they do the exact opposite of what they should – tying the workers into ever-worsening conditions. This is why the TTIP, currently being pushed on the European Union, must be rejected – and why bosses will do anything to ensure it succeeds.
This is the situation. It seems clear that nothing will change it for the better until somebody has the courage to stand up to these manipulators (who were probably schoolyard bullies back in the day) and say enough is enough; change is coming – do what you will.
Tax evasion and avoidance is already a huge issue here in the UK; perhaps we need to make a criminal offence of manipulating the economy – with prison sentences for bosses who put their prices up purely to retain high profit margins when their salaries are already dozens of times higher than those of their workers.
But what else is needed? How can such a mechanism be brought in without scaring off business? Or should we let them go, and put something fairer in their place? Ban them from trading in the UK unless they conform to the new model?
These are ideas that need exploration – by many people, not just a few.
Vox Political needs your help! This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions. Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going. You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book, Strong Words and Hard Times in either print or eBook format here:
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
![The problem in a nutshell - and this cartoon was drawn in 1972! [Image: Alan Hardman]](https://i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/140512riggedeconomy.jpg)
