Latest news with #FinancialMail
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Criticism of the National Dialogue is necessary, but too heavily reliant on magic and myths
Opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative has continued to spread and swirl. It is, in one sense, a good thing; people are engaging with the initiative, and a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary. That applies as much to governments we put in place, as to the opposition. Setting aside the stock-phrase peddlers, the knee-jerk responses — and there is a serious problem with some of the responses — one of the standard responses has been that it is, or will be, a 'talk shop'. I have no major problem with that; it will be a talk shop, in the sense that we have to, actually, sit down and have a serious discussion about what has gone wrong in the country over the past two decades. Justice Malala's response in the Financial Mail was strange, yet somehow predictable. I only recently discovered that he had decamped to the US. I am of the belief that there is a reciprocal relationship between societies and individuals forged through culture socialisation and institutions. In this sense, I should situate Malala's response, but not here, not now… In fairness, Malala strikes the right notes, but then makes the fatal error of judging something that has not happened, not yet anyway. This might have to do with apparent predictive genius. Surely, we cannot say what has happened to something before it has, actually, happened. I shall remain happily confused and ignorant. The problems he identified are beyond dispute. The big thing, at least to me, is that he is correct about that thing I tried to spread when I was in the secretariat of the National Planning Commission over four years or so. It's quite simple, I told public servants in local, provincial and national government. You start by not confusing ambition with achievement. Holding a meeting or establishing an inter-ministerial committee is not an achievement. You have to start somewhere, though. This brings me to a second response (among several) to the National Dialogue. One of the responses that I found disingenuous, is the statement by the former president of the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chamber, Loyiso Dotwana, that 'we do not need to 'unpack' our social and economic problems, yet again. We know what they are. What we need is capable, competent, skilled and experienced people implementing solutions.' It has a nice ring to it, innit! There are two difficulties I have with this; one is ideological and the other is practical. Pragmatism as a ruse The ideological has to do with the terribly weak notion of pragmatism as somehow the abandonment of ideology. Pragmatism, such as it is, is actually very much an ideological position and sits most comfortably with liberalism and more especially with the endism of the early 1990s. That was when liberal capitalism was presented as triumphant, and the end-point of human (social) evolution. According to its proponents, this was part of the end of ideology, and that end-of-history nonsense. One of the better examples of 'pragmatism' presented as non-ideological is Singapore (much loved by people who believe that the prime desideratum of all human endeavour is to make money, build flashy skyscrapers, shopping centres and housing developments), where pragmatism essentially meant obeisance to liberal capitalist fundamentalism and authoritarian governance – and from the outset taming or co-opting organised labour… Singapore's sycophants would conveniently ignore the period of effective one party-rule (this is undergirded by the belief that ideas and ideologies are simply in the way of making money and 'making a living', which is, actually, precisely the ideological foundations of liberal capitalism, and its place among the transnational capitalist class). There has been a raft of scholarship on Singapore's transnational capitalist class affiliations which is most prominent in its relations with Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. That country gets high on 'macho-meritocracy' and 'value-neutral technocracy' and outright Chinese dominance, which has since its inception sidelined and overwhelmed the native people of the Malay island. In a terribly racist statement, Lee Kwan Yew has said that Singapore was not ready for a native person to be prime minister! (See 'Are We Ready to be Colour Blind?' The Straits Times, 17 November 2008.) This is an important part of the research and ethnographic work I have been doing in South East Asia over the past two to three years (and more than 10 visits since 1991). For what it's worth, none of my visits to Singapore were funded by the government, which has spent a fortune on junkets and 'educational' visits and tours, mainly, it should be said, so it may curry favour with other countries, and along the way deflect from the injustices at the base of the erasure of the Malay population, first by the British and continued by the Chinese settlers. Never mind the racism or Chinese supremacy; as long as there is money and glittering skyscrapers it's all good. Or, as one (Chinese) interviewee told me in March 2025: 'We don't mind corruption or [illiberalism] as long as there is development.' There's a lot more, from de facto one party rule from 1968 to 1981, the continued dominance of the People's Action Party, and how it has contributed to an 'insulated process of policymaking' and public caning as a form of judicial punishment. This is decried (rightfully) as barbaric when it is done in Muslim countries, but it is perfectly acceptable in Singapore because nothing should stand in the way of making money or building the next skyscraper — not even a Sikh holy place or shrine… The practical element and wilful blindness I should not spend too much time on the practicalities issue. Dotwana is correct in that we know what our problems are, and as he wrote 'what we need is capable, competent, skilled and experienced people implementing solutions'. So far so good. Except, capable people, competent people, skilled people and experienced people do not appear magically from the ether. Implementation does not happen magically either. The writer throws shade with the use of the term 'unpack' (I get that), but public policy-making and implementation do not occur mystically. When, for instance, there is talk about evidence-based policy-making, which comes with its own liberal and/or free market ideological baggage, someone has to actually read and discuss the evidence; the facts and the significance of such facts. Employing capable, competent, skilled and experienced people includes vetting processes, which do, unfortunately, take time. The best appointments aren't always the best people, as we know from cadre deployment — includes deployments by the Democratic Alliance! So, all things considered, questioning Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative is fair and necessary. But attempting to steal the moral high ground through tiresome slogans reproduced from liberal capitalist orthodoxy cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. It is more a sign of intellectual laziness and wilful blindness. I am nowhere near the centre of public policy-making, but I know the difficulties there are with making public policy (global and national) under choking conditionalities and resistance — especially the powers that are at play in the process. We can, of course, just avoid talking about the country's problems and wait for capable, competent, skilled and experienced people to show up (magically), and things to fall in place (magically). Ultimately, making the country more prosperous, more stable, with high levels of cohesion and trust among the population will not occur without direct intervention — not unlike the highly interventionist Chinese government of the Malay state of Singapore. DM
Daily Mail
07-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: John Lewis binned my carpet - but refuses to give me a refund
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. Mrs J.O. writes: In March 2022 we placed an order with John Lewis to supply and fit carpeting for two rooms, hall, stairs and landing, for which we paid £8,480. We agreed with John Lewis that because one room was not ready, it would do most of the job that year and store the rest of the carpet, which was all from the same batch, until a later date. Because of unforeseen problems we were not ready for the second fitting until earlier this year, but now John Lewis has told us it has 'disposed of' our carpet. Tony Hetherington replies: John Lewis gave you no warning that it was planning to dispose of your carpet, and when you complained you were told there would be no refund or payment. You have no idea whether your carpet was resold, given away or thrown out. The closest this retail giant came to an explanation was when one of its customer advisers blamed the long gap between your original purchase and fitting, and your request to finish the job. When you questioned this explanation, a more senior figure told you the cost of storage could have been significant. You offered to allow John Lewis to deduct that cost from any refund, but it became clear that even they had no idea how long your carpet had been held or when it was dumped. I asked John Lewis to comment on all this. In particular, I reminded it that its own terms and conditions said that if you had not made contact with the store within three months of a failed appointment to fit the carpet, then this would give John Lewis the right to cancel the deal and give you a refund after deducting any costs. But this would apply only after a failed appointment – so when was this failed appointment, I asked? If there was an agreement in 2022 to postpone the second fitting, when was an appointment made to go ahead with it? And even if there was a failed appointment, the terms and conditions say that John Lewis reserves the right to cancel the deal – which is not the same as saying that cancellation is automatic. If John Lewis felt entitled to cancel the deal, then when did it tell you this? John Lewis replied that as you had not booked a second fitting of the carpet, it regarded this as technically a failed appointment! But it also admitted that it had never contacted you. It then promised what it described as a 'goodwill payment'. You agreed that the lost carpet and the fitting costs, which you had paid in advance, were together worth £1,824. John Lewis offered to refund half of this, telling you that the long delay in making a second fitting appointment was unreasonable. 'We consider a timeframe of over three months as justifiable for disposing of any goods,' it said. You rightly rejected the offer. John Lewis had not even stuck to its own terms and conditions, but was holding you responsible for half the financial consequences. I am pleased to say you have now accepted £1,448, which allows John Lewis to keep the balance of more than £300 to cover its storage costs. John Lewis told me: 'We take pride in our customer service and have countless happy customers, so we are really sorry to hear of Mr & Mrs O's case.' But they had heard of this from you, before you contacted me, so it is a shame that it took an intervention from The Mail on Sunday to remind it what customer service should look like. Big claims… big debts A will-writing firm run by an unauthorised financial adviser has been forced to take down false claims on its website. Elite Wills & Estate Planning, in Worthing, West Sussex, offered funeral plans but did not have Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) approval, and also claimed to be a member of the Master Guild of Will Writers and follow its strict code of practice. In fact, the organisation had ceased to exist some time ago and never had regulatory powers. Elite's boss Ian Hill blamed his website operator for failing to delete both claims. In February I reported how Elite's sister company Thurlow Wealth Ltd – also run by Ian Hill – had failed to repay an elderly investor £25,000 that was due in 2023, and its accounts showed it owes around £1.6 million. But according to Hill, his investors are high net worth individuals who can afford the losses, so he does not need FCA authorisation to offer them high-risk schemes. He also claims his investors' money has been passed on to market traders who are backed by one of the world's biggest insurance companies. The arrangement is secret, he says. The investor's family have now reported this to the police.
Daily Mail
10-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: I inherited a £117 BT debt which ruined my credit score
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. R.B. writes: According to my credit agency report, I owe BT £117. It says I defaulted on this in 2019 and every month since then, which is having a bad impact on my credit rating. However, this has nothing to do with me. I have called BT about this many times and it agrees, but it does not seem able to remove the default as it does not exist. Tony Hetherington replies: The frustration you have experienced in trying to sort this out was clear from everything you told me. You contacted all the leading credit agencies, but the only response you received was that if there was no such debt, then it was up to BT to delete it. And BT told you it could trace no such debt. You are not even a BT customer, but you offered to pay the £117 just so the debt would disappear. BT refused your money because it could find no bill to set the payment against. I gave BT your current and previous addresses, including an address from years ago when you lived with your parents – and this turned out to be the key. Unknown to you, your mother was a BT customer, and when she died more than seven years ago, the BT account was put into your name. There is no record now of why this was done, or why the account was not closed by BT. Just as importantly, there is no explanation of why BT could not trace any record of the debt when you complained about it, nor why you were never pursued to pay it. BT told me: 'We have reviewed and located the account in question. Our records show an account set up in Mrs B's name in March 2018, which was moved to Mr B in 2018 after she passed away.' BT has cancelled the £117 bill, so it should disappear from your credit file. It offered you £25 by way of saying sorry. This was a silly amount, given that BT failed for years to take your complaints seriously. After having second thoughts, it has upped its offer to £225, which you have accepted. Is this bond offer too good to be true? R.A. writes: I am sending you a copy of an offer to invest in a Lloyds Bank bond yielding fixed interest of 6.50 per cent. Is this too good to be true? Tony Hetherington replies: This is a scam, but Lloyds Bank is not to blame. The offer you received says it came from Worldwide Capital 4U Ltd. Except that it didn't – that's just another part of the scam. The bonds the crooks claim to be selling were actually issued by Lloyds Bank 15 years ago. They are not aimed at ordinary savers. In a nutshell, this is an investment for professionals. Why would Worldwide Capital 4U be working hard to sell these bonds to the public? They do not plan to deliver the bonds. They will take your money and run. The information they sent you is just window dressing. The crooks claim to be authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, with FCA registration number 975509. And, sure enough, the registration exists and it does belong to this company. But the real Worldwide Capital 4U Ltd is an ordinary business based in Solihull in the West Midlands. It does not even have a website. The crooks, though, have a big, flashy website at where they boast about their upmarket offices. Surprising, then, that their website was set up as recently as February this year, with fees paid for just one year. The site is registered to an address in Burlington, Massachusetts, in the US, rather than the address the tricksters use at One Mayfair Place in London, where anyone can have their mail delivered for £133 a month without really being there. I asked John Nolan, who runs the real Worldwide Capital 4U, whether he had a posh office in London and an all-singing, all-dancing website. 'No, we are not in London and we don't have a website,' he told me. 'I think I had better report this to the FCA. This is nothing to do with us,' he added. Let's see whether the FCA investigates or simply adds the scam to its list of dodgy dealers. Meanwhile, nobody should give a penny to the online crooks.
