If the media consensus is to be believed the UK currently finds itself in middle of an election campaign that has been greeted with public apathy. Presumably, voters are bored for the same reason that shooting fish in a barrel never caught on as a spectator sport: rather than sportingly let her opponents get a head start in the renewed race for number ten, Theresa May called the election when she already had a considerable poll lead.
Unfortunately, bored journalists looking to make a story out of nothing have two sources of potential headlines close at hand: Tony Blair & George Osborne.
Blair's so-called return to politics is, of course, nothing of the sort. He has been a constant feature of the political landscape for the last year: he campaigned against both the Brexit side of referendum & Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour with all the determination of a man who has been on the wrong side of public opinion before and will be damned if he doesn't place himself on the wrong side of it again. Blair is not so much back as ever with us like the poor, and that era of foreign wars of which he was a principal architect.
Osborne, on the other hand, has been licking his wounds since last July. He is a man with a very particular claim to fame, having lead a campaign that failed to secure a Remain vote in the referendum despite having all three governing parties (&, for that matter, the SNP) on his side. As if that failure was not feather enough in his cap he is then reputed to have attempted to have May removed from her post at the Home Office as punishment for her failure to support his campaign more full-throatedly, laying the ground for a splendid reversal of fortunes of the sort more usually found in Game of Thrones.
Last September, it was reported that Osborne was attempting to cast himself as "the Tory opposition to Hard Brexit" and "revealed" that he was "considering a return to front line politics". All very "Tony Blair", who has been threatening something similar in an attempt to hold the media spotlight.
Now, however, Osborne has availed himself of a pulpit somewhat different from the anonymity of the back benches, as he has become the editor of the London Evening Standard, a paper that was described at one point as "a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party" but which has now recovered some measure of independence by trashing May's campaign (by no means unfairly) for its reliance on sloganeering above policy detail.
So here we have two senior politicians - both, in some measure, great successes & stupefying failures - who have decided to bring the force of their debatable insight to bear upon the leaders of their respective parties. Blair is trying to work up some enthusiasm for tactical voting & a progressive alliance; Osborne is sniping at the woman who sacked him, arguably in the hope that he can speed the Wheel of Fortune's inevitable turn towards the moment when he can inherit the party to which he is currently showing disputable loyalty.
Yet neither of these men wishes to serve. They airily speak of returning to politics, but not the politics of constituency surgeries, just the politics of enjoying an unelected vantage point for commentary. They are perfect representatives of the political class that played duck & cover when the EU referendum backfired: the class of which Boris and Cameron are also such perfect examples. They know all about cars just as long as they are kicking someone else's tyres.
And when it comes to unelected vantage points for commentary, the line forms behind Sordel.
Showing posts with label George Osborne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Osborne. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Friday, May 4, 2012
Cameron Behind
A report in The Huffington Post this morning suggests that Tory activists have been using tactical voting methods in the London mayoral elections in an effort to push Liberal Democrats candidate Brian Paddick into a humiliating fourth or fifth place.
Even The Huffington Post's own article suggests that the number of voters using this tactic may be very low, but it is sadly indicative of the times that it should even have been formulated.
Ever since the Tories romped back to power, they have behaving like someone who has stepped in something, desperately scraping the soles of their shoes in order to remove the Lib Dems. Indeed, for the first year of the coalition government both Labour and the Conservatives found common ground in their desire to return the Lib Dems to their former state of total unelectability.
That was all very well when the Conservatives were working towards the idea of a clean victory in 2015, but right now hopes of that seem to be draining away.
Moreover, events may yet conspire to strengthen the Lib Dems' hand. Remember Business Secretary Vince Cable, whose responsibilities to oversee News Corp's bid for BSkyB were removed from him and given to Jeremy Hunt? At the time Cable was made to look very stupid by a Daily Telegraph sting (which was later the subject of a successful complaint to the Press Complaints Commission). Now, however, he looks remarkably like the only British politician to shake hands with the Murdochs and retain his small change & pocket watch.
To a different extent the same can be said of Clegg himself. Having been variously depicted as hapless, clueless and ineffectual, he can scarcely be portrayed now as having anything more than a bystander role in the policies that have proved most unpopular for the coalition. While George Osborne was preparing his politically catastrophic budget, Clegg & Cable were pushing the idea of a "Mansion Tax".
As fig leaves go it may be small, but it beats going around stark bollock naked.
Of course, the recovery in Lib Dem fortunes has been predicted more often than the end of the world, the only difference between them being that at some point the world assuredly will end. Of less concern to the Conservatives than the rise of the Lib Dems, however, will be their own fall: something in which they are likely to prove the principal architect. Had they kept the Lib Dems relatively strong, they might have prevented Labour from jumping from third place into first in the Birmingham council elections last night.
In an ideal world the Lib Dems could act like a hedge fund for the Tories: an opportunity to invest both in ice creams and umbrellas. Right now - as Britain wrings out its prematurely knotted handkerchiefs beneath the pitilessly grey Spring skies - Cameron seems to have gone full-tilt into the ice cream business.
Even The Huffington Post's own article suggests that the number of voters using this tactic may be very low, but it is sadly indicative of the times that it should even have been formulated.
Ever since the Tories romped back to power, they have behaving like someone who has stepped in something, desperately scraping the soles of their shoes in order to remove the Lib Dems. Indeed, for the first year of the coalition government both Labour and the Conservatives found common ground in their desire to return the Lib Dems to their former state of total unelectability.
That was all very well when the Conservatives were working towards the idea of a clean victory in 2015, but right now hopes of that seem to be draining away.
Moreover, events may yet conspire to strengthen the Lib Dems' hand. Remember Business Secretary Vince Cable, whose responsibilities to oversee News Corp's bid for BSkyB were removed from him and given to Jeremy Hunt? At the time Cable was made to look very stupid by a Daily Telegraph sting (which was later the subject of a successful complaint to the Press Complaints Commission). Now, however, he looks remarkably like the only British politician to shake hands with the Murdochs and retain his small change & pocket watch.
To a different extent the same can be said of Clegg himself. Having been variously depicted as hapless, clueless and ineffectual, he can scarcely be portrayed now as having anything more than a bystander role in the policies that have proved most unpopular for the coalition. While George Osborne was preparing his politically catastrophic budget, Clegg & Cable were pushing the idea of a "Mansion Tax".
As fig leaves go it may be small, but it beats going around stark bollock naked.
Of course, the recovery in Lib Dem fortunes has been predicted more often than the end of the world, the only difference between them being that at some point the world assuredly will end. Of less concern to the Conservatives than the rise of the Lib Dems, however, will be their own fall: something in which they are likely to prove the principal architect. Had they kept the Lib Dems relatively strong, they might have prevented Labour from jumping from third place into first in the Birmingham council elections last night.
In an ideal world the Lib Dems could act like a hedge fund for the Tories: an opportunity to invest both in ice creams and umbrellas. Right now - as Britain wrings out its prematurely knotted handkerchiefs beneath the pitilessly grey Spring skies - Cameron seems to have gone full-tilt into the ice cream business.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Dining With The Tax-Collectors
One of the things that her Majesty's Government has recently been banging on about is what a terrible thing it is to avoid tax "aggressively".
(I'm not sure how much aggression goes into that, to be honest: most individuals with high net worth would delegate the job of cutting tax payments to their accountants, who are not typically of the attack-dog demeanour. Perhaps Mr. Osborne should be more worried about people avoiding tax ploddingly.)
Be that as it may, the cry of the Coalition has gone out that evading tax is morally wrong.
But are they right?
The usual citation from Revealed Theology on this one is Christ's admonition - when asked if the Jews should continue to pay tax to their Roman occupiers - to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The point of this story is that His political adversaries were trying to whip up some trouble and had set this question as a trap, which He nimbly sidestepped. The answer, then, was really a nice piece of verbal sleight-of-hand.
In any case, very few people today look to revelation for their moral attitudes (what with all the stoning and eye-putting-out 'n' all) so the more usual question is whether there is a rational reason for thinking that evading tax is ethically a bad thing.
If one considers tax to be a form of charity or wealth distribution (a way to fund healthcare and social security for those less fortunate than those with taxable income) then I suppose one can argue that taxation serves a socially benign purpose. There is no logical reason, however, why someone who dodges taxation may not contribute to charity at least as much money as they withhold through avoiding tax. Charity may have a definite moral character that paying tax does not, since it is voluntary.
Moreover, not all taxation has a socially beneficial function. There is theOffence Defence Budget for a start. And before you complain that were everyone to withhold tax revenue then we could not nationally benefit all citizens such as the military, police and fire services: the responsibility for funding these services has an equal benefit to all, yet all citizens capable of paying for them do not contribute equally. The redistributive function of taxation and the social contract element should not be confused.
People who avoid taxation tend to top-slice their payments: they still pay at least as much as is required for essential services and often tens of thousands of pounds more.
Tax avoidance is generally intended to mitigate disadvantageously high tax regimes, and the people best placed to use it are the ones who have such wealth that they can pretty much afford to switch tax regime at will. Try sheltering your assets when you have no assets to shelter. The ultimate sanction of those wishing to avoid tax is therefore to emigrate, at which point we lose not only income tax, but also the many other sources of taxation to which the rich, and the rest of us, are usually subject. Such as V.A.T. on purchases.
The wealthy live under no moral or ethical obligation to pay tax. The politicians and media who - with increasing frequency - treat as wrongdoers those who take practical steps to husband their resources are, on the other hand, venturing onto very perilous moral & practical grounds.
(I'm not sure how much aggression goes into that, to be honest: most individuals with high net worth would delegate the job of cutting tax payments to their accountants, who are not typically of the attack-dog demeanour. Perhaps Mr. Osborne should be more worried about people avoiding tax ploddingly.)
Be that as it may, the cry of the Coalition has gone out that evading tax is morally wrong.
But are they right?
The usual citation from Revealed Theology on this one is Christ's admonition - when asked if the Jews should continue to pay tax to their Roman occupiers - to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The point of this story is that His political adversaries were trying to whip up some trouble and had set this question as a trap, which He nimbly sidestepped. The answer, then, was really a nice piece of verbal sleight-of-hand.
In any case, very few people today look to revelation for their moral attitudes (what with all the stoning and eye-putting-out 'n' all) so the more usual question is whether there is a rational reason for thinking that evading tax is ethically a bad thing.
If one considers tax to be a form of charity or wealth distribution (a way to fund healthcare and social security for those less fortunate than those with taxable income) then I suppose one can argue that taxation serves a socially benign purpose. There is no logical reason, however, why someone who dodges taxation may not contribute to charity at least as much money as they withhold through avoiding tax. Charity may have a definite moral character that paying tax does not, since it is voluntary.
Moreover, not all taxation has a socially beneficial function. There is the
People who avoid taxation tend to top-slice their payments: they still pay at least as much as is required for essential services and often tens of thousands of pounds more.
Tax avoidance is generally intended to mitigate disadvantageously high tax regimes, and the people best placed to use it are the ones who have such wealth that they can pretty much afford to switch tax regime at will. Try sheltering your assets when you have no assets to shelter. The ultimate sanction of those wishing to avoid tax is therefore to emigrate, at which point we lose not only income tax, but also the many other sources of taxation to which the rich, and the rest of us, are usually subject. Such as V.A.T. on purchases.
The wealthy live under no moral or ethical obligation to pay tax. The politicians and media who - with increasing frequency - treat as wrongdoers those who take practical steps to husband their resources are, on the other hand, venturing onto very perilous moral & practical grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)