Apparently all local councils should now vote to make Ritchie rich

Requires that the Chief Executive of the Council notes ‘Procurement policy note 03/14: promoting tax compliance’ and adapts it for use as part of the procurement procedures of this Council excepting that the resulting policy shall apply to all companies bidding for contracts exceeding £xxx,000 in value, and to report back on this issue not later than Xx xxx 2015;
Requires that the Chief Executive of the Council notes the ‘Fair Tax Mark’ and consider the ways in which that certification process may be included in the changes to the tendering process noted in paragraph (a) above;
Requires that the Chief Executive of the Council prepare a policy proposal for declaring XYZ a Fair Tax Area and shall detail plans for achieving this objective in cooperation with the local business community and the Fair Tax Mark by no later than xx xxx 2015;

Yup, every dimwit councillor in the land should now insist that all companies pay Ritchie for the Fair Tax Mark.

Nowt like getting rich out of politics, is there?

I’d quite like lots of people to buy scandium too but I’ve not the gall* to insist that every parish council vote to force them to do so.

*Ritchie’s soon to go walkabout so we hear

27 thoughts on “Apparently all local councils should now vote to make Ritchie rich”

  1. So a non-UK company tendering for Council business would be barred as it previously has no UK direct tax affairs to report, explain, clarify, whatever the fuck Ritchie wants to call it. So there’s the lawyers at the ECJ being enriched at the taxpayer’s expense as well. And the self-employed chap who isn’t eligible for the Mark of Fair Tax and so gets excluded from the process and seeks JR, thereby enriching UK lawyers at the taxpayer’s expense.

    Or perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps the fair tax criteria won’t apply to entities other than UK companies. UK companies that would have won the contract but for needing to pass an additional hurdle their competitors didn’t, taking legal action against the Council and the by-then well bloody defunct Fair Tax Mark. Because Ritchie knows when to jump ship.

    No, never let a few legal niceties or a sense of fair play interfere with “Tax Justice”.

  2. I particularly like this bit:

    and shall detail plans for achieving this objective in cooperation with the local business community

    Exactly how much co-operation does Ritchie expect local businesses will provide? Is this merely Stalinist being rounded up or actual Maoist self-denunciation?

  3. So, every company tendering to a local authority should be run by a corrupt board of directors who steal shareholders’ money to pay tax that isn’t legally due.

    Well, it would ease said councillors’ consciences, I suppose…

  4. Fascinating comment on Microsoft

    “Interesting that you think Microsoft would fail. Unfortunately, they don’t”

    Leaving aside that I hadn’t realised there are mutlitple Microsofts, is Ritchie telling us that, fresh from the glowing cheap publicity he has provided to a private rail operator, his Fair Tax Mark criteria are so lax he has been forced to hand it over to Microsoft as well?

  5. @ Ironman

    I don’t suppose too many non-UK companies would want to work under this system.

    Herman Schnitz, CEO of Schnitz Systems:

    “Zo, ve haf to get ze experten on UK taxation as I vish to tender for zis computing softvare in Ammersmith?”

    “No, actually, the tax you have to pay is decided by a retired accountant from Wandsworth.”

    “Gott in Himmel he doz zis for every company in England?”

    “Oh, yes, in his mind, yes”

  6. Another classic exchange in the comments:

    “Why should my council tax payments find their way into your pocket, Mr Murphy? This is shameless. If your intent is to promote “fair tax” and not your own bank balance, make your resource material and the fair tax mark available for free.”

    Richard Murphy says:
    “And how would those who work on it get paid?”

  7. “And how would those who work on it get paid?”

    I once met a group of fellas in a small family-run restaurant in Naples who had much the same view of business.

  8. I am very eager to “do my bit” by giving all my money to Ritchie or, failing that, the Courageous State. Is there a form I can get at the post office? Please advise.

  9. Ironman>

    Ritchie responded to your first point:

    “It does not say they require

    “That would be impossible

    “But in the event of two equal bids it can be a tie breaker”

    So basically councils should demand people pay Ritchie, even though it’ll have no effect on anything.

  10. Hang on a second…

    Are there real companies genuinely signing up to this mark thingy?

    And no, I don’t mean Murphy Richard’s excellent interpretation, I understand that, I mean the (real) joke version?

    I know Richard (“possibly”, ha ha) might have thought he was being serious with this, but I never imagined real businesses (ie those actually trying to make money) being so gullible!?

    Is there a complete list anywhere of the companies that have fallen for this, that we can quietly laugh at?

  11. “Interesting that you think Microsoft would fail. Unfortunately, they don’t”

    So his Fair Tax Mark doesn’t live up to his own expectations, but everybody should use it anyway. Because reasons. (Presumably mostly to do with recouping the money spent setting the FTM nonsense up?)

    Sure, whatever.

  12. “Nice pkace you’ve got here. Would be a shame if some ‘campaigners’ were to show up and trash your premises in a non violent direct action protest against inequality. But that can all go away when you buy our “Fair Tax” protection scheme, for only £199.99 per month.”

  13. Is there a country we need to start a war against?

    Can we end Murphaloon as unpaid Ambassador?

    Rockall once Salmond declare UDI?

  14. If that comment on Murphy’s blog is really from ActionAid (thank you Mr Scoper), it is very revealing:

    “the purpose of the campaign is about demonstrating support for national action ahead of the election, through local councils”

    Looks like Brooks Newmark was right.

  15. Interesting comment there:

    “We see the usual concern that SME’s will be placed at a disadvantage. Well, good. If only big corporations can spare the time and money to conform to government policy around general regulations and beneficial social engineering, then it is big corporations that we want. The biggest cannot hide, and can be properly controlled by the people’s representatives.”

    Good to see the corporatism is now naked.

  16. “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — attributed to Benito Mussolini, but disputed AFAIK

  17. @ Richard

    Jack C looks like a plant – sorry Jack!

    Egregious or whover it was called it easily enough..

    Ritchie knows (surely!) but just can’t bring himself to moderate as Jack is just “so onside” (nearly!) and supportive..:)

    There is actually a lot of that going on over there, and not often that subtle. Perhaps RM just gratefully “banks” it knowing that his usual readership will probably take it quite literally!

    @ Noel Scoper

    Thanks – that’s a relief!

    I had somehow got the impression it was starting to be taken seriously.

  18. @ Jack C


    OK, when you go back over there, you’ll have to pretend this wasn’t you, or you’ll fall foul of rule 7.41 subsection 3.2 (a).

    In fact, thinking about it, you should be fine anyway as this probably isn’t you..:)

Leave a Reply

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