Freeports should be cancelled now
Because if it ever got out that business thrives under less regulation than we currently have then people might think about having less regulation more generally.
And we can’t have that now, can we?
Freeports should be cancelled now
Because if it ever got out that business thrives under less regulation than we currently have then people might think about having less regulation more generally.
And we can’t have that now, can we?
Ah Labour. Apparently Alli-pally doesn’t dilly-dally on the tax haven front.
Q: I say, I say, I say, how much tax mitigation is required to buy a suit of clothes?
A: Depends how many free-loaders you’re buying for.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/lord-alli-labour-failed-declare-interests-tax-haven-keir-starmer-donor-clothes/
Don’t forget his ‘Alternative PM’s Speech’ which is already being compared to the Sermon on the Mount or the Gettysburg Address by his followers: Here is Part 1:
It is my belief that our mission might be summarised in five words. They are:
• survival,
• sustainability,
• sufficiency,
• support, and
• success.
Let me explain these because a great deal is packed within those five words.
Survival
When I talk about survival, I am, of course, in part talking about climate change. We all know we must manage global warming or the future of our children is in doubt. In that case, let me be clear that we have to put this issue at the heart of all that we do. We will, as a result:
• Provide people with the training they need so that we can survive climate change.
• Invest in all the resources required to achieve this goal as a society.
• Put this issue at the heart of our foreign policy.
• Refuse to compromise on this issue.
And let me also be clear: what this means is that all the financial resources to achieve this goal will be provided when our survival is at stake.
Those who say we cannot afford to do this are suggesting we surrender our future. I will not do that.
There is, however, more to survival than climate change. Survival is a personal issue for every one of us. In particular, my government believes that each of us has a right to survive as the person that we are. That belief is at the very core of our commitment to human rights.
No one should be told they must be someone other than the person that they think they are.
No one should be allowed to deny the freedom of another to be who they really are.
Each and every one of us has the duty to respect the other as they are.
Abuse must never be tolerated.
We must all have a right to survive.
My government believes in people. That is why we will work for each of you.
We’re committed to doing so when we see so many in politics who do not share this point of view. My government will always support your right to be so long as you do not abuse the rights of others. That is my promise.
There is something else that also deserves mention when it comes to survival. And that is our democracy, which is in peril.
Not just in this country but across Europe and beyond, the far right is threatening our right to choose the governments that we want. So, my government will put the survival of democracy at the heart of our work.
An unelected House of Lords is incompatible with that. We must reform our upper house.
Likewise, democracy cannot survive with a first-past-the-post electoral system when so many parties are now winning support in this country. So that, too, must be reformed.
So, too, must our media be properly regulated. It provides too much power to too few and undermines our democracy as a result.
In contrast, those with limited power have seen what little they have eroded, and most especially when it comes to the right to strike and protest. These, too, are issues that we will address.
Nor can we ignore the fact that this is a United Kingdom, but it must be by choice. I might believe in the Union, but I know that there are those who don’t. So, we need to create a dialogue about what we can share and, if we can’t, about what we will still have in common. It’s my intention that this Union should survive, but only voluntarily. Let the conversation begin.
And here is Part 2 – on ‘Sustainability’:
Sustainability
Let me then turn to the issue of sustainability. Most people think that this refers to climate change, but I’ve already discussed that under the heading of survival, which is where I think it really belongs.
Instead, I think that sustainability refers to the maintenance of some of the fundamental underpinnings of our well-being. In particular, let me mention three of these. They are the need to meet our requirements for clean air, for clean water, and for good food that really meets our nutritional requirements whilst causing us no harm.
We all know that the UK’s water system is in crisis. Privatisation had attached to it the promise of investment to ensure that we would have sustainable clean water supplies and rivers and beaches free of pollution into the future.
As we all now know, that promise has failed.
And given that we cannot survive without clean water, that failure threatens the stability of our society.
This is why my government will do three things with regard to water.
Firstly, we will demand comprehensive plans from every water supplier in the UK, including those in the devolved nations, to show that they can deliver clean water, rivers and beaches, free from pollution and an effective net zero strategy and all within a decade.
Secondly, we will demand that they show how they can raise the private sector funding from capital markets to deliver this program without imposing unacceptable price changes on consumers, and we will decide what acceptability is.
Thirdly, if they cannot achieve these first two goals, then we will consider that they have failed to deliver on their license to operate. That will mean that we will have no choice but to bring them back into state control to ensure that life in this country can be sustainably continued.
Doing so, we will ignore the arguments of expensive lawyers demanding compensation for those who have invested in these companies. Their compensation will be that my government will have to find the funding that these companies will no longer have to deliver. We will relieve them of that burden because without clean water this country cannot grow and has no future.
I would have thought the discussion of clean air should have been as high on our agenda by now as clean water is at present. Most especially when we all learned during the course of the Covid crisis what the dangers of ill health from polluted air might be.
Unfortunately, the last government and those officials who served it tried to pretend that the failures that gave rise to that crisis had nothing to do with issues around air quality when, as a matter of fact, they did. If Covid is to be beaten, and it has not been as yet, then we most definitely need to deliver clean air in this country.
But beating Covid is not our only goal. There are also big gains to be had from clean air in the workplace, in schools and universities, in healthcare, and in larger public spaces. The costs resulting from our failure to deliver high-quality clean air to people are enormous. Let me use education as an example.
Research has shown that students in classrooms where the air is kept clean and carbon dioxide levels are kept low learn much faster than children in what we might call normal classrooms. That is largely because they can concentrate much better on what is being taught. They’re also better behaved, leading to significantly lower levels of disruption in the classroom, and absence because of sickness is much lower. Overall productivity is, therefore, much higher, and teacher stress is reduced. The gain in terms of educational attainment is significant. It has been suggested to be the equivalent of an extra half a day in school each week.
There can be no doubt that this gain would also be found in the workplace if it were to enjoy clean air. If we want to increase productivity in our society. Then clean air is the way to provide it.
That is why my government will begin a major programme of investment to deliver this goal, starting with schools and hospitals, but extending in due course so that eventually all workplaces and larger public buildings will be involved as well. We will be a healthier, richer, more productive economy as a result. And we will also all be happier as a consequence.
Finally, under this theme, let me address the question of sustainable food.
We all know that something has gone horribly wrong with our food. The epidemics of obesity and diabetes, and of hypertension in all its forms, plus the associated diseases of despair that they can give rise to, including depression, cannot have happened by chance. To pretend that they could have done would be absurd. If our physical characteristics have changed in ways that have resulted in the literal spread of dis-ease, to use that word in its proper form, then something must have happened. And I am persuaded that this threat to the sustainability of our society is the consequence of the growth in consumption of ultra-processed foods.
In simple terms, we all know that we can identify these foods. It contains ingredients that none of us could ever imagine having in our kitchens, and it also usually includes sugar at levels that few of us would ever consciously contemplate consuming.
The cost of this industrially manufactured food is threefold.
Firstly, there is the cost in terms of the well-being of those who suffer from those complaints that are ultimately created by what we have to eat.
Secondly, there is the direct cost of treating the specific consequences of the resulting diseases in the NHS.
Third, there is the massive cost to the NHS of treating people for the chronic issues arising from consumption of this food. That treatment means that many people of my age will be dependent upon multiple drugs that they must take every day to supposedly counter the side effects. of this manufactured diet.
There is, of course, a direct cost to these drugs, but there are also a number of significant indirect costs like the hospital admissions amongst those of retirement age and above resulting from conflicts between these various drugs, which few, if any, GPs can ever hope to manage, however diligent they are, because of the complexities involved. We should also not ignore the enormous amount of time that they expend trying to do so or the cost of the NHS of treating the consequent failures.
In this country we have an impressive track record of beating the threats to our health arising from products made available for sale, whether they be alcohol, or the consequences of excessive salt, or of poor sanitation, or the pollution that once came from coal burning. The campaign against tobacco-induced ill-health is the most obvious recent example. My government is going to learn the lessons from all those campaigns to improve public health and apply them to the problems now being created by the foods sold in this country, which must be transformed to deliver much healthier, more nutritious, and sustaining products if we are to have any chance of beating the health crisis that we now face which is threatening the well-being and sustainability of the NHS.
Saying all this, I can hear the reactions already. There will be those who will tell me that many in this country will not be able to afford the diets and foods that will be required if I am to succeed in my goals. It will be said that they already have insufficient means to live adequately, and I entirely agree, which is why my next theme is sufficiency
And – number 3 – Sufficiency:
Sufficiency
Sufficiency quite explicitly means that I think that it is the role of my government to ensure that everyone in this country has sufficient means to live a life that lets them achieve their purpose in a home that suits their needs, with work that reflects their aptitudes, and which lets them fully integrate into the society of which they are a part without having to live in perpetual fear that they will not be able to afford to do so come the end of each month.
Freedom from fear was one of the recognised objectives of governments after World War II. Somehow or other, we seem to have forgotten that. I have not.
We live in an enormously rich country, in which wealth is incredibly unevenly divided, as are the rewards of hard work, whoever undertakes it, and where and whatever is being done.
I would never countenance a tax system where those with wealth are denied the opportunity to enjoy it. Nor would I deny those who have worked hard for their success the right to the fair rewards of their endeavours. But let us not deny for a moment that there are millions in this country who work every hour that they are given and who still barely make enough to cover their needs and those of their families.
Similarly, it is undeniable that the single biggest factor that determines how wealthy we are is the wealth of our parents and the opportunity that their wealth provided to us to access better education and the opportunity to buy our own homes earlier than others, even if those others ever get a chance at all.
So, without in any way saying that I am seeking equality of outcomes in this country, I am saying that my government will reduce inequality within it.
But I stress that we will not be only using taxation to achieve this result. Something that transformed post-war Britain was the access that millions had for the first time to modern homes with security of tenure in which they knew they could bring up their children and provide for their family’s future. The social housing revolution started by Clement Attlee’s government is something that my government seeks to emulate.
The 40-year-long experiment with private provision of rented accommodation has failed in this country.
It is time for us to bring some of the housing stock that has been in that sector back into public control so that people have the security that they need to live well.
We also need to build new social housing to ensure that no one lives in fear of an unforced eviction through no fault of their own.
There is another social experiment, now more than 40 years old, that has also failed the homeowners of this country on more than one occasion. The use of interest rates to control inflation is something proposed by economists but which has little proven evidence of delivery in practice. That is because almost all inflation in living memory has been caused by events that have occurred outside the control of the UK and which are, therefore, entirely unaffected by interest changes in this country.
However, domestic interest rate policy did give rise to in this country did give rise to the negative-equity crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s and, more recently, to the massive stress caused to so many families because of the unanticipated increase in interest rates by the Bank of England from 2021 onwards, which some economists suggest might have done nothing to bring down inflation when inflation has fallen back around the world and well before interest rates could ever have had an impact on them.
As a result, my government will end the independence of the Bank of England because interest rate policy cannot be used in the future as a blunt instrument to address a problem which, at best, it has a very loose relationship with. Instead, interest rates will now be set in the interests of everyone in the economy, with an increasing emphasis on variable tax rates to control inflation, if required, with these necessarily related decisions being under the common control of the Treasury, where they should always have been.
The Bank of England will be left with the important task of regulating our financial system. But its undemocratic control of economic policies in this country must come to an end.
Saying this, I must add that our policy will always be to use interest rate increases as a last resort.
The other issues that have created massive differences of financial well-being are related to tax.
One has been the 60-year exemption from capital gains tax of a person’s main residence. This exemption was well motivated, but in reality, it has backfired by over-inflating house prices. Those prices must now be brought under control, and one way to do that is to bring more houses into the market for ownership rather than to be passed from generation to generation, as is now becoming more commonplace because of our very low tax rates on capital in this country.
We will, therefore, over time, introduce a progressive capital gains tax charge on the last disposal by a person of their main residence that they have lived in during their lifetime or on leaving this country, taking into consideration their right to transfer the property in question to their surviving spouse or civil partner before the final charge arises. These homes would then be exempt from an inheritance tax charge, but overall, charges to tax will increase. Vitally, provision will be made for those who have not kept records to create accurate tax assessments in this way. Fairness will be guaranteed. But the concentration of ownership of our housing stock will reduce, and that is our goal. We want as many people as possible to have the opportunity to own their own home.
The other tax issue that cannot be avoided is that our taxation system has massively subsidised wealth whilst failing to appropriately tax the gains and incomes arising from it.
We spend £70bn a year subsidising pension contributions in the UK, and the return to many pension investors looks poor despite that fact. We will consider why this is the case but signal in advance that it will be our intention to remove higher rate pension tax relief from all those who enjoy them because there can be no justification for subsidising the pension savings of the wealthiest at higher levels than are available to those with lower levels of income.
Similarly, we see no reason why the tax rate on capital gains should be lower than the rate charged on income derived from work.
And we also see no reason why the tax rate on income from investment sources should be lower than that charged on work, meaning that we will, in due course, introduce the equivalent of a national insurance charge on investment incomes above a generous initial allowance.
I know that these changes will be unpopular with the media, but the media in question does not have a bias to the poor and those who have insufficient to live on, and I have.
That said, as those who truly understand the tax system know, the payment of taxes to the government does not fund its expenditure. Instead, it recovers the money that the government spends into the economy. It has to be that way round, or the money to pay taxes would not exist in the first place. I am not, therefore, proposing that these tax changes should radically change the level of government spending in the economy. I am proposing instead to redistribute the way in which tax is recovered from the economy so that those who have the greatest ability to pay make sufficient payment to reflect that fact, whilst those who have insufficient to meet their needs are provided with the support that they require so that they can live without fear, just as those with wealth can.
This will not only improve their physical well-being, but it will also address many of the diseases of despair that afflict too many in this country. And as a consequence, this change will also considerably reduce the burden on the NHS. In summary, we will tackle inequality because there is an urgent imperative to do so.
When they were first announced, and the opportunity to meet with the government was offered to those who objected to them was made available I was one of just two people from civil society who took part in these meetings, the other being from Transparency International, as I recall.
I have always thought them to be both a massive folly, and a deeply misguided and even dangerous attempt to recreate offshore tax environments within the UK.
Apparently anyone who opposes the growth of the state and limitless taxation puts themselves outside the ranks of ‘civil society’ – what an abolute piece of crap this guy is and I am sorry editor, I don’t care how ‘febrile’ an atmosphere there is thanks to this appalling administration – the UK would be significantly better off if he were retired or removed from public life, whether voluntarily or by a mob wielding lengths of rope. He is an avaricious, megalomaniac piece of garbage who wants to micromanage every aspect of your life.
The 40-year-long experiment with private provision of rented accommodation
yer wot? So, the 1950s when my great-grandmother was renting was 40 years agp? And the 1920s when my great-great-grandmother was 40 years ago? And the 1900s when my great-great-grandmother was also 40 years ago? Has Lord Spudcup got “Reeves Disease”, where subtraction is incomprehensible.
Following the same handbook as Tony Blair and his “all right-thinking people must agree that…”
aka
“If you disagree with me you are wrong-thinking & mentally ill and hence should be locked up and/or lobotomised as per the USSR”
aka
“you are only allowed a vote if it’s the way I’ve told you”
It didn’t take long for the inner totalitarian to show up, did it?
It is my belief that our mission might be summarised in five words. They are:
• survival,
• sustainability,
• sufficiency,
• support, and
• success.
Let me explain these.
No, let me explain these. They are nouns beginning with the letters ‘su’ and designed to fool The People i.e. suckers. Sufferin’ succotash!
Pass the fvckin’ sick bag…
Ivan Horrocks says:
September 26 2024 at 10:45 am
Bravo Richard!
Thanks for taking time to demonstrate that it’s possible to give a forward thinking, progressive, and – some would say – radical – speech that would actually have people applauding because it deserves it, and not because they know they must to show loyalty to their leader.
jgh: It’s the 100-year experiment with state provision of rented accomodation that needs to be looked at. It was the Rent Acts of the 1920s killing the rental business that really put a rocket up the arse of council housing.
I bet he enjoyed writing “MY government” as if he’s the king. No doubt he’s practicing this speech in front of a mirror in a tight uniform and funny hat.
dearieme: Guido is having fun today with TTK’s use of Alli’s pad multiple times without declaring it. I wonder if he has a key & can come and go as he pleases?
“ No doubt he’s practicing this speech in front of a mirror in a tight uniform and funny hat.”
A real life Malvolio.
remove higher rate pension tax relief from all those who enjoy them because there can be no justification for subsidising the pension savings of the wealthiest at higher levels than are available to those with lower levels of income.
Yes, everyone earning over £50,270 are all living the high life. Plumbers, electricians, train drivers are all the hated bourgeoisie.
TBF anyone earning more than Spud (most people) must be taxed until the pips squeak.
BF:
Thanks for taking time to demonstrate that it’s possible to give a forward thinking, progressive, and – some would say – radical – speech that would actually have people applauding because it deserves it, and not because they know they must to show loyalty to their leader.
Horrocks, a Mass murder advocate of decades’ experience certainly knows something about ‘loyalty to the leader’ – if the applause for his preferred Leader , a certain native of Georgia, was of insufficient length whomever was identified as bringing that applause to an end could expect a swift trip to the Gulag, with this true exemplar of evil’s enthusiastic endorsement.
@TG: a naughty person has speculated that the point of having the boy swot there was to let private tutors have access to the boy without the press witnessing them. Just conjecture, of course. But remember that Blair, piss be upon him, had his children tutored by Masters from Westminster School.
“remove higher rate pension tax relief from all those who enjoy them because there can be no justification for subsidising the pension savings of the wealthiest at higher levels than are available to those with lower levels of income.”
What’s particularly annoying about this is that the current rules ALREADY restrict tax relief for ‘the wealthiest’. Once your income goes above £260k, the amount you can put in your pension and get tax relief on (‘standard’ maximum is £60k p.a. ) is reduced. By the time you earn £360k the maximum is reduced to £10k p.a.
It isn’t ‘the wealthiest who would suffer, it’s the rising aspirational. The successful people he hates because he thinks he should have had that success and never did.
Sweet Jebus. What a pile of naked totalitarian horseshit.
VP, hats off for engaging with that. I stopped reading when his crap about the water companies failed to recognise that the publicly-owned services in the two Celtlands are at least as bad as the English water companies.
It isn’t ‘the wealthiest who would suffer, it’s the rising aspirational. The successful people he hates because he thinks he should have had that success and never did.
This.
I think A.J.P Taylor speculated that it would have been good if Hitler had been confined to the German equivalent of Chatham House, content to merely theorize. The frightening thing about Murphy is that he actually feels he could implement these ideas.
‘Murky Dick’ makes the usual errors and egotistical, self-serving policy suggestions. Someone (V-P?) thinks Spud reads this blog, presumably with some sort of reverse-psycho attraction to his detractors – if so, I hope he is beginning to understand his limitations and rather limited mental faculties. A 1984 type of reconditioning might not be enough to correct all his ‘wrong-think’.
Guido is having fun today with TTK’s use of Alli’s pad multiple times without declaring it. I wonder if he has a key & can come and go as he pleases?
JRM hinted at it on GB News, Thur: One or both come together
Starmer, courtesy of CINO Cameron, has the Starmer Pension Act (2013?) – exempts him from all pension ceilings, taxes etc