By Tim Cheetham / @CllrTim
In amongst other things over the last few weeks was the news that Sir Michael Caine would be breaking his lifelong Labour voting habit and 'giving the other bloke a go' at the next election. His main reason, and he did say he hadn't a clue what the other bloke would do (join the club), was a bit of grumble about tax and spend.
In common with a few quite wealthy folk, he decided that he didn't want to pay any more tax and it wasn't being spent properly anyway. He might leave the country in fact. There was a lot of waste in the spending said he. Not a lot of people know this, he said, living up to his own stereotype, but we now pay out more in benefits than we bring in in income tax! Scandalous!
Is it? It could be argued that it's brilliantly efficient and indicates hardly any waste in our redistributive welfare system. I won't argue that though. We know what he means, some people claim things they shouldn't. Which is true. I'm not sure we would reduce the benefits if they didn't. We might just be able to better care for those who really need it if greedy, lazy, self interested people claiming things they don't need would just pack it in.
It's not the majority of people though. We need to remember that. The Tories won't. They will punish all benefit claimers to get at the guilty. They will cut benefits across the board. They will say it is to starve the bogus claimers into submission but it will hurt the genuinely jobless, the sick, the needy and the vulnerable even more so.
I'm all for stopping the bogus claimants. Benefit fraud costs to the UK Treasury are estimated at between £800 million a year (House of Commons, public accounts committee) and £3 billion (The Conservative party/Daily Telegraph). Sir Michael, like many people, focuses on this as the greatest example of Government waste. It's looks pretty paltry compared to tax avoidance by the wealthy whingers though. Tax avoidance costs the UK around £25 billion per year (Tax Research UK, [actual quote is 'not less than £25 billion']) and for the year 2006-7 tax investigators caught enough reluctant payers to force another £9.17 billion to be paid (HM Customs and Revenue). And you have to think this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Now, as a lifelong leftie, I'm sure Sir Mike has always paid his taxes in full and never tried to dodge any by hiding them overseas, etc. But a lot of his mates, and the people he works with and for, have. Rather than have a pop at the people living on the estates you drive through and occasionally film in, Sir Michael, why not have a bash at them, rather than threaten to do the same because someone is claiming £60 a week jobseeker's allowance and shouldn't be? When was the last time you ate a free lunch that cost less than that?
He also complained about tax rates, using the popular 'soak the rich' propaganda of the Tories and their media business partners. The truth, again, is that the richest 20% of the populous pays 34.9p in total tax for every pound they earn. The poorest 20% pay 38.7 pence in the pound. That's over 10% more. (The effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes 2007-8, published by the Office of National Statistics). Si Michae, you aren't being soaked, and upping your contribution would only bring you in line with the poor.
The fact is, if we want to reduce our financial burden the message should not be 'soak the rich' but, in the words of one of my heroes Dennis Skinner, on another Queen's speech day, 'Pay your taxes!' It would be enough.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
And having created chaos & destruction in the Bush administration many of these people went back to the AEI, mostly as 'scholars' (I'm trying not to gag).
I think AEI & the New American Project are pretty much the same cast of characters, many of them refugees from the Bush Administration.
Both organisations do indeed share the same address and 'zip code' : 1150 17th Street NW, Washington 20036. Hmmm ....
Isn't the net wonderful ....?
It didn't take a lot of digging out ; the letter was in the public domain soon after it was sent.
Can you discover conclusive evidence of a link between AEI and the Project for a New American Century?
I seem to remember that IDS was reported to have met the 'movers and shakers' some time back (2004?) on a visit to Washington.
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
I have to say, to its credit, this letter is still published on the 'New American Century' website.
"BTW, Conservatives' support for the Iraq war was based on concocted evidence presented by the messiah Tony Blair?"
Not really. If you check Hansard (big job, I know, but I did it at the time) for the period before the release of the September, 2002 dossier, I think you will find that the Conservative front bench was continually asking what the government was going to do about Saddam Hussein (they didn't actually advocate military action, but the air was thick with the suggestion), and there was no doubt that the Conservatives 'knew' (pre-dossier) that Saddam Hussein was a threat to Middle East - and, potentially and 'logically' - world security.
Indeed, I remember one question (Duncan Smith, if I remember correctly) that 'German intelligence' had revealed the 'distinct possibility that Mr Hussein was acquiring capability towards nuclear weaponry' and 'what was the government going to do, in the light of this revelation?' In other words, a leading Conservative was putting logs on the fire, without taking any responsibility as to how the fire would afterwards burn.
Michael Ancram (Shadow Foreign Secretary at the time, I think) was equally adept in using weasel words regarding Saddam Hussein.
The Conservative record pre-September, 2002 was all about politics and embarrassment of the government. To try to absolve the Conservatives because they were 'misled' does not accord with the reality of the time.
Hague, Osborne, Fox & Co still have strong links with the US neo-cons. For example, Osborne & Fox attended the 2008 'World Forum' of AEI in Colorado. AEI (the so called American Enterprise Institute) is widely regarded as being the driving force behind the Iraq War.
When Sam talked about "overwhelming opposition", he was talking about the citizens of this country. He made no comment about individual party support . You may want to re-read what he wrote. BTW, Conservatives' support for the Iraq war was based on concocted evidence presented by the messiah Tony Blair? So any blame for the war goes directly to Tony Blair. The man should be on trial for war crimes. Instead Gordon Brown nominates him for the post of EU President.
Because those earning a quarter of what you earn have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on the basic necessities of life and so have less ability to pay tax.
Got any kids? Wait until they get their first job and then try and tell them that they should be paying higher rate tax to make it "fair" on you.
To create more public-sector payroll Labour voters, of course.
Tony: Peter: Johnny Prescott; Lord Levy; Expenses beneficiaries; MEPs; quangocats; BBC unmarried Mothers; abject bankers paid for by the taxpayer - these are the very people who are New Labour and the Projecteers!
It's illogical.
If my chosen labour/craft/profession results in me earning 4 times x than someone else, why should the Govt take a bigger share of my earnings?
It is hardly "fair" that an engineer, accountant, lawyer, doctor, who has studied for years for a qualification, or an entrepreneur who has taken huge risks etc should be relieved of more of his earnings than a shop assistant, or a unskilled worker?
I'm not particularly "rich". But I have aspirations to better myself, provide for my family and not be a burden on the state.
Which is why millions of people like Guy M and myself have had enough of the leeching client state that New Labour has generated.
I do have an example of what is not "fair". And that is an avowed Left Wing politician who believed he was guided by God to declare war on a country using false facts based on a false premise and in the face of overwhelming opposition from his country and who has since set out to accumulate a fortune based on exploiting the tragedy he helped to create.
I dont rate our leadership that highly , That is the circle the leadership cant square , they have spun so much they dont know what way they are faceing .
ricki
I think the man is a legend and believe that he has never forgotten where he comes from, a true Sir of our great Country.
I think it is more a case of they think we are all as stupid as they actually are.
Sorry to hear( hope they are as robust as Mr Mckinly) (one of my favourite MPS) , Mr Brown hasnt helped with the latest spin today , The leadership really do think we are stupid .
ricki
Hi ricki, I did not make the Thurrock selection and they went for their local candidate, which is fair enough.
So I guess I'll here with you and Nasty Nick in Barking and Dagenham.
That has always been and will always be my priority policy area above all other things.
Labour will always tax me more hence I will never vote for Labour.
In the article the writer says/types " His main reason, and he did say he hadn't a clue what the other bloke would do (join the club), was a bit of grumble about tax and spend." , So if Mr Cameron has no policys ,why are we being told it will be the end of the world if Mr Cameron gets the keys to number ten ? Has someone got a leaked copy of the manifesto?
ricki
Thanks Sir Michael Caine!
That depends on if you view the article as the entirety of his thought process. I am sure there is more to it. My point is that we must respect all parts of the electorate even if they vote BNP. How can you win them back if you dont respect them.
The people who are fair game are politicos driving an agenda; I include myself in that statement.
I will always be a fan, whichever way he votes. I think he is wrong on this though.
You are clearly not reading without prejudice yourself. There will always be a case for those on low incomes criticising benefit cheats and likewise the wealthy attacking the wealthy for not fulfilling their obligations to society. If he can attack my (and his own previous) working class community I would be entitled to attack his current more affluent social group. Which I do, not him personally.
Read more carefully.
Im dyed in the wool labour, my mum was a labour councilor and i grew up atending labour meetings and socials in the back room of our local pub. However this nasty politics is killing the party and my desire to support labour. I will be voting lib-dem 'till my party sorts its self out or untill a new decent centre left party emerges.
You might argue that.
The electorate disagrees with you - hugely - as you will find out in 2010.