You are here: Home » Comment »

PMQs verdict: The balance of power has shifted

May 16, 2012 1:11 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Something has happened in the last few weeks. Perhaps it’s the return to recession, the revelations that drip out of the Leveson enquiry or the drubbing of the government parties in the local elections. Whatever it is, it has shifted the balance of power at PMQs.

Even just a few weeks ago, when Miliband’s performances at the dispatch box were improving markedly week on week, there was always a fear that Cameron could go up a gear and speed past his opponent. If he could keep his cool, attack Ed at the right times, shop up Labour’s ample rhetorical weaknesses, mention David Miliband a few times and talk about tackling the deficit, then he’d be home and dry.

That doesn’t cut it any more.

Ed Miliband today appraoched PMQs with a completely different demeanour. Not a swagger as such. The very idea of Ed Miliband swaggering is enough to coax guffaws of laughter out of the most ardest Milibandista. But he looks and sounds confident. He smiles when he’s trying to be funny (although, I’d still prefer it if he binned the gags), the heckles which once led to him repeating Mr Speaker now see him fighting back and landing jabs on the opposition benches, he’s no longer blown away by the noise, the drama or the attention. He looks like he belongs there, rather than someone who is filling in.

You can, dare I say it, imagine him standing at the other since of the despatch box – answering the questions.

That’s not to say that Labour should be complacent about PMQs. Anything but. It would only take a few weeks of good news coverage (however unlikely that might sound now) to put the fire back in Cameron’s belly. And he’s still a top performer in this format. But his mojo has gone, and the Mili-mojo is getting its first real outing.

I used to fear PMQs, watching them through my fingers and desperately counting down the minutes until they’d ended. Even when Ed was winning it was like watching your team defend a 1-0 lead in the cup final - simultaneously pleased but expecting disaster.

Now I look forward to them. And I bet there are plenty of Tories who now felt like I did a few months ago.

I could get used to this.

Related posts:

  1. PMQS verdict: Slowly but surely, Ed Miliband is getting better at PMQs
  2. PMQs verdict: Cut the gags, Ed
  3. PMQs verdict – Outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs
  4. PMQs verdict: Calm down Dave, and listen to the Doctors…
  5. PMQs verdict: Miliband lets Cameron off the hook
  • john P Reid

    Blair always said On retrospect the way the tories could have undermind him in 94-97 was to Pick a Topic everyday and Detial how they were going to deal with it and spend it and then ask what laobur was going to do,  Ed was brilliant and If it get’s on the news it’ll halp him tonight, but after a few minutes thinking about what Cameron had replied regarding the NHS and Policing if the Tories keep pressing hime Laobur has no alternative to where the money was coming from in regards to how labour wouldn’t cut front liune police but would cut the budget, I can’t see Ed having a  reply, This of course was the same as in 94-97 but The tories didn’t take that tack, If they do this time Ed will have to have A clear answer, still he walked it but it was An open goal this week.

    • treborc1

      I do not know John do you not think PMQs are now worthless, I loved watching poor old Ms May at the Police conference, that  should be like a million votes to labour, except of course if you remember Brown stated he was going to cut front line funding as well, his proud remark was getting more officers onto the beat not behind a desk, then stated how much money would be cut.

      I think PMQ’s no longer work for any party, it’s great if you have a leader who can think on his  feet, and make the funny remarks and responses, the problem is you can be a good leader, but a poor comedian and then people thing your not really interesting.

      • john P Reid

        worhtless in terms of winning A election, thatcher was Humilited by Callaghan and Blair by hague or more than one occasion fat lot of good it did them. Regarding front line cops, It’s basically like saying, A p.c investigates child abuse then goes back spends hours typing it up, but now i’ll give it to CID to do so I’m back on the beat, it jsut means that there’s still another P.C doing it but elsewhere but it looks like there’s more front line police, even though they’re doing the job but by another name.

        • treborc1

          Well John it took Blair to do it, it took Brown to F*ck it up and it’s taking the Tories  to end it, here lives the story of the British government for the last forty years

  • Jono

    A shame, therefore, that Cameron keeps ducking PMQs.

    • James3010

       i said the same thing about brown/blair for 13 years, its the nature of the job?

      • john P Reid

        Blair was clever he’d make out he misunderstood the question, and give a reply of what ehy thought he’d been asked, I recall thatcher being asked aobut the fact child poverty quadrupled in her time in power and crime doubling and she goes You cruel person they haven’t got A  job and your blaming them for crime doubling”.

        Actually Both BoJo and Ken Clakre recently said it was Michael howards Prison works that got crime down in the mid 90′s it was Ken Clarke’s handling of the economy that resulted in low Unemployment, So Clarke and BoJo must have both thought that low unemployment did result in crime falling so Either they’re wrong or Thathcer was.

        • treborc1

           We call it snake Oil sales man, it’s not cleaver, did you say your going to war Mr Blair, pardon what was that employment

    • James3010

       i said the same thing about brown/blair for 13 years, its the nature of the job?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    I’m not sure I quite agree with this Mark, I’m sorry to say.  I don’t often listen to PMQs these days, but I did catch this one, and perhaps coming at it “fresh” I have a different view, but it seemed to me, at best, to be a stalemate: Ed made a fairly witty gag about mobile phone’s and LOLs, and Cameron came straight back about not throwing it at people.  Cameron’s delivery is more natural (yes, he is a born joker, it seems) and that gives him a natural edge.

    On the specifics, again its hard to recall exact details, but his approach, (“Oh dear”) is more memorable than Ed’s for projecting power.

    Overall, I know there is a growing move to present Ed in a more statesmanlike way, but I’m afraid I still can’t quite see it on the screen, though I will acknowledge a massive improvement over last year.

  • PaulHalsall

    I’m glad Ed is doing well in PMQs, and I understand that it has an impact on Westminister Village people, which is important also.

    But apart from that I don’t think they have any impact.

    What Labour needs to be able to do is to get across to 95% of the population that it would be fairly easy (50% higher rate income tax, raise capital gains on stocks tax, institute a land and wealth tax of 1%, close down tax havens such as the Caymans, Bermuda, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and with Hollande’s help, Monaco and Switerland) , and we could easily balance the budget, provide proper social security, reinforce the NHS, and so forth.

    To do this we need to go on the attack, and stop playing PPE political games.

    Miliband might be PM in 2-3 years (I hope so), but that will be a useless goal if he ends up like Blair or Brown.  

    We want another Clem.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

      It would be genuinely refreshing for any political party to show that sort of leadership and offer a genuine choice to the electorate, even though I personally disagree that such an offer would lead to Ed M becoming PM… I don’t think the country is yet willing to accept a proposition on taxing wealth as presented.

      • PaulHalsall

        Nothing I proposed would be “left” in the Netherlands or Denmark, where “right-wing” parties have kept such policies going in recent years.

        Denmark has actually run a surplus for many of the past 10 years.

        People are not “fiscal conservatives” unless they agree to raising taxes on the top and the upper middle.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      “Fairly easy” to increase tax income to balance the budget?  I don’t believe it would be.  You’d have to raise about £130 billion extra per year from the combination of measures you propose, and that is a vast amount.  In context, it is an additional 22% of all taxes raised from personal taxation, VAT, companies tax, petrol tax, and so on.  If the raising of that sum is concentrated on those well off (which your measures suggest) I would suggest that there would be a mass exodus of people, capital and companies to avoid what would be seen as punitive rates.

      To avoid increased personal taxation falling on the 85% of taxpayers who are not in the higher 40% band, you would need to concentrate collection on the 15% who are.  Raising an additional £130 billion per year from that 15% would see income (and land / wealth taxes, which don’t really exist at the moment) payable at an average rate of £31,700 per higher rate taxpayer (£130 billion divided by 4.1 million higher rate taxpayers).   Asking someone on £45,000 salary to pay an extra £31,700 in tax is clearly unworkable, but the further you push up the income scale, the higher the percentage rise in those you are asking to make up the difference (because there are fewer paying the extra tax).  Raising the extra £130 billion tax only from everyone on £75,000 or more would see marginal rates at well over 90%.

      Equally, increasing the corporation tax is going to push companies abroad for tax registration, much as Boots the Chemist and some other companies, and also make life more expensive for everyone as companies charge higher prices to cover increased tax charges.In addition, I’m not sure that closing down the tax havens is as easy as you suggest, and in any case, the money would move to non-British controlled places.  How exactly is France meant to close down Monaco and Switzerland?  Both are sovereign countries, neither are part of the EU, and unless you suggest armed force, most likely to tell France to go away.

      • Derekjs

        Perhaps the tax system has to a bit more imaginative with a graduated increase in % taken based on bands of income so 0% up to Minimum Wage : 25% for earnings between Minimum Wage and Average Wage : 30% for between Average Wage and £40k : 40% for between £40k and £50k: 50% for between £50k and £150k : etc. etc so by the time you get to the super rich of over £1 million in earnings they are getting hit with 75%. Or something along these lines.

        As for companies moving abroad these should be highlighted so that citizens realise who they are and should be encouraged to boycot them.

        And of course is all our banks had moved abroad 5 years ago this discussion might not have been necessary as they would have crapped in someone else’s back yard and our public servants wouldn’t have to be bailing them out.

        • Hugh

          That would mean going to the polls proposing a tax rise for everyone on more than £20k.

          Of course, you can say, ‘let’s tweak it, then’, but the truth is if you are interested in getting rid of the deficit then you do have to hit a large number of people on middle incomes with significant tax rises.

          Or cut spending.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            The reality of over-spending for so many years, by Governments of all types.

          • Homf

            Well you now have a government carrying out the policies you agree with but I’m sure you’ll understand that the Labour party is there to offer an alternative to that approach otherwise there would be two identical choices at the next election

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You make some assumptions as to what I agree with.  It may surprise you, but I do not agree with deficit spending as a way of life, so I do not agree with the current government.

            I would like to see the government spend no more than is raised in revenue.  In this year, that is a cut of about £130 billion.

            That is a proper cut, not the lukewarm “cuts” which are actually increases in spending that Cameron and Osborne propose.

            No one on God’s earth will ever persuade me that spending more than you raise in revenue over an economic cycle is somehow a good thing.  Far less relentlessly spending more than you raise over several economic cycles, serially re-defining what the cycle is for narrow partisan advantage.

        • keggsie

           ”As for companies moving abroad these should be highlighted so that
          citizens realise who they are and should be encouraged to boycot them.”

          I’d freeze their assets personally.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Have you considered the effect that would have?  It would plunge the country into the deepest and longest recession yet seen, it would take £billions off the value of pension funds, and force a huge wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures.  

          • keggsie

             That pre-supposes you are prepared to accept the neoliberal / capitalist agenda. I don’t.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You are perfectly at liberty to do that, but unless the rest of the western world also changes at the same time, the money will just go elsewhere.  So in reality, your proposition of freezing the assets will just damage British people.

            Are you prepared to see millions of British people either out of work, with greatly reduced pensions, and the sort of existence that many in Greece are now facing, simply for a political principle?  I can assure you that our neighbours in France and Ireland or anywhere else in Europe or North America would not change their laws to suit your political opinions.

            The Communists tried this sort of approach over 130 years, having to take over countries at the point of a gun in order to have national laboratories for this sort of crazy economic thinking. Did that really work?

          • keggsie

             I don’t agree.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You don’t agree with what?

            That other people will move their money around to best suit themselves?  That seems obvious to me.

            That international money would stop coming into the UK if we did something so out of the ordinary as to freeze assets? 

            That other countries would not seek an advantage from the UK enacting draconian laws such as freezing assets?

            Or that (in my opinion) the Communists had some crazy economic thinking?

          • keggsie

             None of it. Pure speculation

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Try freezing the assets of privately quoted companies in the UK who maximise their tax “avoidance” strategies, and see what happens.

            I will give you a clue.  Most investors will run a mile, selling off as they go.  After that, it gets worse.

            But with the brilliance of your original suggestion, and the canniness and market knowledge of the hard left investor, you will probably have an answer to that.

            Good luck.

          • keggsie

             I refer to the answer I gave before – only if you accept the capitalist agenda. I don’t.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            See above

          • Homf

            I agree with Keggsie. The difference is that you are a right wing neo-liberal and we are not. Your ideals and core beliefs and values are entirely different

        • Dave Postles

          Companies moving abroad: Boots: it didn’t move abroad because of the level of UK corporation tax.  UK corporation tax was being reduced when it moved abroad.  It moved abroad because KKR incurred 9bn pound of debt in acquiring Boots, so recovering millions of pounds every year became de rigueur.  No one can compete with 8% corporation tax in Zug (not least because our taxes provide the infrastructure which allows Boots to be successful, but the canton of Zug provides it with bugger all).  These corporations have no sense of responsibility.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            A fair point, but what do you believe that we can do about it?  I know that you have in the past demonstrated against this sort of corporate behaviour, and you maintain your conviction.  But I don’t know how we change the behaviour.  Any company will naturally try to maximise profit, whether it be by increasing sales or by reducing tax.  The laws on this matter are made by different nations, and we have no ability to influence Swiss law.  

            Many companies are also multi-national.

          • Dave Postles

            What should we do about it? – what Obama is doing and the reverse of what Osborne proposes.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Dave,  I’m sorry but what Obama is proposing has eluded me – I don’t know what that may be.  Could you please enlighten me?

          • Dave Postles

            ‘The President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform’  (February 2012).
            Reduce the rate of business tax from 35% to 28%, but compensate by eliminating some allowances (but increasing R&D allowances) and by introducing a minimum rate of tax on profits made by US corporations abroad, to obviate the ‘race to the bottom’.

          • Redshift

            Actually, most European countries have various laws and regulations that would penalise companies more than we do for doing this. There’s no reason why we can’t.

      • PaulHalsall

        Jaime, land ownership cannot “move abroad”.

        Furthermore, I include in my proposals significantly reducing many of the tax havens of the rich – many of which are under UK control and protection (if they want to go without UK passports and law, bye-by Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc).  France needs to clamp down on the scandal that is Monaco, and might do so  (perhaps build a fence around it, or even just take it over since its only reason for existence is for the rich to avoid tax).  The Swiss might find it a bit harder if they were kicked out the EEA.Sure, some of the Rich could go and live in Somalia, but they would no like it.Oh, and we should forbid tax exiles sending their kids to private schools in the UK.We need to play tough.

        • Bill Lockhart

           The Channel Islands have their own legal systems based on Norman law and are not under UK control. Their citizens do not carry UK passports.  Perhaps we should ‘forbid’  people pontificating at tedious length on subjects about which they clearly know very little.

          “Build a fence round” Monaco is just hilarious. Is that honestly how you think the world works?

          While you’re reading, perhaps you should enquire as to the make-up of the Swiss economy. Manufacturing makes up more of their GDP than it does ours. You know, making things- then selling them. Not taxing people’s gardens whilst borrowing 30-year money to increase your Union sponsors’ memberships.

          • PaulHalsall

            They may have their own legal system but basically they are wangle for the British rich.  The government could close them down.

            The current Prince of Monaco is gets his title because an earlier failure to produce a male heir led to an out-of-wedlock child being proclaimed Hereditary Princess of Monaco, married of to a man who agreed to take on the Grimaldi name, and then her son Ranier was allowed to succeed. All that broke so many treaties with France.

            Monaco’s sole reason for existence is to allow the rich to avoid taxes on money they have made elsewhere.  It’s a carbuncle and should be closed down.

          • Bill Lockhart

            Thank you for acknowledging that all that stuff about UK law and passports was simply invented by you.
            Are you in favour of tax-raising powers being devolved to Scotland and Wales? If you are, you’ve shot your own argument down in flames.

          • treborc1

             We are not getting tax raising Powers we are being allowed to alter our tax up and down by a percentage, after all we should be a tax haven in Wales

          • PaulHalsall

            I acknowledge they have their own courts, but  that does not mean UK law does not apply above all.  For example in recent child abuse case in Jersey, the Met got involved. 

            Plus they have UK passports – ”
             For the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981, the “British Islands” include the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, taken together, unless the context otherwise requires.”I am not in favour of the UK government facilitating any more tax havens, in Scotland or Wales.

          • Bill Lockhart

             That’s the answer to  a different question. Do you favour devolution of tax-setting powers to Scotland and Wales?

      • PaulHalsall

        And btw, wealth and land taxes DO exist at the moment in countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands.

        The total value of the UK economy is NOT GDP per annum, but the sum of all held wealth. That is a vastly more massive amount.

        Meanwhile, since we are all in it together, we could add 1p to 20% rate of income tax, which is way too low.

        In the US the starting rate of *federal* income tax will be 15% next year, but then in most states people have to pay state income tax, possibly a city income tax (as in New York – which people are not fleeing) as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes equal to ours, and *they get much less from the government*.

        The 20% rate over here is too low.

        But I agree we could not fight an election on that.  

        So we should fight an election on *squeezing the rich until the pips squeak* (tm. D. Healy)

        • Dave Postles

          ‘The 20% rate over here is too low.’
          Agreed. 

          • geedee0520

             Seen the latest issue in London – lots of rich Parisians moving here because of the threat of 75% tax from Hollande. 

            Why do ‘lefty’ people assume that they know better how to spend other people’s money (e.g. R. Murphy who can barely add up) ?

          • Dave Postles

            No, it’s my money which I’m offering.  Join me.  I’ll still be paying less than the 35% which I have contributed in the past.

          • geedee0520

             Nothing to stop you making an extra payment to HMRC.  BTW to pay around 35% of your income via PAYE means that you’d need to earn around £100k.

          • Dave Postles

            When were you born?  The standard rate of income tax was 35% when I was earning a pittance.  I’ve never earned more than incurs the standard rate of tax.

          • geedee0520

             1950 – when were you born?

            The overall tax rate is not the headline rate of 35% which I had to pay on the 1970′s but includes allowances. So your ‘pittance’ would not be reduced by 35% now would it?

          • Dave Postles

            1948.  I paid tax at 35% my salary in 1975-77.  I had no expenses, just the marital allowance.

          • Dave Postles

            ”Nothing to stop you making an extra payment to HMRC. ‘
            Nonsense.  HMRC would not accept it.

          • geedee0520

             Ask Hazel Blears.

          • Dave Postles

            You should be careful of these insinuations.

          • Winston_from_the_Ministry

             Er… she made a donation. Keep up.

          • Dave Postles

            Did I take any expenses?

          • Redshift

            Why do right wingers assume that there is no upper limit to the what can justifiably be earned by a person without it having any societal consequences? In short, it isn’t money they have earnt – it is money they have gained by rigging the system. 

          • geedee0520

             Err – the money I have earned through my career wasn’t by ‘rigging the system’ but by working for a company which employed c100,000 people. Myself I created 6,000 jobs in areas of high unemployment.

            Latterly I employed for my own business 15 people that the Jobcentre, Shaw Trust and others could not find jobs (whilst being paid to do that)

            Don’t talk to me about ‘societal consequences’ when I had to deal with RDA’s, Connexions and all others who did SFA to recruit staff for me.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          Paul,

          the problem is transferable skills.  I’ll agree with you that all countries have different tax regimes, many unlike ours.  But, to give a personal example, as it could affect me.

          I could relatively easily gain employment in Canada.  I have enough “points” on their immigration scheme through my education, qualifications and I already own land there – my wife has more points than me (Canadians value vets over doctors, it seems).  If I were to apply for a job (and succeed in getting an offer), my income would probably rise by about 15-20%, and I would pay less tax, both on income, and VAT equivalent.  The combined national and provincial income taxes for my current salary band in the UK (at today’s exchange rates) are about 15.6%, but once I earn more than the upper limit (about £80,000), it is 43% as a marginal rate.  After that, it is a trade off in between types of taxation, but it is not until I might earn over £300,000 that I would pay more in all taxes as a percentage of disposable income than I do in the UK.  I have taken the raw data from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Rate_Card_-_2012_Ontario/$FILE/Tax-Rates-Ontario-2012.pdf

          To be clear, I am not actively looking to move.  But if a future British Government turned around and said that I had to pay 50% income tax, or more, then the argument becomes less easy to ignore.

          On your land tax proposal, it is probably more complex.  You may well be able to demonstrate raising more in tax from the landholders, but have you considered what the follow on effects are?  Tenant farmers would pay more rent, tenants in houses more rent, and so food prices would increase while expenditure for many would increase.  I do not dismiss your idea, but I suspect that the implementation could have many unfortunate consequences on those at the lower end of the scale.

          • PaulHalsall

            Jaime,

            You might be able to find employment in Canada.  But your individual value goes down if a whole raft of people in your position try to leave.Moreover, people don’t act purely out of economic motives.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Paul,  you are of course correct.  If 500 of me applied all at once to enter Canada, then the salaries would reduce (well, in an unregulated private economy, anyway – maybe not so much in the Government healthcare sector).  The law of supply and demand.

            You are also correct in your second observation, but there is more nuance to consider.  There is family and friends, culture, the costs of upheaval, children and education, and many others.  However, I believe that many would begin to think about the potential benefits of moving as the “cost” (i.e. taxation) of staying in the UK increases.  I would not be surprised to see something like a Laffer curve for this.

            I do not know how the Treasury advise Ministers on these things, but it seems to me to be obvious that English-speaking countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia etc have an attraction to British people perhaps over EU countries.  If we let our tax rates get too much out of synchronisation with those countries, it should not be a surprise if British people move abroad.  Of course, that would only ever be a subordinate set of people compared with the population as a whole, but to what extent can we afford to let skilled people (of every sort, including plumbers, electricians and IT people) emigrate.

            I very much hope that no one suggests emigration controls to stop a fundamental freedom, but maybe someone will.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            “I very much hope that no one suggests emigration controls to stop a fundamental freedom, [...] It would be a typical Labour response.”

            Don’t worry Jaime, I’ll always fight for your right to go and, I suspect, there’s a fair few more who will do the same.

            Bon voyage!

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Thanks Dave, glad to have you on my side.

            I’ve heard that the internet actually crosses national borders.  Who could have foreseen that?  Unless I am mistaken, there’s no technological barrier to reading LL from Ontario.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Any chance of a holiday? I’m a bit of one for the great outdoors, there’s a lot of it in Canada.

            If I like it we might become neighbours…

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You’ll need to be quite quick.  The lots around the lakeshore are selling quite quickly.  Only 4 left it seems, out of just over 50, all on the southern end.  Prices have gone up as well – $180,000 CDN now for a good one with built access. My cousin and I bought the blocks around the northern arm of the lake in 2008, so “neighbour” is a relative concept – I think about 500 metres.  We’re starting the build next year.  

            http://www.chinci.com/travel/pax/p/5973626/Hellyer+Lake/CA/Canada/0/  (not my photos – someone else made them)

            http://g.co/maps/vdmxc

            There is very good fishing there, and if you like the dinghies the sailing is good.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            It’s looking good – sailing is where I’m at, so thanks for the pointer.

            If the Cameron/Osborne economic melt-down gets worse I may well be tempted to drop anchor over yonder.

          • PaulHalsall

            You might end up in Saskatchewan!

          • treborc1

             That has to be Welsh

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      Paul, have you done the maths on your claim that increased taxes on the 5% (who are not in your 95%) can fairly easily balance the budget?  The deficit in the last financial year was £163.4bn, and I’d be interested to see the detail of how you worked it out, especially factoring in the likely behavioural changes of individuals and companies that such measures would provoke.  I’d also be interested to see the details of your plans for closing down tax havens, especially those that are Sovereign countries in their own right.

      • PaulHalsall

        Many tax havens are British dependencies – Bermuda, The Cayman Islands, the various Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, etc.  The German government clamped down hard on Lichtenstein, and the French could easily clamp down on Monaco (eg build a wall around it, make people show passports to get in and out, etc etc).  Switzerland should not be allowed to suck up wealth created in other countries, and that can be stopped by co-ordinated action between governments.  (The US at least, does not allow its citizens to have income from anywhere in the world that is not taxed).

        As I said, all the rich could move to Mogadishu if they want to do without the amenities of a civil society.  I’m sure the opera there is just great, as are the restaurants.  If they do want such amenities, they must pay for what they get.
        After all, if you are poor and have no car, the police are not in fact protecting your wealth or your car, but if you have a few big houses, a few expensive cars, then the police are in fact protecting you *more* than they are protecting the poor.  That being the case, you should pay more.But I won’t argue further with you JR, because you seem to be mainly a Tory in your views.

        • geedee0520

           Hang on – Switzerland is a sovereign country & can set it’s own rules for tax etc.  What if they won’t do what you say – time for an invasion?

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          Paul. nothing I said was in any way Tory, I do wish people could just debate openly without resorting to ‘you’re just a Tory’ in order to escape scrutiny whenever their views are challenged.  Given your entire premise is based on how easy it would be to close the deficit, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you to provide the data that would prove your point.  Otherwise it’s just lightweight.

    • Hugh

      Any chance we could see your sums (and battle plans for the Swiss air strike campaign)?

      • Dave Postles
        • Dave Postles

          BTW, all the revealed account holders should lose their passports and their British citizenship.  If they will not support their fellow countryfolk, then they should forfeit their rights to be citizens protected by and partaking in our citizenship.

          • geedee0520

             So – if I have an account in Switzerland which I declare to the tax authorities here – I should lose my UK passport & citizenship?

            I assume you mean people who don’t declare their accounts?

          • Dave Postles

            I mean the accounts revealed by the whistle blowers – referring upwards to my previous link.

          • geedee0520

             Yes I read it – doesn’t say anything about whether the account holders have declared their position or signed up to the latest deal with HMRC & Switzerland.

          • Dave Postles

            Did you read the bit about potentially more than 100 criminal prosecutions from the Falciani information?

          • Bill Lockhart

            Self-parodying Spartist vindictiveness. Should rioters who burn down homes and businesses also lose their citizenship for actively harming “their fellow countryfolk”? Should cash-in-hand sole traders? If not, why not?

          • Higgs Boson

            Bravo. “self-parodying Spartist vindictiveness” is a brilliant summary of Dave Postles.

          • Dave Postles

            You have yet to be discovered and are purely theoretical, so I take no account of any of your obiter dicta. 

          • Dave Postles

            They will be subject to prosecution for criminal activity and incarcerated, losing their freedom and some of their rights – appropriately. 

          • Bill Lockhart

            You are unable to explain why loss of citizenship is, in your opinion, an appropriate sanction against one group but not others. You have nothing to offer as justification but your own personal emnity. You belong with the worst Daily Mail bigots, taking self-righteous gratification from imaginary punishments of people you’ve never met.

          • Dave Postles

            If you understood anything about jurisprudence/philosophy of law, you would consider my first answer.  I do not subscribe to Kelsen’s ‘pure theory’ of law.  I take what I can about jurisprudence from critical legal studies and a bit from the ‘natural law’ theory of John Finnis.  Go figure.

          • Bill Lockhart

             Semantic claptrap. You simply resent “cheating toffs” and want to apply sanctions to them which you would oppose with horror if suggested for anyone else. Cheating tarmac contractors don’t suffer loss of citizenship because…?

          • Dave Postles

            You just reveal your ignorance.  Keep digging.  I actually have a wide knowledge of jurisprudence and philosophy of law.  You, in contrast, have not an iota of knowledge.

          • Bill Lockhart

             You mistake “knowledge” with wisdom. Attempting to present your “knowledge” as a fig-leaf for your own personal emnities is not wisdom.

          • Dave Postles

            Come back when you’ve read something about  critical legal studies and the status of people before the law.

          • Dave Postles

            BTW, I do not subscribe to Kelsen’s ‘pure theory’ of law.  I expect only right-wing autocrats like you adhere to such a calculus.

        • Hugh

          You don’t need to facilitate tax evasion to be a tax haven.

          • Dave Postles

            ”Don’t worry about the Swiss banks: their time is up.’

        • Hugh

           You don’t need to facilitate illegal tax evasion to be a tax haven.

  • PaulHalsall

    I’m glad Ed is doing well in PMQs, and I understand that it has an impact on Westminister Village people, which is important also.

    But apart from that I don’t think they have any impact.

    What Labour needs to be able to do is to get across to 95% of the population that it would be fairly easy (50% higher rate income tax, raise capital gains on stocks tax, institute a land and wealth tax of 1%, close down tax havens such as the Caymans, Bermuda, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and with Hollande’s help, Monaco and Switerland) , and we could easily balance the budget, provide proper social security, reinforce the NHS, and so forth.

    To do this we need to go on the attack, and stop playing PPE political games.

    Miliband might be PM in 2-3 years (I hope so), but that will be a useless goal if he ends up like Blair or Brown.  

    We want another Clem.

  • billbat

    I’m amazed that Speaker Bercow lets Cameron get away with the planted questions. Slimey Backbenchers read out planted questions and Cameron recites prepared answers which seem to go on for at least five minutes with a pre-scripted dig at Milliband to finish. Bercow seems to recognise that this is happening and adds extra time but it does let a rattled Prime Minister off the Hook. I am looking forward to Cameron answering under oath at Leveson. If he commits perjury will he end up in prison?

    • keggsie

       I hope he does end up in prison along with Osborne. In fact they should be charged for now for this gvts attacks on the human rights of disabled and ill people.

    • AlanGiles

      Now that the awful Brooks woman has been charged, I assume any embarrassing questions will be met with “I can’t answer that as the matter is sub-judice”.

      I was interested in the way Mrs Brooks has painted herself as an innocent victim. When you consider all the pain and distress she has caused so many people in her years editing The Sun and NOTW, I would say she is being paid back in her own coin. 

      On your point about planted questions, frankly they have been at it for years. I always remember Clive Soley coming to Blair’s aid whenever he was in trouble with anodyne questions like “Would my right honourable friend agree with me that he is the greatest man who ever lived?”

      * Joe Farrell (1937-1986) 

    • treborc1

      Tell me a party which does not have these embarrassing questions, labour under Blair  and then Browns lot, Tories are just carrying on the act.

  • Billsilver

    In your dreams Mark.
    A couple of good policies which don’t involve promising to spend money the government hasn’t got would be good. Perhaps even an idea or two about how to cut spending would be useful too? Any fool can spend someone else’s money.

  • Derekjs

    You must be right as Cameron was reduced to typical public school posh boy bullying tactics today and what the poor misguided fool does not realise is that the public is seeing right through him.

    The wheels of British Justice turn at about the right speed to ensure that his Lots Of Love Rebekah will keep him in headlines up to and through her trial and hopefully during her incarseration.

    • treborc1

      The problem is of course, this lady has a story to tell and I suspect if she goes to  jail she may well take a lot of powerful people with her, from all parties

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    @ Dave Stone,

    On a serious note, if you are possibly considering Canada, where I have bought is now probably over-priced – there was a tax incentive which is over-subscribed.  There must be 100′s of thousands of lakes in Ontario, let alone Canada, and the current price of a block on Hellyer would get you so much more somewhere else.  Once you are more than 5 hours from Toronto, it does not really matter much if you are 7 hours, 9 hours or 11 hours!

    The cost of the land is not the big issue.  It is is the cost of construction, and in particular labour costs for working in remote areas, and transport of construction materials.  My cousin and I decided to jointly build a house rather than two summer cabins which most people do.  She designed it and got her design converted by an architectural technician into proper plans.  I designed the boathouse and guesthouse – they are Chilean in style, and include 7 trees growing up through the buildings and a walkway from the tree branches to the main house.  It’s been a fun experience.

    • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

      Thanks Jaime.

      In fact, I’ve looked into the Canada option previously and through my previous career (construction) have accumulated a number of useful expatriate contacts.

      Being, for many years, a hands-on-from-the-footings-to-the-ridge-tiles/shingles sort of dude, I find the whole process of homesteading enjoyable. However, re sailing: lakes are not enough, sea access is paramount but, in all honesty, Hudson Bay has a little too much of a northerly prospect for navigable comfort.

      Certainly, Canada does look and feel like the young country.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        My cousin and I briefly considered British Columbia which I favoured, but she over-ruled me on grounds of access.  She lives in southern Ontario and is managing the whole project.  We are 50:50 partners in terms of land title, but she puts in less money for the capital costs than I do to reflect her day to day engagement.  I pay about 2/3 of the bills.  We don’t argue about it as we are family and in any case if one of us dies, our share goes to the other.

        British Columbia is however completely beautiful.  A paradise.

      • derek

        Try sugar mountain, the Barker’s will welcome you there.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Keggsie.

    you may not accept the capitalist agenda, but the reality is that it exists, it has hegemony in the western and Asian worlds, and that it is powerful enough that the UK (and just about any other country) cannot unilaterally move away from it.

    So, given the reality, which you probably do not like, is that unilateral actions by any mid-sized country (such as the UK) will affect the system little, if at all.  Freezing the assets of companies in the UK will only hurt the UK, not enforce a change in the whole system.

    Turn it all around.  If you and 999 others had some money to invest in some foreign venture, would you invest it (wanting a return) in a country that was about to nationalise things, or in a country that was about to seize privately owned assets?  Your own answer is not so important as a data point, but consider what the majority would do.  I say it is obvious, and you may disagree with me, but I suggest that if you do, you are in a very small minority.

    • keggsie

      Why do assume that socialism means nationalisation. I have not even used the word.

      By the way – have you forgotten Iceland’s revolution.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Well, it is not really socialism if there is no nationalisation involved (and it was you who first stated in this meandering thread that you would freeze assets, which the market perceives as nationalisation).  Not nationalising things means it is social democracy, which inevitably turns into free-market solutions as white van man, Mondeo man and Worcester woman rather want to own their own houses and go on holiday and not be told what to do by Government.  All that New Labour did was to prove that hypothesis, as well as to demonstrate in 13 short years that the era of socialism as a realistic political philosophy was completely dead.

        What Gordon Brown did in parallel in the same 13 years was to prove that (1) he never understood the part of Keynes’ theory that has to do with savings and (2) you can fool some of the people all of the time (8.6 million in May 2010, for example), but that you can’t fool people for all of the time.

        Iceland is small enough to do something different.  Try defaulting as a G8 member and see what happens.

        • keggsie

           There is an old saying namely making assumptions makes an ass out of u and me. You have just confirmed that.

          “Well, it is not really socialism if there is no nationalisation involved” evidently demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding. Nationalisation may be involved but it’s isn’t a pre-requisite – a mistake made by all who really have no understanding of what Socialism is.

          The rest of your diatribe is just basically crap to be honest. Social democracy is just another fancy term for Socialism. There are only 2 choices – the other is capitalism. That’s why Blair’s agenda failed.

          I have no idea if you are a member of the Labour Party. There are a lit of trolls visiting this site as well as neoliberal members of the party.

          If you are then I’d suggest reading some of the great British Socialists including Robert Owen. If you believe in capitalism why are you a member of the Labour Party? The Conservative Party is more appropriate surely.

          Your remark about Iceland is flippant and not worthy of even you who tried so fervently to bamboozle me with economic gobbledegook. Instead of trying to make assumptions of what I mean, try working it out by thinking outside your narrow capitalist box. You might even surprise yourself.

  • keggsie

    reply to jaime t.

    Not really – you either believe in capitalism of socialism. It’s a simple choice. You can’t believe in both. You believe in capitalism I don’t. 

    • Bill Lockhart

      Aren’t you the  ‘network marketing’ snake-oil salesman? Do you not take any commission from your victims then? Because that would make you….a capitalist…wouldn’t it?

      • keggsie

        You really don’t know what you are talking about. Come back when you have something sensible to say.

        • Bill Lockhart

          Just answer the question, leech.

          • keggsie

            You really don’t know what you are talking about do you. Your knowledge is woefully inadequate as well as inaccurate. The short answer to your question is no.

            As a former lecturer, I used to encourage my students to do their own research before offering any critical thinking. I would respectfully suggest that you do the same.

            To start with can I point you to the various Acts of Parliament including regulations. They start in 1973. There is also a report by Nottingham Trading Standards Office written by Peter Clothier  which you will find invaluable.

          • Bill Lockhart

            I know enough about “network marketing” aka pyrmaid selling to know that it preys on the desperate, upon whom it depends for a steady supply of  fresh meat. I also know that the people who get fat from the efforts of others tend to be rather touchy about having their personal morality exposed. See your comments for further details.
            “Former lecturer”. Wow.

          • keggsie

             What a completely uneducated reply. You do not know anything mate.

            This line says it all: ” I know enough about “network marketing” aka pyrmaid selling to know that
            it preys on the desperate, upon whom it depends for a steady supply of 
            fresh meat.”

            Get real and educate yourself before you make even more of a fool of yourself than you are already making.

            To paraphrase Manuel: “You know nothing.”

            As for my morality, attacking people you don’t know and probably couldn’t care less about just shows you up for what you are – not me.

            Interesting you should visit Labour List. Troll or what?

          • Bill Lockhart

             I’d rather be a troll than a parasite.
            Tell us again about how “anyone can be wealthy”. You know the spiel, you’ve sold it often enough.

          • keggsie

            So you are a troll. No surprise there. I suspected as much. Laughable.

            Why should I explain anything to you. You seem to know everything except what you do know bears no relationship to reality.

            One business I know of is even in the top 250 FTSE companies. Interestingly this particular company’s shares are the only one’s going up while everyone elses is going down as the economy crumbles. Do you really think the London Stock Exchange wouldn’t do due diligence.

            I don’t happen to believe in shares or the stock exchange but it demonstrates you obvious lack of ‘real’ knowledge. Moreover like all people who think they know it all you eagerly sidetracked my invite to you to do a little bit of research into the laws applicable.

            No surprise there as well.

          • Bill Lockhart

             You’re simply hilarious, in a monstrous sort of way. You “don’t believe” in shares or the Stock exchange- but you desperately quote some scam which creeps into the FTSE 250. So what? Does making money make a company moral? Not in your business it doesn’t, matey boy. Your business stinks.

          • keggsie

            So, I suppose on your extensive knowledge of business, morality and everything cooperatives are also immoral, but that is how network marketing businesses actually work. But of course you knew that didn’t you?

            Give me a break. You are making a real idiot of yourself. I’d give up before you get yourself in too deep and can’t crawl out.

          • Bill Lockhart

             You should give that last piece of advice to the poor mugs who sign up to your, er, “co-operatives”.

        • Bill Lockhart

          Go visit a taxidermist, on your own behalf, and submit yourself to his labours.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Graeme-Hancocks/1156294498 Graeme Hancocks

    I always thought EM was underated. As Francois Hollande has demonstrated to Sarokozy’s cost – dont underestimate people like FH and EM.  It mustnt be easy facing that gruesome threesome of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne. Cameron is a nasty bit of goods as is becoming increasingly clear – the mask has slipped.

    By the way anyone see this weeks Private Eye with the photo of DC looking at a cellphone and asking “what does LOL mean” – reply  “Lots of Lies” -  and “what does DC stand for” – reply “nothing at all”! 

  • Dave Postles

    Whether it’s appropriate or not here, great congratulations to the management and workforce at Vauxhall Ellesemere Port – terrific achievement.  I hope that I haven’t prejudiced the announcement later today, but it seems to be fairly understood. 

    • Bill Lockhart

       Hear, hear. Credit to the management and to Unite.

  • keggsie

    Reply to Bill Lockhart.

    Not worth replying to, to be honest. Silly man. You sound to me as someone who was a distributor for a network marketing business at one time and failed. Now blaming everyone else except yourself.

    Very reminiscent of this Government blaming everyone else for the double dip recession they caused.

    Don’t bother commenting again Bill. Your bigotry will eventually be your downfall, Particularly since you have insulted millions of people in Britain and around the globe.

    • Bill Lockhart

      ” You sound to me as someone who was a distributor for a network marketing business at one time and failed”

      I’m not desperate or gullible enough. Lucky for you plenty of people are.
      Calling the victims of your scams “victims” is no insult, it’s a simple fact.

      • keggsie

        If you have never been involved what gives you the right to attack other people and act as some sort of moral guardian. You have insulted millions of people me included. You have attacked a system you obviously know very little about. If you did you would produce evidence to support your outrageous claims which incidentally are about 50 years out of date.

        You overstep the mark when you invoke your own warped sense of morality and try to impose it onto others.

        • Bill Lockhart

           I’ve never been involved in pay-day loans or TV evangelism either, yet I know they both stink too.
          I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I think your “network marketing” is an utterly amoral scam which preys on gullible people who have no grasp of basic mathematics, and I’m saying so here. If you don’t like that, tough.

          • keggsie

             Your reply is fatuous. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that pay day loans rip people off but you have not given me one piece of evidence to support your claims about network marketing.

            Yet at the same time you moralise and attack people, but you also fail to realise that pay day loan schemes were created for one purpose only namely to loan people money at exorbitant rates of interest.

            If you knew anything about network marketing you would realise that it is just another mechanism of getting goods and services to the customer but without the need for all the overheads that are normally paid out to advertisers, employees, rent, middlemen etc. That money saved is passed on to both the customer or as commission to distributors.

            The only way you can make money in any business is by selling products. End of.

            This applies to network marketing businesses, cooperatives, credit unions as well as any so called traditional business. But with one big difference – profits are given back to the people involved – customers and distributors, not given to so called fat cats at the top.

            But of course with your extensive knowledge  of NM you would have known that, wouldn’t you?

            You really are a silly, silly bigoted man. As I said in my first reply to you – come back when you have something sensible to say otherwise I can’t be bothered arguing with you. I am taking time out of my job to reply to your garbage.

          • Bill Lockhart

             You don’t think I’m worth replying to, yet you keep coming back. Why is that? Perhaps you don’t like people publicising the basic truths about your “business”. Perhaps you think if you bluster and rant enough, people will ignore the fact that you depend for your living on a constant supply of fresh victims-the people at the bottom who will never make a penny . I’m sure you’d love that information to disappear.
             Fat chance, matey.

          • keggsie

             I repeat the answer I gave before – last chance to get it – come back when you have something sensible to say otherwise I have no intention of conversing. Period.

          • Bill Lockhart

            People like you make the naked greed of  Fred Goodwin seem almost respectable. Almost. At least he doesn’t pretend to be in it for anyone but himself. Funny how a shark seems quite respectable compared to a rat. Don’t worry, I’ll be here to flag up the disgusting immorality of your (deep breath) “socialist” business model whenever you show your face. How many of your downline suckers ever make a penny profit? How many losers’ commissions did it take to buy your last new car?

          • keggsie

             This conversation is at an end. Labour List is for people to discuss issues relating to the Labour Party, and not for people who wish to write billious nonsense, and to use it for private grievances.

          • Bill Lockhart

             I note you won’t answer two simple question. Can’t risk your downline finding out the truth before you get their money, can you?

          • Bill Lockhart

             Oh, and you wanted evidence? My pleasure:

            “Based on available company data, approximately 99.7% of MLM participants lose money – spending more on company purchases and minimal operating expenses than they receive in commissions from the company.
            2. Those who lose the most are those who invest the most, having accepted deceptive claims that the MLM is a legitimate income or business opportunity, and having continued to invest in the vain hope of eventually profiting handsomely.
            3. Based on statistics from the Direct Selling Association, the chief MLM lobbying organization, aggregate losses (which the DSA calls “sales”) suffered by tens of millions of victims exceed tens of billions of dollars a year in the U.S., with far greater losses worldwide. MLMs often plunder vulnerable populations overseas.
            4. In some cases, monetary losses from MLM participation lead to heavy indebtedness, bankruptcy, foreclosed mortgages, and failed educational and career pursuits.
            5. Addiction to MLM can result from excessive commitment to MLM – which can become a lifestyle. “MLM junkies” – who have internalized its “easy money” appeal – may find it difficult to work again in a normal work setting.
            6. Some MLM participants lose more than money. Divorces, rifts among extended families, and even suicides and murders related to MLM participation, have been reported.”

            http://mlm-thetruth.com/index.php/download_file/view/118/1/

Latest

  • News

    Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    By Johanna Baxter

    Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    By Ellie Cumbo

    Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]

    Read more →
  • News The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013

    The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Woolwich – the theories that will occupy security forces “Counter-terrorism officers and security officials will doubtless fear that Woolwich fits into the category of crime that they can do little to thwart; random, lone-wolf, unsophisticated attacks, conducted by people who are not [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    By Emma Burnell

    Life can come out and shock you. The events of yesterday are unimaginable. The family of the poor victim are in indescribable pain. Those who knew the men who have done these terrible things will also be suffering. They too are victims of this awful crime. Over the next few days and weeks we will see the best and the worst of humanity. As John Lydon once sang, anger is an energy. Well directed anger is healthy. We should be [...]

    Read more →