Kicking AV into touch clearly isn't enough for the Tories. Now their house newspaper, the Telegraph, is going further, saying:
Why don't we restrict votes to people who actually pay something into the system? No, I am not suggesting a return to property-based eligibility; although that system worked quite well when Parliament administered not just Britain but most of the world. Today, income would be a much better test, setting the bar as low as possible; perhaps including everyone who pays at least £100 of income tax each year.
That minimal requirement would include everyone who gets out of bed in the morning to go to work and could easily be extended to include, on grounds of fairness, several other groups. For example, all pensioners — because of the fiscal contributions to society they are likely to have paid earlier — and mothers — because of their contribution to defusing the ‘demographic time-bomb' of an ageing population.
As they add:
This modest proposal would, however, exclude large numbers of people who have no ‘skin in the game' and who may even comprise the majority of voters in some metropolitan areas today. Their contribution is not just negative in financial terms — they take out more than they put in — but likely to be damaging to the decisions taken by democracies.
Next, of course, they'll be suggesting the Work House.
And then internment camps.
And I'm not kidding.
That's where this logic leads.
It's frightening that a mainstream UK paper can publish something so both fundamentally anti-democratic and at the same time so akin to the sentiments that broke down societies in the 1930s.
This is really very, very nasty.
And it's Tory.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s an insane idea bordering on fascism, which would probably give rise to rioting and maybe a revolution if the government ever attempted to implement it.
The US already uses the “internment camps” idea of course, as such a high proportion of lower social class adults (particularly from the African American population) are in prison – and not eligible to vote under US law – that it probably has a serious impact on election results. We’re not quite at that stage yet, but if they get rid of Ken Clarke and replace him with a hard right wing send-em-all-to-prison type… just give it a few years.
Do you not think tax is the price for living in a democracy?
Your question makes no sense at all
Democracy is not a contractual issue
Democracy is an ethical issue
So you asked a question that has no meaning
“Democracy is not a contractual issue”
And yet the single most influential treaty on the topic of democracy and human rights is called “Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique”
And if you knew anything about social contracts you would know very well they are not of the form to which I referred
So, very politely, your comment is crass
We had a debate on this topic back in August here http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/08/17/deserving-a-mention-to-show-the-unthinkable-is-now-thinkable/#comment-579447 in which you appeared to argue the same broad case as the DT.
At that time I suggested it was wrong to link tax with the right to participate in a democracy. You replied (at comment #15) that tax is ‘the price paid for living in a democracy’.
I didn’t understand that reply at the time as I indicated in comment #17, and still don’t.
Anyway, it now seems we both now agree that linking tax with participation in democracy is a bad thing.
Oh come on! That is just ludicrous
Of course paying the tax demanded by a government is the price for living in a democratic state
But that’s conditional, of course, on tax being due. I was not suggesting a poll tax
And I didn’t say paying tax was a condition for participating in democracy, and never will
So to say you’re clutching at straws is being over kind to your argument, and I’m sure you know it
Given the existence of VAT and other consumption/ spending taxes is there, in fact, anyone in this country who doesn’t pay tax?
Of course, the Telegraph is aware of this, which is no doubt why they randomly restricted their suggestion to just one of the many taxes levied on individual British residents – income tax.
… On the other hand, would their suggestion deprive Sir Phillip Green of his vote ?
Philip Green pays plenty of income tax.
His wife on the other hand does not. But she is not a UK citizen and she lives in Monaco, so she would not vote anyway.
Perhaps the author of the Telegraph piece has read Hayek, Richard, on what he argued was the relationship between individual freedom and distributive justice (they are incompatible).
But then again Hayek also said the follwing – which I think better captures the sentiment and underlying direction of the Telegraph piece (I class it as an example of political literature):
‘No description in general terms can give an adequate idea of the similarity of much of current English political literature to the works which destroyed the belief in Western civilisation in Germany, and created the state of mind in which nazism could become succesful.’
“Given the existence of VAT and other consumption/ spending taxes is there, in fact, anyone in this country who doesn’t pay tax?”
Good point! Anybody who has actually bought anything (which is generally all of us) has paid VAT at some point. Why not refuse to give the vote to those who avoid or evade their income tax obligations, who effectively rob the country of tens of billions of pounds? 😉
About £6 a week of pocket money should mean many kids qualify for the vote on a VAT basis
That’s exactly what I thought when reading this, Richard: if Cowie had his way from 1929, facism would be everywhere.
It’s an extraordinary screed from someone who clearly has no moral compass worth divining, and no understanding of what democracy is or what it is for. Astonishing stuff.
I see a troll is out, asking stupid diversionary questions 🙂
Wow. I never thought I’d see something like that in a national paper like the Telegraph. That is really the start of a very slippery slope. Once you start classifying people into groups that are then specifically targeted for treatment that will disadvantage them, it starts to get really wrong.
What immediately sprung to mind was “Lebensunwertes Leben” which is what the Nazi party classified people who they thought were “life unworthy of living”. This included the mentally ill, people with disabilities, political dissidents, homosexuals, interracial couples, and criminals (as well as some clergy, Communists, Jews, Romani people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, “non-white” or non-Caucasian peoples, ethnic Poles and a variety of other groups in society).
Of course I am clearly exaggerating in that what the Nazi’s did is clearly not what the Telegraph is proposing. But you can see some terrible similarities. Who in society is more likely to have more periods where they are unable to work and therefore unable pay income tax? Of course it’s severely ill people, people with disabilities and people with severe mental illness. The Telegraph is proposing that these groups of society should be targeted for adverse treatment as “…they take out more than they put in” and that in itself is I think much more than just nasty.
And I noticed that line about “property-based eligibility” which I presume refers to the poll tax or the ‘community charge’ whuch naturally the tories liked because the rich paid in certain circumstances not much more or the same charge for local services for a £300.000 house as someone who lives in a hovel. The poll tax meant that you paid for the privilege of reaching the age of 18, even if you owned no property at all, you were still required to pay.
The tories love democracy for their own kind. They’re not so keen on it for the rest of us.
Pretty obvious that you’ve blocked all dissenting comments. Reading your blog often reminds me of my time in East Germany.
You must have a pretty poor memory then
One of the themes in the article was the proposition that democracy can be self destructive. In the sense the present electorate via politicians can spend money borrowed from the future for ‘consumption now’ with consequences for the future. Or more simply bribed with your childrens debt if not invested in productive assets.
It then reversed the ‘no taxation without representation’ of the US revolution to hopefully just highlight the former point and or sell newspapers and provoke debate.
How about a minimum tax ? (would you really care?)
How about non declaration of income leads to no vote allowed for 5 years?
How about non domiciles not being allowed to vote? be in positions of influence.
How about MP’s flipping houses to avoid CGT leads to not being allowed to vote? or be an MP.
How about Parliament ensuring that House of Lords tax free per diems of XXX (not sure £300 a day) prevent them from passing tax laws etc? Not sure if thats a fair comment but JSA is taxable at £60 per week.
Having an offshore secrecy protected bank account stopped you from voting? or similar?
Anyone can flip houses to avoid CGT. Not just MPs. You just need two houses.
It is basic tax planning and “approved” by HMRC (you can find a guide to it on their website).
One bright side to this. Philip Green would be disenfranchised… 😈
No he wouldn’t. He pays tax in the UK. His wife would be disenfranchised but she lives in Monaco.
I agree that linking votes to paying tax would be entirely wrong (although you might find a few of the non-UK doms losing their votes!). Nevertheless to say that this approach leads to internent camps is simply reductio ad absurdum and is a bit of a strawman. You might equally say that any leftward political movement must inevitably lead towards Marxism.
No, sorry, that’s absurd
Suggesting withdrawing democratic rights on the basis of people’s “undesirability” is not a move towards fascism – it’s basically promoting fascism
If you define the Labour manifesto as moving left that’s unrelated to Marxism
If you confuse the two you exonerate the Telegraph’s argument
Was that you intention?
This is silly Richard. We agree that the suggestion of the Telegraph is misguided and should not be adopted.
If you really must state that linking the right to vote with paying tax is fascism then that’s fine, it’s your blog after all and “fascism” is sufficiently nebulous a concept to be bandied about in this way without it being technically wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
I just think you do yourself no favours by invoking Godwin’s Law like this. You have a strong argument which is well put – it can stand well on its own without invoking the spectre of workhouses or the Nazis.
As I’ve noted, if it’s never acceptable to say that “nice’ people (as opposed to the BNP) are putting forward policies that might fit the description then of course fascists get a free reign, always beyond criticism
And right now the risk of fascism is high
I think what the DT is aiming at is the correction of one of the perceived flaws of democracy – that interested groups will vote ‘selfishly’ in order to secure for themselves the greatest benefit, when this might not be conducive to the health of society or the economy as a whole.
So, Hayek pointed out that the fact that the great majority of the electorate is employed rather than being self-employed or otherwise, tends to result in policy and law which is unduly favourable to the employee as against the employer. Arguably such laws will tend to make being an employer harder, and those businesses affected by such laws less competitive when compared to foreign (in our case non-European) counterparts.
In the same way, those who do not pay taxes and who may also receive benefits from the state will always vote for the party which maintains or increases their benefits, and will have scant regard for or even favour policies which increase taxes – thus policy is skewed to the detriment of wider society – a party which recognises this fact, in our case the Labour party, will deliberately court such voters and may even see that making benefits more generous and more widely available will actually buy them votes. When you add to this the creation of public sector jobs, parties such as the Labour party realise that they can increase their support through transforming the economy to one where the greater part of the electorate is directly reliant upon the government.
I’ll take it you think democracy a ‘bad thing’ for all but the rich then?
How enlightened of you
Or alternative;y, see me comment to T W Bartel
Can we be certain that this article isn’t wholly tongue-in-cheek? After all, the author characterises his suggestion as a ‘modest proposal’ – and he must be familiar with the rudiments of Jonathan Swift’s essay.
I wish you were right
I don’t think you are
It was not April 1 after all
I think it was completely serious and clear indication that the right – not just the lunatic fringe – but something called the Conservative party is moving into the realms where a radical assault on the structures of society is likely to be forthcoming soon
If you talk to many of the new Tory members of parliament you’ll note threee things
a) Only the top 5% in society count
b) The state should only do defence and law and order
c) If you can’t rovide for yourself tough
And they mena to enforce it by creating minimal flat tax regimes and almost no public services
This is not fantasy – this is what they say on and especially off record
And I am sure they mean it
Restricting democracy – with the support of Hayek – a man who feared fascism so much he laid the path for its restoration – is an obvious way to deliver that goal
You marginal a group in society. set them up as the enemy who prevent so called progress and then you systematically victimise them while subjugating all the rest
Yes, I do see that as a possibility and Godwin’s law should not be used as a means of suppressing debate on the risk that the right poose in the Uk now – including, as I note, the Tory right
I am far from alone in thinking fascism a real risk in this country
It’s time we were willing to say so – before it’s too late
I think that article proposed a fascist policy
I think it’s right to say so
Because there’s no other interpretation
And it’s not chance that those so called libertarians who follow Hayek are amongst those who seem so keen to promote such solutions
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at such length to my question. I didn’t intend to assert that the article was tongue-in-cheek; I simply wanted to be sure that we can rule out that interpretation, so that we don’t violate the principle of charity. You’ve persuaded me that we can – and in the process, moved beyond my narrowly focused question to the issues of real importance. And I agree with your analysis of those Issues – in all likelihood, my opinion of the present Conservative Party, and of libertarians, is no higher than yours.
Thanks
I have to say Richard, that I speak regularly to many of the Conservative MPs and your description does not accord with my experience … that said, there are some odd bods in all parties who will pick up and run with an idea like this, until they realise just how daft the proposal is.
As to the article; journalist flies a kite and you accuse the Conservative Party of propogating the kite as a plan.
Truth be told, no one serious in politics on any side of the political divide will seriously suggest that only those who pay income tax should have the vote – the franchise has been universal since the 1920’s and no-one wants to restrict it again.
It’s your blog, but there is a point at which polemic becomes absurd …
It would be absurd if I did not believe there were many in Conservative Party who would be rapidly nodding heads in agreement with the Telegraph article
Of course you can disagree
Many did in the 1930s….
And it’s not absurd to say so
Or to imagine that some would really rather there wasn’t a universal franchise in this country
The only absurd position is being naive enough to think our democracy does not need robust defence
Why do you immediately think of Labour voters when someone mentions people who don’t pay taxes? Sounds a bit snobbish to me.
This comment was deleted due to its repugnance
“So, Hayek pointed out that the fact that the great majority of the electorate is employed rather than being self-employed or otherwise, tends to result in policy and law which is unduly favourable to the employee as against the employer. Arguably such laws will tend to make being an employer harder, and those businesses affected by such laws less competitive when compared to foreign (in our case non-European) counterparts.”
I find it almost incredible that this view can be maintained, but it surely is by those who cannot see that labour is the only factor of production which earns its return and that all laws should support this fact.
Richard,
Thank you for posting this rather disturbing piece from the Telegraph.
This does (despite the author’s denials) look like a return to the mindset of the 1700’s.
“This modest proposal would, however, exclude large numbers of people who have no ‘skin in the game’ ”
Remarkably similar to the thoughts of founder of modern conservatism Edmund Burke – credited with the belief the vote should only be given to those with property as they had a stake in the country (i.e. “skin in the game”) the remainder of the population – the “swinish multitude”- could not be trusted with the vote. Burke is probably a bit more subtle than that to be fair to him and needs to be seen in the context of the time (post French revolution). In Britain the so called “swinish multitude” proved themselves to be far from untrustworthy on the battle fields of WWI. It is a massive betrayal to all those who bled for universal suffrage that this idea of “skin in the game” is even being raised however speculative it may be.
From the wiki page: – “Burke was a leading sceptic with respect to democracy. While admitting that theoretically in some cases it might be desirable, he insisted a democratic government in Britain in his day would not only be inept but also oppressive. He opposed democracy for three basic reasons. First, government required a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that was very uncommon among the common people. Second he thought that common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be easily aroused by demagogues if they had the vote; he feared the authoritarian impulses that could be empowered by these passions would undermine cherished traditions and established religion, leading to violence and confiscation of property. Thirdly, Burke warned that democracy would tyrannize unpopular minorities who needed the protection of the upper classes”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
The headline becomes much more palatable if we insert the words “correct amount of tax with in the spirit of the law”.
Hi Richard, I enjoy reading this blog every now and then, but one thing that puts me off is some of your rude answers. Can’t you please tone down a bit? It’d be appreciated. Thanks /John
I don’t think I deliver rude answers
But I admit I do treat some people’s ideas with the contempt they deserve
Which is very different
And, unfortunately, there are some really rather nasty ideas around in politics