In 2008 the banking sector collapsed. Gordon Brown blamed tax havens. Only later was it quietly admitted that the crisis began in US and UK banks.
In 2015 we have had massive flooding. The Daily Mail is rushing to blame the lack of flood defences on the UK having an overseas aid budget. They are, in fact, utterly unrelated issues.
There is, however, politics in common. All politicians and commentators of all parties like to suggest that crises do not happen on their patch. They are the fault of someone 'over there'.
Tax havens were 'over there'.
The foreign aid budget is spent 'over there'.
But the truth is that in both cases the crisis is nearer home.
The difference is that at least Gordon Brown had an element of truth in what he said. Tax havens played a part in the crisis, but not as big a one as he suggested.
The Mail has no element of truth at all to its story. We can afford aid and flood defences. So they're just seeking an excuse to spread misery in the world. And for that there is no excuse, at all.
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:
Labelling overseas territories as tax ‘havens’ and blaming them for the UK’s financial problems skims the surface on the wider problem. The wider problem is agressive corporate arbitrage which plays high tax jurisdictions against low tax jurisdictions and high wage economies against low wage economies, whilst spilling the benefits on an elite that pays as little tax as it can and saves most of the money. Eliminating a low tax jurisdiction such as Jersey or the Isle of Man does nothing in a world where there is global tax competition, where any tax difference, however small, is immediately exploited. To concentrate criticism on a few tiny wind swept islands misses the multinational giants that would cut, legally, HM Treasury out of whatever it can, whatever the tax, whatever the landscape of tax jurisdictions. That is to say, eliminating ALL crown depencies, will lead to an entirely second order effect, as the money will always TRY to find an appropriately low taxed jurisdiction — one without a socialised health service, generous pensions and a standing army. The idea that these tiny islands are rolling in money is also laughable. There may be the odd billionaire raising the averages, but the median resident would be lucky to own their house outright or have more than one foreign holiday. These crown dependencies are not rich, some of their footloose residents are though.
Private financial capitalism is like a multi-headed mythological Hydra.
It will keep growing new and uglier variants of itself after every piece of regulation introduced to chop off a particularly offensive head in a vain attempt by politicians to try to control the system as a whole or mitigate any of its numerous anti-social externalities.
It’s always easier to blame the unknown other, rather than admit the current financial system is always out of control and another disaster is just waiting to happen. It really is just sods luck which politician is in the hot seat when the s**t hits the fan again.
Actually the real problem, not only in the UK, but across the rest of the world is the fact we have incredibly poor standard of politician. In the UK, very, very few have ever worked in business or the public sector, they live in the so called “Westminster Bubble” and are totally clueless about the realities of life. The rag known as the “Mail” seems to think it leads the agenda and as you say in this article, yet again leads with a story which is factually wrong and in many was just spreads fear amongst the population.
I thought Gordon Brown was the worst ever Chancelllor the UK ever had, George Osbourn actually is catching up fast. Your freedom of Fear point is spot on. There is no credible choice, there is no politician to believe.
The flooding of the North West etc was nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Heavy amounts of rain, from unusual weather patterns caused the problem. 17 years ago in East Anglia were I live we had a great deal of rain and flooded our, and many other villages, it wasn’t the rain that time that caused the problem it was the fact that the environment agency staff were off over the Easter period and no one to man the sluice gate across the region, as well as debris from a major road construction site that blocked one of the stream tributaries.
I’m new to your blog, you make some good points, keep up the good work.
I agree we need better politicians
But Westminster is a ghastly place where I would not want to work
“The flooding of the North West etc was nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Heavy amounts of rain, from unusual weather patterns caused the problem.”
I believe you’ll find those ‘unusual’ weather patterns, are what is known as ‘climate change’.
And they are becoming less and less ‘unusual’; given that every year we are told is a record-breaking year, for whatever extreme of weather, it is clear there is a pattern of escalation, that needs to be addressed.
Thank you
Also missed out is the point about the relaxation in the UK of regulations for land-management by land owners. Stripping out natural water-retaining landscapes is adding to the problem. It’s a case of cutting in one area while subsidising behaviour likely to promote flooding in another. Media and data links can be found connecting farmers/landowners (eg pheasant shoots et al) and increased risk of flooding popping up all over the place if one looks.
One issue all should be very afraid of— as evidenced by the secrecy used to ensure that fear was contained —is the destructive affects on each country’s domestic economy (small to medium-sized industries) by global trade agreements. See bilaterals.org, which deal with all the global trade deals, set to literally control and reduce domestic growth. As well as gaining access to the ever-paying deep pockets of taxpayers. This is accomplished by simply using the ISDS investor-state dispute settlement clauses,– that allow all corporations to expect to win any lawsuit, demanding taxpayers to pay for all their business costs.
In Canada, under NAFTA alone, 400,000 permanent jobs lost, as well as 2 billion in outstanding lawsuits to be decided by 3 corporate-lawyer tribunals …….Now, taxpayers can be afraid, or fight by withdrawing their taxes and/or boycotting said corporations. Keep in mind, all of these trade deals from CETA, TPP, TIPP, FIPA and the worst TISA, were setup, knowing they were unconstitutional, by each country’s government……This corporate agenda has been done at taxpayers expense to literally steal from themselves—No different than the billions each government throws quietly as corporate subsidies year after year, getting little if anything of value in return…..(in Canada, 695 billion to date).
Meanwhile; back in the [sur]real world:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-29/rising-threats-our-health
(a who-is-not-who in the world of life expectancy)
And in the world [sic] of finance, the rush to cut the “deal” time in algorithmic trading:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-27/meanwhile-over-new-york-stock-exchange-lots-lasers
Margsview
You are right about the bilaterals and the insidious secrecy. This is the first time I have read about them in this blog, which worries me because TTIP is on its way, despite the huge reservations about TPP in the USA.
Protestors go on about the dangers of ISDS (Inter-State Dispute Settlements), which, unfortunately, takes away the emphasis on what should be the main point of contention, i.e. why should corporations need trade agreements in a free market?
And how can this be possible justified in a civilised democratic society – shame on all those politicians who voted this legislation through.
From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/five-new-laws-for-2016-that-will-change-the-way-we-live-a6773156.html
1. Stricter immigration rules for working people
You might think that a nurse who has spent the last decade tending to terminally ill British citizens would be considered an asset to our society. But under new legislation that comes into effect from April 2016, she could be deported. If you come from outside the EU and you’ve been working here for more than five years, you must be earning more than £35,000 a year, or else you will be shipped off back to your country of origin.
According to the Royal College of Nursing, nearly 3,500 nurses could be kicked out of the country under the legislation, in a move which could end up costing us nearly £200million. The threshold is far above the average national wage of £22,000.
Utterly absurd
We have a shortage of nurses
Seems like Monbiot now has a real world example of how to stop flooding by dealing with the upland drainage issues. I wonder how many other councils will take the initiative and deal with the upland management in the watersheds which impact on their towns and cities.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-flooding-how-a-yorkshire-flood-blackspot-worked-with-nature-to-stay-dry-a6794286.html
Pickering seems to have worked – I saw the work under way a year or so ago – and it’s not even intrusive