David Cameron said this:
“For me the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years: it is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society.
“People allowed to feel that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and that their actions do not have consequences. Well they do have consequences.
“We need to have a clearer code of values and standards that we expect people to live by and stronger penalties if they cross the line.
“Restoring a stronger sense of responsibility across our society in every town in every street in ever estate is something I am determined to do.”
And then he signed the Swiss tax deal.
Which lets criminals off the hook.
Which endorses banking secrecy to hide crime.
Which undermines honest business.
Which rewards tax evasion.
Which will bring no one to account for their crime.
Which means we now know for sure what we always suspected.
He's a hypocrite.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You are beginning to look like an idiot now.
Note what I said about getting personal
Are you suffering from guilt?
It may have escaped your notice that Swiss banking laws are not subject to the jurisdiction of the British Prime Minister. Exactly how else therefore is he going to tax deposits held there and benefiting from their secrecy rules? He has arranged to tax offshore British tax-dodgers who your mates in the Labour party ignored for 13 years, and STILL you manage to complain. Unbelievable.
Except you are entirely wrong, of course
Under Labour we got the European Savings Directive
And the EU Code of Conduct
Oh, and the OECD initiative
And support for country by country reporting
And yes, Switzerland was coerced
Please stop being abusive and stick to facts
We can make criminal states comply with reasonable requirements
Since he was talking about little people having something for nothing, and not rich people, technically he is not a hypocrite.
Just a fool on a mission.
Aye, we do indeed know what we always suspected, we have a government of corrupt crooks, governing entirely on their own behalf. I think we need a Revolution: our plutarchy will never be forced to relinquish its grip by our feeble “democracy”.
I do not agree
I am a democrat and support nothing else
I think Robbie might have been hinting at irony in the “democracy” part. Most revolutionaries want more democracy, not less.
Whether they get it….
not even the terrribly improbable but no less possible approach of consensus, rather than majority rules?
Thank you Simon H! I’m a democrat too, but 58 years of experience have shown me that I don’t live in one. I’d love to believe that all the good and sincere work of people like Richard would one day prevail, but I don’t. This is a plutarchy, and the people whose reason and moral sense Richard needs to appeal to don’t actually want it any other way.
The revolution I want is a democratic one.
Well despite my pessimism I still believe right can prevail
Cameron can say such things, and do the complete opposite with the Swiss/UK tax deal, Richard, because to most ordinary citizens of the UK riots and other such forms of ‘criminality’ are visible, real, things, whereas international tax agreements (or indeed pretty much any kind of international agreement – e.g. trade deals) are not. Throw into that mix the ultra positive spin about this deal that’s being peddled extensively – and parroted by the likes of Hartnett – and thus being reported in the mainstream media, and most people are not in a position to be able to see the extent and degree of rank hypocrisy and contradiction by Cameron, and the government generally, in the approach to these two events/policies.
On a deeper level (and reading back through your blogs of the past few days which I’d missed while away) I remain of the view that I outlined in a response to one of your blogs earlier this year: underpinning the UK/Swiss tax deal is a broader policy – or at least policy direction – that is clearly aimed at making the UK a low tax/no tax domain for corporate/wealthy elites as quickly as possible within the life of this parliament. In that sense having Harnett head HMRC, Gauke as Minister, appointments to HMRC Board, continuining the ‘downsizing’ of HMRC, etc, etc, are all related, as I would also suggest, is the work of the (so called) Tax Payers Alliance (a recent report of which you highlighted a few days ago). In consequence, I will safely predict that when the inquiry into tax simplification reports it will do so along the lines of the TPA’s ‘recommendations’.
I’d also add that the speed and consistency with which developments such as the Swiss/UK deal, reductions in corporation tax have been implemented, and activities at and by HMRC,etc, all strongly suggest that the Tories have spent some considerable time working on these policies while in opposition, almost certainly supported by advisers from the usual suspect accountancy firms, advice/guidance from the City, and from the Party’s various donors. This would also explain the timing of announcements/events and the comprehensive and consistent nature of the related PR. Unfortunately this is making opposition to these policies – particularly by Labour and Lib Dems who disagree – pretty bloody poor, to say the least.
Ivan
As ever, I agree with you
All I can do is work on Labour and keep banging on….
But other moves are maybe afoot – in discussions over weekend
Richard
Ruth Lee is on the committee of the Tax Payers Alliance, isn’t she? What other positions does she hold?
Plenty
All hideous
Remember to target the Institute of Directors – TPA partners in crime
I like everything about this, except the very last line, where you make it sound like this is Cameron’s fault, or his party’s fault. But, this is not about party politics. The Labour party did absolutely nothing about this situation when they were in power. This is an issue of politics, and government, where government has up until this very day supported more the interests of big business owners than the individual working man or woman.
If there are more mass protests such as the ones organised by UKUncut, don’t be surprised. I think the nation, and the world, is waking up to the face that governments (not parties! and not PMs! but all successive governments!) care more about billionaires than people struggling to heat their home or save for a deposit on their mortgage.
face = fact*
ivan – are you suggesting that MP’s who typically have no idea about the subjects they are put in charge of (witness the treasury select committee in action) should not consult the big 4 accountancy firms or magic circle law firms when they are formulating policy?
who would you like them to consult when it comes to formulating tax policy? perhaps we should have an x factor style show where policies are voted on by the public at large.
no doubt you hate the fact that the treasury publishes proposed rules and then consults interested parties before the law is passed? this process has thrown up several instances where the intention of the new rules has extended far beyond that which was intended and the rules were modified.
That is an absurd comment
The answer is a simple one – we need to hire this competence in HMRC
We could of course
Instead we let those who abuse advise
Consultation is one thing – but it also means those with cash get their way
That is not democracy at work
Actually this expertise already exists in HMRC – at least for now obviously a lot of good people are being lost. The problem is there are strict rules about what could be said by HMRC officials in public – advice to ministers being confidential. Some of the Parliamentary Committees have seconded officials advising them so there is no conflict problem – This seems like a good idea and wouldn’t be so expensive as it would be the same cost as an HMRC salary – much less than 100k!
I agree – I meet these people
But Treasury over rules this
And they do not have expertise
Richard
It’s very interesting to see just how bitter and personal this is all getting.
A large number of anonymous, very rich criminals have been quietly let off stealing billions while a smaller number of petty thieves have the book, handcuffs, “justice” system, and prison publicly thrown at them.
Some other posters want to fixate theoretically on whether or not Labour would have done what Osborne did while conveniently ignoring the grossest real injustice. In your shoes I’d just ban them. Their posts get in the way of serious debate and the development of a sensible solution.
Belgraviadave
I agree
I have decided it is time over for trolls like Darren – who I am sure is a paid swiss bank troll
Let’s get on with the solution
belgraviadave says …
“A large number of anonymous, very rich criminals have been quietly let off stealing billions while a smaller number of petty thieves have the book, handcuffs, “justice” system, and prison publicly thrown at them.”
In a nutshell!
As is your comment about some posters here and Richard’s use of the word “troll”.
Thank you both for your erudite remarks.
The EU Commission will intervene because the German rates are less than agreement 35% and with the UK agreement there are various conflicts with the savings tax and its amendments. It won’t work with trusts, foundations, etc.
I suspect you are right
That may upset Darren, the Swiss bankers’ troll
Are you really saying these problems didn’t happen under Labour, too?
Because I don’t think most people believe that.
Isn’t simply the case that when you get really rich or really powerful it becomes almost impossible to act in a way that might damage people who are really rich and really powerful?
And another thing, I just got told off on facebook for commenting that all these businesses were dirty, and it was pointed out to me that these companies were owned by people, by all of us, if we have shares or pensions that invest in these companies.
I agree with you that our leaders should do something, but so should our business leaders. Why can’t they be ethical? They need to be. But maybe they can’t. Maybe capitalism as we know it currently simply cannot be clean – that money = dirt. And that we are all complicit.
And that’s lot harder to accept than the idea that it’s one person’s fault. So right now it’s all Cameron’s fault, and before that it was Brown’s fault, and before that it was Blair’s fault.
I think it’s a real shame you ended on the line ‘he’s a hypocrite’, for a variety of reasons:
1. No-one cares
2. We knew it already
3. Many people are hypocrites – more blind to their own failings than those of others
4. You really expect politicians to stand up and say ‘I’m powerless’? They don’t, do they?
5. It’s a bit playground, isn’t it? The name calling. You don’t want anyone to be personal in comments, yet you were fairly personal in your post.
6. There’s a more important issue here – these companies avoiding tax – and that should be the point, not so and so is a hypocrite – how is that going to improve the situation?
I appreciate the fact that a lot of the people who are benefiting are the super-rich, but do you not agree that ordinary people benefit, too, if they own shares in these companies, in larger dividends, if these companies pay less tax?
And here’s another point: that our tax is actually very badly handled, with a lot of waste and inefficiency, and so people simply don’t feel they get value for money for them. And that the richer you get, you the less you feel like you want to contribute more, 1] because you increasingly feel like you’ve worked hard for your money and 2] because the richer you get, the less you’re going to need any of the services that your taxes might finance.
Okay that’s slightly simplistic but I’m just trying to explain what happens, because until we’re realistic and honest about human nature, we’re never going to get the rules we need.
Isn’t this the capitalist monster we’ve created?
I have already explained why it was actually different under Labour several times – because it was
And because others are hypocrites does not mean I should not say the same of Cameron. I am not proposing moral relativism
Which is why I do not also buy the idea tax abuse is ok to fund pensions
Nor do I buy the idea tax is a negative
And I have an odd feeling you do not either
I had roughly the same response when I read the above article, especially the blame factor. I don’t understand how things were “actually different” under labour… I’m assuming big companies were just as able to avoid paying tax as they were a few months ago? Or am I wrong?
You are wrong
I am not excusing Labour – The Missing Billions clearly criticises them
But their moves on tax havens overall were good – and again there were exceptions
But even the Leichtenstein deal was acceptable
And yes they did exempt overseas dividends
But they did not offer a 5.75pc tax rate as an incentive to take business out of uk to tax havens
And nor did they offer a deal like this swiss one
So sure I do politics
With good reason and without apology
And I di not excuse those who support abuse from contempt – because I see no reason why I should
my comment is not absurd – more absurd is the notion that HMRC can afford to hire it can it, or even if it could, would be prepared to put up with the public outcry about the sums paid to those experts needed
i believe the TUC and others also input into the consultancy process richard – your fixation on huge corporations with devious aims blinkers your view sometimes.
One voice with a tiny budget against millions of pounds
Get real
you are saying HMRC in these times of austerity can afford these experts !?!? with respect you are the one that needs to get real.
So if someone cost 100k but raised 1 million you would say we can'( afford it
Now please explain that to me in easy steps
I agree richard, but this is how hmrc thinks about things and is why they are cutting staff rather than recruiting. They only see the cost and not the net gain to the exchequer
God knows who’s in charge and making these decisions- hartnett presumably?
Almost certainly
@:Steve
What a stupid remark!
The UK’s financial crisis is precisely why we urgently need greater expertise and ingenuity within HMRC.
For too many years the crooks, fat-cats and corporations have been starving the UK Exchequer of much needed revenue by using elaborate offshore, tax haven based schemes to abuse their power and privilege to rob the ordinary citizens of the UK.
Make no mistake the likes of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man stink.
When the lid is eventually taken off these cess pits it will make the News Internationals phone hacking business look like a vicar’s tea party.
Letting criminals off the hook. Just so, and it puts Cameron et al in a very bad light.
Is there any (guess)estimate of how much of the money in Switzerland is proceeds of crime as opposed to ‘merely’ tax dodging? My guess is that approximately none of it is from that politicians’ favourite, “hard-working” families’ savings.
I looked through the many posts on this sordid deal but didn’t find anything. Apologies if I missed it.
Since tax evasion is crime 100 bn at least
How much other crime? Who knows? Only the Swiss – they take a cut after all
It goes from bad to worse – for sheer chutzpah just look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/27/tax-cheats-coalition-george-osborne
Clearly there is someone – or maybe more than one person – at a high level in the Guardian who’s a Tory plant, or they wouldn’t be publishing nonsense like this!
And really scary:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Are these numbers real, and what does the external dept to GDP ratio of the UK as 387% mean ?
The numbers are not real – they ignore the fact this will take 30 years to pay so it is bogus accounting