Jolyon Maugham wrote of one if his own blogs a couple of days ago:
Like many others (I presume) I decided to ignore that blog when I read it, largely to save his blushes and despite the fact that I was mentioned in it (on which, more below). But in subsequent private exchanges Jolyon suggested he was open to comment and in that case I will suggest just why this this blog represents so much that is wrong about much 'left-wing political' thinking on tax. Saying so I should note that Jolyon openly acknowledges that he is a Labour Party supporter, being very firmly on the New Labour wing of that party.
The first, and to be honest deeply frustrating aspect of this post was Jolyon bemoaning that tax debate is political when saying:
It's no easy task balancing the competing demands of fostering growth, funding critical public services and guarding against the rapacity of those unwilling to focus on anything beyond their post-tax return. And yet politicians — and lobbyists — of all hues seem willing to topple this hard struck balance for ideological gain. As though it, none of it, really matters.
I think only someone from New Labour could say this when the reality is that all tax is inherently political. It is, I admit generically, the great problem of those from the tax profession who engage in debate on tax issues that they think tax is all about money and that's a serious mistake. Tax does demand payment, of course, but that misses much of the point of it: it is as much about reorganising the economy and addressing market failure as well as achieving social goals as it is about money per se and all those issues are political to the core. To bemoan that politics and tax intermingle is to simply reveal the most basic misunderstanding of the nature of tax itself.
Having bemoaned political debate on tax Jolyon then made a next bizarre move: he welcomed George Osborne's Google tax of which we, as yet, know almost nothing at all as to how it will work. I am astonished by this: if there's one thing we now know about tax it is that transparency and accountability are now key. Osborne has offered neither: he's told us we are to have a tax and given not a hint of what it is and instead of condemning this total failure from our Chancellor Jolyon said:
Now is not the moment to speculate on how the government will achieve this, a measure which stands to raise around £350m per annum. There will be time for that next week, when the detail is announced. But what we can, safely, say now is that it is a radical measure; not hitherto seriously contemplated as even possible; and one which meets an overwhelming moral and business need.
Only someone believing in the Third Way could support radicalism without having a clue what it might mean, and therefore whether it will raise a single penny in revenue, in my opinion. Change for change's sake is not a merit. And gestures for gestures sake may well have identified much of what Labour did for too long, but this comment just makes no sense: how can we know whether or not a moral or business need has been met when we do not know what the tax might do?
This though was not sufficient for Jolyon: he went on to then lambast those on the left of the tax debate: the Tax Justice Network, the Guardian and me being his identified targets for disappointment. Quite what Jolyon was trying to say is hard to discern: he produced several paragraphs whose meaning I am sure he knows, but about which I can only guess. These extracted comments provide some clues:
There's a cosy narrative on the left around tax avoidance: that avoidance is something the Tories tacitly encourage and that Labour, armed only with the simple sword of fairness and the trusty shield of moral authority, will end once and for all. Like most defining political narratives, routinely repeated at festive seasons to a congregation of the party faithful, its association with the truth is purely coincidental.
It's odd to move from this to berate me, the TJN and Guardian when none of us are linked to the Labour Party, and TJN is in particularly scrupulous in avoiding any party commentary at all. And yet he continues:
But this narrative, although it might bind together the faithful, also has consequences. It causes us collectively to close our minds to the technical difficulty involved in making good tax policy. It makes us less effective in Opposition (on which more to follow on Monday) and — which matters more — it makes us less effective in Government.
As far as I know no one who writes on tax for TJN or the Guardian is planning to be in government and I can assure you no one would be more surprised than me if I was. I am most certainly not standing for office. Jolyon is aware of this: I have told him.
What the next paragraph means defeats me:
Those who work in tax and in the media know this to be true. They know it. And they know its damaging consequences. And yet they burnish the narrative. Because, of the twin sins of acknowledging the left might have something to learn on tax and of being economical with the truth, it is the first sin that they hold to be the greater.
From this he concludes (how I do not know):
Rather than acknowledge that the Google Tax might — depending on the detail, might — meet the compelling commercial and moral case identified above; rather than commend the ambition to tackle an issue dear to the public's heart; rather than recognise that the BEPS project (on even the most optimistic view) is both years off and imperfect; rather even then waiting for the detail, we eagerly commit the latter sin for fear that our silence will be mistaken for the former.
So, this is the charge sheet. And I plead not guilty to this suggestion that Jolyon makes:
Even Richard Murphy, a man in whose energy and courage there is inspiration to be found, and who has long campaigned for multinationals to pay their share, has found himself unable, quite, to welcome the concept of this radical step.
Well let me spell out precisely what drives that energy. It is principled base and if that's called political, so be it. Those principles may well be those I expect of left wing politics.
First, I expect transparency and accountability in taxation: transparency because that gives best chance that all will be treated equally and accountability because that requires that those in power will actually deliver on the promise of equal treatment.
Second, whilst the nation state is vital as it is at the core of taxation so to is international cooperation vital to the effectiveness of taxation: justice can only be delivered on the basis of equality being a concept that extends beyond any one state. That means cooperation is key.
Third, equality is vital. This is both horizontal and vertical and irrespective of the size and type of entity being taxed, or its place of ownership and the owners of that income.
Fourth, there is no room for competition in tax: competition is based on the assumption that participants may fail and there is not room for failure in tax collection.
Fifth, tax must remove distortions in an economy and attempt to correct its imperfections; not least those created by the market.
Finally, taxes that fail to promote these objectives are in need of replacement as they are as likely to to cause at least as much harm as good.
I am sure I could recast them; this is a quick summary, but that will do for now. And on this basis it is very obvious why anyone on the left (but not, it seems, in the Labour Party) would right now oppose the so called Google Tax.
First, it has already failed a transparency test: we do not known what it is.
Second, it is likely to fail a transparency test: we will have no idea of knowing on what tax base this tax will be charged even when the details are published. There is no company on earth that publishes details of its diverted profits. We do know though that these sums are enormous: base on the fact that Google has worldwide profits of over $14 billion and the UK represents 10% of its sales it would be quite fair to think that not much less than 10% of its sales should be made here resulting in profits of maybe £850 million, resulting in a tax bill of more than £200 million at the proposed rate of 25% given it pays very little tax on profits here. But the total expected yield on this tax is little more than £350 million a year. There's going to need to be a lot of explaining to make this transparent unless of course country-by-country reporting is to be made public and I have heard no rumour of that yet.
Third, on that basis accountability is unlikely.
In that case equality looks very unlikely indeed: there seems little chance at all that a level playing field is going to be created when it looks very unlikely that this proposed tax will come anywhere near close to taxing appropriately those who are diverting profit. This looks very like a failed tax in the making.
As importantly, everything about this proposal stinks of tax competition. If it is based on country-by-country reporting that was never intended as the use for this data. Despite the fact country-by-country reporting has been supported by the UK, and is on the BEPS agenda as a result, I cannot help but think there might be something going on here that is intended to undermine because this proposal looks like it might use CBC data to charge a tax unilaterally that is targeted at US companies when they are country-by-country reporting's main opponent. And at the same time, it feels like the whole process may be intended to undermine the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting process, which is the biggest negotiation for an international tax settlement we have seen for decades. Could it just be that Osborne is doing his very best to undermine a process that is the antithesis of the tax competition he so believes in, especially when Cameron kept him out of the G8 process that helped give rise to it?
Next, it is obvious based on the potential collections noted above that this tax cannot hope to remove distortions from the market so it looks like this tax is going to fail at that.
So right now based on some careful principles based analysis some of us on the left - meaning we are dedicated to cooperative, principles based taxation that makes sure markets work for universal good and that all contribute to well being as they are able - are saying we already have serious reservations about what is being proposed.
Compare that with pragmatic gestures that won't deliver on any of the principles noted and you have the divide between New Labour and principled taxation made clear. I know which side I am happy to be on. I'd say it was Labour's job to be on the same side and to put the market based failed pragmatism of the New Labour era behind it, but that's just my view.
In the process, I've set out many concerns about the Google Tax, and that, I hope, is useful.
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:
Just for the record, my post was well read, had supporters and detractors (as does much I write) and I’d cheerfully invite readers to make up their own minds about it. If you don’t like it, I’d be interested to read why. If you do, ditto. Either way, I’m not in the business of having my blushes saved.
Robust exchange is good
Certainly for those of us reading both blogs!
Jolyon Maugham’s blog rides one two waves:
1. His own proven tax expertise and talent
2. His comfort in accepting that tax professionals with Right-of-centre views are, like him earnest and honest people dedicated to making good tax policy in consequence debate of the highest calibre is enjoyed on his blog. By consciously reaching our ‘across the divide’ Jolyon has helped in a small way to elevate our national discourse.
Ah, what you mean is that you’re happy with hegemony
So much for a belief in competing ideas
They would never do in your world, would they?
Ironman, you’re so transparent it is not worth making a further comment on your remarks!
Sorry Jolyon has achieved nothing with his latest blog.
I’m personally dismayed that he can’t see what “Nu Labour” is all about, which is to put a veneer on top of “neo-liberalism” to make it appear more friendly and appealing. Underneath it all the same “rotten economics” remain that will one day reduce this country to no more than an insignificant Fiefdom run by a small elite that have reduced the vast majority to 21st century sefdom – ie debt slavery! .
I have no particular wish to beat up on Jolyon Maugham, who seems a nice chap. But I do think that his article contains at least 2 non sequiturs, as follows:
1. Jolyon says: “In the Autumn Statement, the Tories took a bold step. Recognising the overwhelming moral — and business — case for ensuring domestic businesses could play on a level field with their multi-national competitors, George Osborne announced a ‘diverted profits tax’. Now is not the moment to speculate on how the government will achieve this, a measure which stands to raise around £350m per annum. There will be time for that next week, when the detail is announced. But what we can, safely, say now is that it is a radical measure; not hitherto seriously contemplated as even possible; and one which meets an overwhelming moral and business need.”
Actually, no: we can’t say it’s a ‘radical measure’ until we’ve read the small print. It *could* be a radical measure but it could equally be a piece of window-dressing which won’t achieve anything at all. And given this government’s previous record of encouraging corporate tax avoidance (see e.g. Controlled Foreign Company rules) I would be inclined to believe it’s window-dressing, until I see clear evidence to the contrary.
And:
2. Joylon states “There’s a cosy narrative on the left around tax avoidance: that avoidance is something the Tories tacitly encourage and that Labour, armed only with the simple sword of fairness and the trusty shield of moral authority, will end once and for all. Like most defining political narratives, routinely repeated at festive seasons to a congregation of the party faithful, its association with the truth is purely coincidental.”
Actually most of the people I know on “the left” (which is NOT Labour, not by a long shot) operate on the basis that Labour is almost as bad as the Tories on tax avoidance and that both the major parties are actually pretty useless at tackling it. There are individual Labour MPs who understand the issues involved and are committed to radical policies but Labour front bench policy on tax avoidance has been fairly toothless for some time now.
So all credit to Jolyon for trying to address these issues, but I think he has made some basic mistakes at the outset here.
Hi Howard,
Thanks for engaging. And dealing with your (substantive) points in turn:
(1) I think we can safely say it’s not a piece of “window dressing” given that the Green Book says it will yield £350m a year. However, my point – that it is radical – is based on the conceptually different premise that no one had seriously argued that it might be possible to tackle the “diversion of profits overseas” by multi-nationals by purely domestic measures (i.e. without waiting for BEPS). Readers interested in understanding my argument should also read on where I talk about the fact that: “Rather than acknowledge that the Google Tax might — depending on the detail, might — meet the [case to tackle such evasion]”
(2) What you describe as a “non-sequitur” is surely just a difference of view between you and me as to where the left is on tax avoidance?
So I am not sure it is fair to describe my points as you do as “basic errors”.
Best,
Jolyon
Jolyon
We are still not sure it is possible to challenge diversion of profits in the way Osborne suggests
The chance that this may all be show that is to be deliberately left aside in the wash up at the end of this parliament has to be seriously considered
Richard
Thanks Jolyon
You’re right – “basic errors” is too strong. Apologies for that.
That’s a good point on costings – presumably it means that HMT/OBR is taking this measure seriously as a revenue raiser. *However* I will still wait for the details before congratulating George O – the HMT/OBR costings of policies have been wrong before…
On (2), I should point out that if it turns out that Labour *does* have a real commitment to reducing tax avoidance/evasion, and manages to reduce said avoidance/evasion substantially over the course of the next Labour Govt, I would be very glad to be proved wrong! It’s just that I’m not optimistic based on current evidence.
best,
Howard
Howard
I too would like to think Labour serious but so far it is too wedded to tax avoidance, too wedded to micro-detail and not willing as yet to be very clear that it will tackle evasion strongly enough
There are some signs of hope e.g. Some warm words on increasing HMRC staff and looking at the abuse of dormant companies but too much effort is lost in looking at small changes which Jolyon has pointed out in the past are not likely to raise much in yield or may already be being addressed in other ways
What is needed is a principles based approach and so far we are not seeing it – the precise point I was seeking to make
Richard
Richard,
In your shortest two-pointer above, you say “We are still not sure it is possible to challenge diversion of profits in the way Osborne suggests”. I think you must mean you are unsure whether it is likely to succeed or to have the desired impact. That is a comment that could be made not only about any novel tax measure but more or less any proposed legislation about anything. There are many who would make just this comment about any suggestions for a principles-based approach
And “The chance that this may all be show that is to be deliberately left aside in the wash up at the end of this parliament has to be seriously considered”. Maybe, but that serious consideration would include reflection on how often one of the select group of measures chosen for the speeches and headlines disappears down the plughole during wash-ups. This almost certainly has legs.
M
I doubt this one has legs: the US backlash has yet to be heard
Well, well at least Jolyon gives an insight into the thinking behind Neu(tered) Labour’s apparent policy of “We are intensely relaxed about people getting rich”.
It also shows you just how out of balance politics is in this country when we hear failure described as something called ‘pragmatism’. I believe that we are so too far to the right now that pragmatism is maybe rendered useless.
What Neu(tered) Labour did not realise was that by not being more pro-active about tax, they just let those who had loads of money become even more powerful and use their cash to cement their position (by making political donations to parties who will turn the other way when their tax dealings are being sorted out). The point is that money used to pay taxes is far more useful to society than money used to pervert democracy.
This fact is lost on people like Jolyon (like most of those into the Third Way (‘Turd-way’?) who think that they can appease power gained via money. You can’t. Money is the ‘the Ring that binds them all’ – it goes to peoples’ heads and having it is a means to itself and nothing more.
Hi Howard,
Again, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I have congratulated Osborne. My post makes the much narrower point that this is something the left has been calling for over and again (and understandably so). Having got something which might – depending on the detail – deliver on the call, the left has got stuck in rubbishing it without waiting to see the detail. As someone (no doubt like you) who likes to make policy calls based on the evidence, I find that rather surprising. And I look for an explanation. And I find a familiar one – that the left is determined not to like this policy because of who has promulgated it (essentially it’s playing the man rather than the ball – as I put it to Alex Cobham in the comments section of the actual blog post).
On (2), I have no doubt that Labour has the commitment. But I think it takes a little more than commitment (as I have argued here http://wp.me/p3D1eN-gW and evidenced the next day here http://wp.me/p3D1eN-h2).
Best,
Jolyon
PS As we’re now talking, is now the right moment to remind me that you owe me a phone call from way back?
Jolyon
Sorry: that wholly misrepresents the argument
We are objecting because what Osborne is doing could very likely harm the objective that this government has signed up to and that is the reason for objection
We are not objecting on the basis of who has promulgated it: we’re objecting for all the very sound reasons I have noted and to say otherwise is to a) ignore what I have written and b) get this seriously wrong
Richard
Not sure we can take this any further Richard – but if it was really about the nature of the measure, I’m surprised you didn’t wait for the detail before condemning it.
Best
Jolyon
I don’t think we can take this further
I have no time for a measure that may defeat international action and looks peripheral at best domestically
That’s not radical: that’s a spoiling tactic and I think that’s exactly what we’re going to see
If I’m wrong I will say so
Hi Jolyon
You’re right – I owe you a phone call, but by the time I’d remembered to phone you back, I had mislaid the piece of paper I had with your contact details on! If you go to the Landman Economics website my phone number is on there – give me a ring (or email me).
Best,
Howard
I’ve come across the “this issue or policy isn’t about politics/political” many times over the years: from economists, managers, military, police and security personnel, engineers, IT practitioners, and so on. Indeed, almost every form of “profession” I can think of. My reaction, certainly since becoming an academic, is to point them to Rittel’s and Webber’s seminal paper, ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’ (Policy Sciences, 1973, No.4, pp.155-169). This one paper demonstrates why few if any professions, including law, and their policy domains and concerns are not political. As the authors noted then – and this is still an issue now – many social professions have misled themselves …’into assuming they could be applied scientists – that they could solve problems in the ways scientists can solve their sorts of problems. The error has been a serious one.’
But the feature of Rittel’s and Webber’s paper that some of us will be familiar with is their use of the term “wicked” issue(s), which really underpins their demolition of the argument that certain professions (and thus policy domains) are, or ought to be, free from politics.
‘As distinguished from problems in the natural sciences, which are definable and separable and may have solutions that are findable, the problems of governmental planning – and especially those of social and policy planning – are ill defined; and they rely upon elusive political judgement for resolution (Not “solution”. Social problems are never solved. At best they are only re-solved – over and over again)…The problems that scientists and engineers have usually focused upon are mostly “tame” or “benign” ones…Wicked problems, in contrast, have neither of these traits; and they include nearly all public policy issues – whether the question concerns location of a freeway, the adjustment of a tax rate, the modification of school curricula, or the confrontation of crime…We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognise the inherent wickedness of social problems.’ (pp. 160-161).
Note that Rittel and Webber use ‘planner’ in the broadest sense of the definition to cover any group/profession involved in any form or branch of public policy.
Many thanks
And wise words from 1973, to be heeded now
Hi Ivan
It’s not my argument that tax isn’t political. As I’ve argued elsewhere http://wp.me/p3D1eN-hU it is inherently political. So I agree with you.
Rather my argument is that reaction to this measure is political – in the sense that the left has decided not to like it before it even understands what the measure is because the measure comes from the right. That’s my objection.
Best
Jolyon
How can we like unilateral action when a unified approach is needed and in progress?
I have explained why the left could not endorse that already
Again, I am surprised to see you placing so much faith in the BEPS process when you have been so quick to point out its shortcomings elsewhere – see for example here http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/20/thoughts-on-the-oecd-beps-process/ and here http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/04/22/is-beps-the-end-of-the-line-for-the-oecd-taxation-model/ where you say “BEPS looks like it is failing very badly to me”.
Detail my not always work as I like
But to throw the whole process out is absurd – and fundamentally something the left should not embrace until it has been given time to work
Unilateral acts that promote tax competition should be alien to left of centre tax thinking, as I thought I had made very clear
I’ve just read the blog on political v apolitical, Jolyon, and appreciate where you’re coming from. And I’d agree that there’s a strong tendency the wider people are across the political spectrum to automatically dismiss policy proposals and measures from the other “side” – though given the different values that underpin the Left and Right that’s hardly surprising.
But my problem with this specific proposal is that it cannot be seen in isolation from the strategy (or perhaps that should be overarching project) on corporate/elite taxation that the Tories have pursued since 2010. Put simply, this has centred on talking tough on avoidance/evasion, and following through with the relevant PR and media blitz, which is an easy thing with most of the press being Tory; proposing – and in some cases enacting – policy solutions; while at the same time pursuing – and in most cases enacting – legislation which is highly beneficial to the corporate/elite sector (eg. the patent box, etc). Consequently, and almost regardless of the detail of the “Google tax”, if there’s a cost to the corporates that it’s aimed at then that will have been, or will be in the near future, more than offset by policy developments elsewhere.
So, from my perspective it’s not that a “Google tax” is bad policy, but that if and when adopted it needs to be part of a total rebalancing of tax policy and HMRC operations away from an inbuilt – and now quiet obviously cultural – bias and ethos that always aims to benefit in one way or another big business and the extremely wealthy. That’s a project that Labour should now get firmly behind, but which, as Richard and others frequently point out, they are far to timid about.
Thanks for that balance Ivan
Just having a bite at this…
I agree with Jolyon that the reaction to this measure is political but I think the left would be being naive if it wasn’t political. It surely makes sense to approach any new announcement from George Osborne with caution given his previous record as one of the most right wing and politically motivated chancellors the UK has ever had (I am very happy to offer substantial detail to defend that assertion if need be). To use an analogy… if the school bully, who had been making your life hell for 4 years, suddenly came up to you all smiles from ear to ear, offering you a bag of sweets, would you take him/her at face value? Or would you suspect some kind of ruse? If the left starts from the premise that Osborne is some kind of benign force for social justice then we will be suckered every time. *Now*, if it turns out that once I’ve seen the details of these proposals, it looks like the Google Tax is a serious and workable anti-avoidance measure, then fair enough, I’ll offer credit where credit’s due. But I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that Osborne’s suddenly turned into a social justice warrior on the basis of a broad-brush announcement with no detail (bar some Treasury costings which I also have no detail on at the moment).
Quite so
“I too would like to think Labour serious but so far it is too wedded to tax avoidance”
Is this really serious debate when you describe the Labour Party as “wedded to tax avoidance”? Even people who do not support the Labour party will find this statement absurd.
I meant too wedded to tackling tax avoidance and not the bigger issue of tax evasion
Apologies if I was too brief in my comment
“…Jolyon then made a next bizarre move: he welcomed George Osborne’s Google tax of which we, as yet, know almost nothing at all as to how it will work. I am astonished by this…”
“…on this basis it is very obvious why anyone on the left (but not, it seems, in the Labour Party) would right now oppose the so called Google Tax”
So supportin the so called ‘google tax’ before we know what it is is wrong.
But opposing the so called ‘google tax’ before we know what it is is right.
As I made very clear on the basis of totally logical argument it is possible to have considerable justified reservation at this point in time
But as a pedant you ignored that fact
I remember very well Labour opposition to particular anti-avoidance measures proposed in the last Major budget that had not made it through by the 1997 election. But after the election, previously vociferous opponents who had taken up posts as Ministers and actually come to see and hear all of the evidence and reasoning for the proposals, adopted them wholeheartedly.
The ostensible (and original) purpose of the Autumn Statement was precisely to allow a period for consideration and discussion of proposals likely to be brought forward in the Budget. Where proposals are announced that are directed at an end that everyone would like to reach, it seems perhaps counter-productive to any consensus on means not to consider such proposals carefully.
It will be interesting to see the detail and (one hopes) explanation of how the proposals fit with BEPS etc, and it seems a little premature not to wait and see.
The premise of BEPS is no unilateral action
Since there is no BEPS answer to this issue yet how can action be anything but unilateral and therefore not within the spirit of BEPS?
I was not aware that the premise of BEPS is no unilateral action (perhaps you could link to that), but by that logic all transfer pricing and controlled foreign company rules should be suspended until the BEPS reforms are complete. The TP and CFC rules are examples of unilateral action to defend a country’s tax base.
On a more general note, I am not entirely convinced that the ability of democratically elected governments to protect their interests should be impeded due to ongoing negotiations which appear to be open-ended and on whose goals are, at best, nebulous.
Maybe you should read a little more about the BEPS process then
And speculate on why the UK was a) so keen to promote it in 2013 and b) so keen to apparently undermine it in 2014 and then c) wonder what that says about UK policy in the light of what Ivan Horrocks has to say
Richard,
Since politics are a barrier to a fair tax system, then we should start all over and challenge all tax theories, as citizens of any country, we should be capable of, side by side with authorities, of designing the way we think we can contribute to the government’s expenses, this is exactly what we did thousands of years ago. The whining on BEPS shows that governments are struggling to increase revenues, to say the least, and also how far our representatives are from us and our ideas. I heard Osborne’s address and gives no detail in the case of multinationals and misleading information in the case of the banks, we get speeches like this here in Mexico
Best regards, Miguel
If I may, this sounds like the left wingers having a round of handbags with one breaking ranks from the others!!!
Then you have not read or understood what has been written
If I believed in hegemony I wouldn’t be commenting on Jolyon’s blog would I! This is the sort of stupid comment, coupled with your lack of courage genuinely to join debate, that gives you such a poor reputation.
Quite pathetic.
I note no hint of indication to debate in what you have just posted: just tired ad hominems that suggest that libertarians do not like me, which is a mild cause for satisfaction
I gave you a chance and you have not taken it
Please don’t try again