The following comment from Ivan Horrocks on the blog this morning is too good not to share more widely (I have edited very slightly to add context only):
Let’s remind ourselves of two words that became so important during the period of Dave Harnett’s reign: relationship management. I’d assume that under his watch, and particularly after the current government came into power, that was specifically defined in the case of HMRC as not taking any actions that might:
a. upset big business or the wealthy and thus embarrass members of the Board of HMRC, or create difficulties for their interests elesewhere;
b. upset any existing or potential donors to and/or members of the Tory party;
c. be detrimental to the future employment prospects of HMRC staff who regard employment as a public servant merely as a very useful stepping stone to a far more lucrative employment in the private sector.
I may be wrong of course, but for a decade now that’s certainly the impression one is given.
It is very hard not agree.
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!
HMRC:-
Helping
Mostly
Rich
Citizens
How quickly we forget that the Labour government rejected the introduction of a GAAR in 1997 and 1999.
The clue is in the name
A GAAR is about avoidance and today’s issue is evasion
WHy are you right wingers so incompetent at commenting?
Thanks for the “upgrade”, Richard 🙂
By a strange coincidence, today I’ve been working on an outline for a unit for a new OU postgrad course I’m working on. The title of the unit is ‘Harnessing Power and Political Resources’. With what’s been on your blog today and in The Guardian, I’m not short of alleged or actual examples of the misuse of such resources.
The thanks are all mine
The aspect which is so repellent is that leniency does not apply to those struggling on low incomes. In fact, a variant of ‘relationship management’ would be all too easy to justify for the poor.
Indeed
What a ridiculous argument. It’s all the fault of the Tories.
The sooner people wake up to the fact that this is not a party political issue and properly sort out tax avoidance and evasion and legislate accordingly the problem will not be resolved. All political parties are just as culpable.
No doubt Ivan Horrocks believes that the reelection of Labour will be the end of the matter, all is good again. No more evasion, avoidance and banking malfeasance. Probably no need for TJN and Richard Murphy. Pure fantasy.
It is not true that Labour have announced policies that will solve all the issues involved
It is undoubtedly true that Labour has a greater appetite to solve the problm, because it does believe tax delivers a social good
The difference is real
Hugh. I certainly do not believe that if Labour were in power it would be the end of the matter. Indeed, in comments (and the occasional guest blog over the years) I’ve been clear in pointing out that much of the situation that we have nowadays is courtesy of new Labour and their fawning attitude to big business and their unquestioning approach to demands for light-touch regulation. They are also largely responsible for the importation of a whole raft of “consumerist” concepts/practices into government and public service without paying due regard to how these might need to be adapted to meet the requirements of the context in which they were employed (in short, they largely swallowed the ‘private good, public bad’ dogma that utterly dominates the thinking of the current government). My comment/blog focused on one of these – relationship management – and the way in which that approach, which has much merit when used appropriately, has been utilised in a biased and highly selective way (and that became more so post 2010), that should be unacceptable in any modern day form of public administration.
It could very well be that the 2008 crash (for which Labour has been blamed by the Co-alescence) may have broken the Blarite faith in markets that Labour had previously. I hope so. If I were Gordon Brown etc., I would have felt let down by the behaviour of the financial system who had told us that the less we interfere, the better the results will be.
That promise has not materialised – ever.
All I and many others on this blog are looking for Hugh is a balance between the market and the State – not one or the other.
There is a role for both that is based on pragmatism – not ideology. The State will have to increase its vigilence on behalf of its voters. And the markets only have their own behaviour to blame for that. The recent past (from say 1979) is full of examples of market failure. Go and do some research and think about it a little more.
Unless of course you just want to come on here and belittle people who have had the moral courage to do just what I suggest you do above.