I read this with quiet horror in the Guardian:
London should be treated as a city state and given tax-raising powers to match its equal standing with the four nations of the UK, according to a potential Labour candidate for mayor.
Gareth Thomas, a former trade minister who hopes to succeed Boris Johnson next year, says that as the country inevitably moves towards a federal system, it was time to recognise that “our UK is made up of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the city state of London”.
I have read what Gareth Thomas wrote himself wrote on the issue. And it makes no more sense.
Let's ignore the fact that for centuries many of the problems of this country have arisen from the fact that it already has a City State - the City of London - within it. This is a state already dedicated to promoting the cause of finance, of unbridled competition, the tax race to the bottom and the creation of inequality, and which uses state funds for this purpose.
And now Gareth Thomas wants to compound that with a second City State within the state of the UK - a city state of Greater London to be accurate, if I read him right. As a result he wants to devolve taxing powers to London.
Now why would he do that? To increase those taxes? Or to reduce them?
And would he want to reduce them by reducing the redistribution from London to the rest of the country, maybe? Or is that, at the very least, a foreseeable risk of what he is proposing? If so, how can this help the creation of a fairer, more equal, better balanced UK economy?
There is no way that I can see it will.
And to find Labour supporting the powers of the existing City State of London simply staggers me.
I'll take comfort from the fact that as far as I can tell almost no one has yet noticed Gather Thomas MP is seeking to be Labour's mayoral candidate. It might be best for social justice in the UK if it stayed that way if this is what he is proposing.
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:
Alas, Richard, what is even worse is that Gareth Thomas is actually a prominent Co-Operative Party MP – the last Party and set of political ideals you would have expected to be promoting social atomisation and tax competition.
Indeed
so much for me voting to keep the co-op party finances alive. Is there any part of the Labour movement that’s not sold out?
So Scottish independence can be justified but London independence cannot be?
Yes
London is not a state and never has been
What a truly extraordinary comparison – Scotland which had been an independent Kingdom and State for nearly 800 years prior to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 (first recorded King was Kenneth Macalpin, reigned 843-860), and so had been a separate State for nearly 900 years at the time of the Act of Union in 1707 – a Union voluntarily entered into, and capable of being as voluntarily severed, put on a par with a part of the country which has NEVER been officially anything other than an integral part of England (used advisedly), however much it may have tried to assert a separateness and quasi-statehood. Alas, I can only see the comment as yet another example of the south’s tendency to treat Scotland as a colony.
Quite right Andrew
I’m not sure I follow the logic. Can somebody only declare independence if they have previously been a state? Since when has that “rule” applied? If it is in fact a rule, since when has it been operational, and who devised it?
Surely if the people of London voted to become independent then that would have to be respected? I accept that there is almost no likelihood of it happening anytime soon, but still…
So let’s assume the people of, let’s say, Lower Sniggling in the Marsh (popultaion 2) vote to be independent
Would you accept it?
If not, using your logic, why not, because very obviously you’re saying we should?
Please explain using only the principles you have relied upon here
It could work if taxes left at UK level were those on the most mobile tax base: high incomes, corporate taxes, etc. If devolved /federal entities funded themselves from taxes on median salaries, as well as land taxes (inc natural resources) and UK level functions were funded by e.g. an additional income tax rate of 20% on all income above £50,000 say, then we could have a symmetric system which allowed London to function as a federal entity, but effectively maintained the current direction of fiscal transfers (which is fair since London certainly doesn’t train all the human capital which goes on to earn high incomes in London).
But no one is saying such things, unfortunately
I was predicting London would go solo around a decade ago so I’m glad to see the idea is gaining traction. I’ve also been saying for many years the country needs local currencies and local farms. Well the farms seem to be happening https://thefoodassembly.com/en without any government intervention, I might add. Plain folk have at last understood the need and are addressing it. If London goes independent that might spur other plain folk to start developing their local currencies, in which case let Cameron and Osborne enrich themselves as they will by cutting off the money supply to the rest of us. We’ll develop our own money, one day leaving them and their ilk rich in a currency no-one uses any more. Bring it, I say.
He has company – how many of his more ambitious colleagues are parroting the ‘Wealth creators’?
A clever lie, told by dismally stupid people; portraying rent-seekers and monopolists as the very thing that they are not.
Who gains?
Labour politicians should know better: I worry that all too many of them do, and lie for gain.
Have we sunk to a level where can only choose to be governed by dupes, the duplicitous, or by arrogant and open greed?
Feel free to allocate a category to Gareth Thomas.
Gareth Thomas looks to be another who has fallen for the ‘Wizard of Oz’ illusion promoted by all who worship ‘LONDON’. He should look behind the curtain.
http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-4/london-all-that-glisters/
Ahhh….RM’s always ethereal respect for democracy evaporating again!
Democracy has to mean people having the freedom to do things you personally don’t like as well as things you approve of…….In other words lowering taxes if they so vote for it!
Of course
But when did democracy involving London’s UDI?
When a politician with a chance of being elected offered local democratic independence!….If elected then is becomes an issue of discussion and may well be put in effect.
History is not a lock on the future, surely by now we have learnt from the World that if the desire is there……a way will be found.
You object not for historical reasons but because it would prevent redistribution, don’t pretend otherwise!
Of course I object because it would prevent redistribution
I can think of no more honourable reason to do so
And to prevent the rise in inequality that would follow
And the hardship that would result
You want those things do you?
Richard M
If ‘ring-fencing’ the wealth of London such that it is not redistributed to the rest of the UK is morally wrong, is not ‘ring-fencing’ the wealth of the UK such that it is not redistributed to the third world also morally wrong?
Morals are not supposed to be bound by history or historical content. The fact that the UK has been an independent country for hundreds of years doesn’t alter the logical end-point of what you are arguing.
There is inequality and hardship in the third world.
I am well aware of developing country issues: tax justice was started for precisely that reason
But the UK is a long recognised state
London is not
And you’re playing silly games as a result
And what of those who do not vote for it and can see further than their own noses or are better informed? Shall they be ignored in your so-called ‘democracy’.
Authentic democracy is about good governance balancing the needs and interests of society as whole – it is not a market segmentation exercise that focuses on one segment like business does for goodness sake! It is meant to offer something to all segments.
The tax system could do with a good shake up but this cannot be done unless we also take off the imposition of the stupid ideas that dominate current thinking around Government fiscal policy and macro economic management.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/sep/22/uk-growth-london-north-south-divide
So Texas alone amongst the U.S. states can vote to become independent can it? So prior to 1921 Ireland had no business wishing to be independent? You are on form today.
Do you have any idea about history at all?
No, clearly not
Please don’t bother to repond
Enabling London to become a city-state would certainly help to confirm what many of us have been noting for some time on this blog. Namely, that we are potentially going back to some sort of neo-feudal state.
How could we call the United kingdom a country if we let this happen? Would London be the new Monaco – albeit colder?
The fact that a Labour mayoral candidate seems to be seriously considering this, shows you just how low and desperate the mainstream Labour party have become. To just chase popular sounding policies is not proper political opposition at all.
The age of enlightenment is truly over. We are it seems to be ruled by being broken up – being turned into a collection of competing interests so as to prevent a unified competing counter-narrative emerging. That is the tactic I am seeing.
Goodbye London.
Let it be a ¨city-state¨
Secede from the union and go for it London.
Then you can buy all your resources from outside…maybe even go for EU membership status….After all, you have your own airport….come to think about it….only a little one (airport)…so you´ll have to pay the border charges to go to the others.
Financial empires come, and go.
And, after all, your major export is global criminal financial fraud….
Come to think about it..if ¨it¨ does decide to become a city-state…parliament will have to move too…although I´d prefer it stayed there, then the rest of us can ignore them.
They can have the labouriously boring labour party too….although they should change their name to blue labour….since they have nowt to do with labour, and more to do with money.