A couple of days ago David Cameron had a little go at me because Jeremy Corbyn has borrowed some of my ideas. That's fine. That's his right. But I just thought I should remind him that in 2013 he was also into borrowing my ideas. Take this, for example, from the Number 10 website:
The Prime Minister has written to Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, setting out the case for radical global action to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
The letter, copied into leaders of all EU member states, sets out the PM's ambition that the May European Council will inject the political will to tackle the problem and restore confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of our tax system, and calls for action in 4 key areas:
-
a new global standard for multilateral information exchange
-
action plans to increase transparency in beneficial ownership
-
reform of global tax rules through the G20 and OECD, including where we could go further, eg greater country-by-country company reporting on the tax paid in their countries of operation
-
improving the ability of developing countries to collect tax, building on the example of the government's new joint unit
Who created country-by-country reporting? I did.
Just saying Mr Cameron.
And yesterday, for the record, I recorded a comment on an interview Brewin Dolphin had with Vince Cable in which he also openly admitted to using my ideas when in opposition.
It seems ideas travel. Cheap jibes don't.
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:
GET OVER IT NOW.
Its was a joke that’s all.
No-it’s not-it was a Prime Minister and one who supports cruel and random suffering inflicted on our people in the name of a false economic idol, crass and anti-intellectual garbage emanating from such a person cannot be classed as a joke. The attempts at humour of ex Etonian thugs,wide boys who are involved in some of the most socially destructive economic grift and graft cannot be counted as humour.
I always thought country-by-country reporting originated in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in the early 2000s – or were you involved in that initiative?
Yes
I wrote their first demand for it – search Global Witness and Extracting Transparency
It was based on a 2003 paper I wrote for the Association of Accountancy and Business Affairs – top entry on the Jersey page of their web site
Cameron’s gripe wasn’t that Corbyn used your work. The gripe was that, in his view, none of your ‘positions’ work. There is a difference. Using your work wasn’t Cameron’s problem with Corbyn.
There aren’t 64 positions in the JoT
I didn’t mention the number of positions, and I think you know that.
Cameron’s problem with Corbyn’s use of your work is that he thinks it is wrong. That Corbyn used your work is not the problem and it would be uncritical to interpret that from Cameron’s speech; rather it was the content with which he took issue with (though, of course, he didn’t explain why).
To argue that Cameron is at fault to have used your work and complain about his opponent also using your work and to present it as an inconsistency on Cameron’s part is to assume he values all your work the same. That is an assumption that shouldn’t be made and is shown to be hasty when one considers the evidence you yourself have pointed to: He used some of your work (and clearly thought it, therefore, good) but rubbished some other work of yours.
His office have agreed he has not read it
You are clutching at straws
I’m not at all. I’m pointing out the logical inconsistency and uncritical nature of your argument. Cameron’s problem wasn’t that Corbyn used your work, it was that (he thinks, or at least says) your work isn’t right on this occasion. Pointing to evidence showing Cameron has used your work does not, therefore, constitute a counter-argument. Your argument or evidence would succeed if Cameron had criticised Corbyn solely for using your work, but to that wasn’t the necessary corollary of his gripe, so it is wrong to use the evidence you used in the way you did. It’s a false argument based on the confusion of inference and necessary conclusion.
Is it national pedantry day?
I wouldn’t know.
It’s not pedantry. You wrote a blog post entitled: ‘David Cameron should take note: he also borrowed my ideas’. The thrust of your argument is that Cameron hasn’t a leg to stand on when he criticises Corbyn because he has used your work as well. But that is a duff argument – Cameron’s argument criticised the particular bit of your work that Corbyn is using, and it did not necessitate the inference that he was anti using your work at all.
Pointing out a duff argument which forms the thrust of an entire blog post is hardly pedantry, now, is it?
Jack
I think you might need to find another blog to play on
Richard
Richard
You dodged the question entirely. Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the big hole in your argument?
I know you wouldn’t actually admit it, but it seems you’re not willing to engage with my point. You first dismissed it as pedantry, thereby implying it is true; will you now admit that it is much more substantial and substantive than mere pedantry.
Jack
And yes, I noticed you used the name on my email address (which I used under the assumption that the ‘will not be published’ detail extended in spirit to each part of the email address). I’m aware you can read, and I don’t quite know why you felt the need to do that. It’s not threatening in any way, if that’s what you were looking for. Maybe it was mere passive aggression. Either way, it does rather highlight your silence on the real issue here.
Re use of your proper name: apologies. I read Jack and John. You may be aware they are the same?
And re the rest – of course I am not engaging. I have a life in which I try to achieve things
I will be deleting your time wasting from now on
As Cameron was making a joke, don’t you think using logic to criticise Richard Murphy’s response is a complete waste of an intellectual resource?
After all Aristotle did say in his Nicomachean Ethics that ‘precision is not to be sought for in all discussions’ and that ‘it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits’. On this I’ll go with Aristotle.
On this point (a joke) it seems you have a humour deficit; or am I to assume that you are in fact, and in all possible corollaries, a ‘deficit denier’?
Cameron was making a ” cheap inappropriate locker room joke ” for the boys.
He did not consider the feelings of his wife or the sensibility of other members of his audience.
He played the ” smart assed PR man” trying to sell his used cars and would have said anything he thought to be funny to get applause.
I read it more as
Cameron wants to criticise Corbyn
-> Corbyn explicitly uses Richard’s ideas
-> Richard’s book has a funny name
-> Cameron piggybacks on Richard’s joke title to dismiss Corbyn and Richard without actually having engaged with any of the ideas.
It’s politics, it’s a crowd-pleasing conference joke, but it’s a shamefully insubstantial approach to policy. Let’s hope that in reality there will be influential people in the Conservative party reading TJoT and acknowledging that at least some of the points Richard makes are pretty good and worth consideration by all corners of the political spectrum.
Cameron’s was what I would call a “cheap shot”. In my long experience men who go for cheap shots tend to be both bullies and economical with the truth.
What nonsense. Anyone that chooses to title their book ‘The Joy of Tax’ is asking for shots to be aimed at them, cheap or expensive.
Thanks Richard. I look forward to sharing your response to Cameron’s ‘little joke’ (slur) on my Facebook page. I am halfway through the Joy of Tax and loving every minute. ‘Tax and Spend’ has been the Tory jibe for too long, and your book bravely takes this on.
Thank you
I agree with Jenny (above) about “The Joy Of Tax” – just started reading it. I also enjoyed “The Courageous State”. It’s time someone started countering thirty or more years of neo-liberalism and crony capitalism.
Thank you
I would also like to register agreement here! The book is a ‘joy’ to read in our myth-ridden neo-liberal times and having been on this blog a few year now it’s like reading a book with a familiar and highly communicative style. Purist MMT’ers might not always concur with the choice of words but as a book to educate the public it achieves more in it’s pages than much MMT writing which is lacking in communicative immediacy. Myth demolisher after myth demolisher (particularly reminding people again and agin that income tax is only 27% of total taxes) roll off the pages and you get the complexity of content absolutely right for the general public and those with no economics background – Great work Richard!
On a humorous note (as this block is about so-called humour) there’s a great ‘Freudian'(?) slip in your historical bit that created a schoolboy smile as I read it:
“It was a subject that was, eventually, to COME TO A HEAD in the reign of King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland.” See if your lad’s spot it! (smiley emoticon)
oh well…Perhaps my sense of humour’s a bit warped at times
(Simon Q)
One can be totally opposed to all Jeremy Corbyn stands for, and for very good reasons, and still appreciate part of the work of Richard in the field of BEPS.
As a small entrepreneur, I want a level playing field in corporate tax. The fairer these taxes are applied to everyone, the lower a good chancellor can set them. High taxes are not a joy; systematic and correct taxation is fair towards all. In my own little corner, I compete with Amazon and as such a big proponent of BEPS.
So when Richard publishes what is basically forensic research in accounting and tax matters, many people, and very possibly also the Treasury, will highly appreciate his work. When he becomes, unwillingly or not, a political flagpole of the Corbinista movement, many of these people may not find him relevant to a better operation of the economy.
Personally, I read this blog with great interest and find say 2/3 brilliant work and 1/3 utter nonsense, but so be it. I can appreciate the analysis without subscribing the political bias. (I could argue that The Economist, which I have been reading for 30 years, has about the same ratio of good/bad analysis)
So, great work Richard, but let’s seriously hope JC and his Marxist side-kick, never get close to the doors of number 10/11. Me and many people I know, would be out of here within months!
Lucas -have you read Marx?-go on be honest about it.
As a fellow small entrepreneur I have to take issue with your attitude towards “JC and his Marxist side-kick”. I don’t actively support Corbyn, believing that all party politics is best avoided so that we can focus on the things that really matter. In fact Caroline Lucas has been fascinating in this respect. As a lone member of her party, she has only been able to affect changes she wishes to see by cutting across all tribal boundaries where interests coincide. For me, this is a template for a new kind of politics.
However I am incredibly excited at the change of debate that Corbyn has brought to social media (the mainstream media preferring to revert to hysteria on the whole). As a result of Corbyn coverage, particularly during the Labour Party conference, tax and spending for the common good are now beginning to be subjects for genuine debate, rather than generic threats used by the Tories to frighten the voters.
Richard is right to speak to all interested parties, and to make it known that he works across parties. However to refuse to speak to JC and McDonnell would be an absurd thing to do. It is a difficult line to tread – and I think Richard is doing a good job.
Thank you
I appreciate the comment
My admiration for Caroline – who I am pleased to call a friend – matches yours
The reality is all politics requires cooperation between parties. I am just explicit that I believe in this and am willing to seek it
It’s my aim to carry on doing so
Slightly off-message, I admit, but I do have a question having read your book Richard. Do you have a view on VAT on buildings? It is a constant source of aggravation to me that new buildings attract no VAT, while refurbishment has the full 20% slapped on. I have seen a few people knock down and re-build rather than refurbish solely to save on the VAT. A classic case of people being incentivised to do the wrong thing from a resource/environmental perspective. I would favour 5% for all building work and materials…
I agree this is nonsense
The problem is when us a repair a rebuild ?
10% may be needed…..
Unlike John/Jack/Jesse I don’t think it was serendipity that the words were used, it was all about perception and how we infer from someone’s choice of words, what the implication intent is and in this cheap shot “joke” it was about ridicule, belittling and generally demeaning all and any associated with JC. My own perception is that he is genuinely worried that many of the ideas behind “Corbynomics” will be understood by the illiterate masses (as he thinks we are) and by making a joke of it “up front” he hopes to dissuade people from taking it seriously. Remember Gandhi’s words? He knows your “perceptions” are far too astute to be dismissed.
That’s a generous interpretation
I thank you for it
But I do agree: I think Corbyn is actually profoundly worrying the right wing
What evidence do you have for that?
Corbyn has a circle, like Michael Foot did, of extremely vocal and committed followers. He can fill out any town hall, but he hasn’t got support from the wider electorate.
The country has been conditioned into the fiscal conservatism and believe it to be the only way. They are already too willing to believe that any deviation from this, especially from Labour, is a sign of a propensity for profligacy.
He is polling horrendously and most of his views are distinctly out of step with the electorate. Bar one, Labour has been doing worse in Scottish by-elections when the wisdom was that a more left-wing party would beat the SNP, and indeed in one seat, there was a swing from Labour to Tory.
In short, yours is a claim not based in fact at all.
Why else would they be coronating the faintly inhuman Osborne? Had there been fear of Corbyn, Boris would no doubt have been given the top job.
The Labour Party need to stop talking to themselves about things they agree on and start looking to the wider electorate. Your claim just shows how gleefully out of touch the left is at the moment.
I suppose it’s a generational thing. When the young are taught what happens when the Labour Party veer to the left they’ll remember why that disgusting Tory ‘neoliberal’ capitalist pig Tony Blair was elected leader.
I am amused by almost all aspects of your claim
But particularly that you are the owner of facts and truth
The arrogance is quite staggering
And will beget your downfall
Agreed-Cameron is attempting to maintain the Corbyn’s a joke’ front whilst sensing the start of tremors in the populace. The 60 thousand demonstrating in Manchester were a real sign of that. Cameron is using ‘put-down humour’ a technique popularised by Clarkson, another public school boy, and according to books I’ve read on this subject, a style of humour used to establish pecking orders in public schools (see: Nick Duffel: ‘Wounded Leaders’). In reality it is highly patronising (remmember Cameron’s ‘clam down dear’?). let’s hope the public start to be more conscious of the way they are being spoken to and humoured.
I don’t mind humour, even black humour, but I don’t elect politicians on their ability to be funny. That’s why John Cleese isn’t PM. The Tory conference seems unable or unwilling to argue sensibly & seriously against Jeremy Corbyn, Boris came up with one genuinelyl funny line- “he’s the candidate for vested interests… & interesting vests”, but no substance at all.
Boris seems determined to be Lord Henry Wootton: amusing, witty, slightly camp, effervescently attractive, David Cameron is likely to play the part of Dorian Gray; Outwardly attractive, inwardly increasingly repugnant. I’m afraid there is no-one in the whole Tory party that could play Basil Halliard because he is decent, honourable, truthful & unable to accept a falsehood.
“John Appleseed”
You are right in some respects of course, Neo-liberal economics is a funny thing, like Psycotherapy & conceptual art, Its bollox, & anyone in their right mind can see its bollox, but somehow, you’re not supposed to say it.
Like, “has anyone ever been cured of anything by psychotherapy?” No. Well, it isn’t a good use of medical resource is it?
Like, any sentient human being looks at an unmade bed & thinks, apart from natural revulsion, that if you’d wanted to make an artistic point you’d have pained an unmade bed, oh, but wait, you can’t draw.
Like, you construct an entire, shimmering, beautiful intellectual artifice on one idea-that human beings are rational, wealth-maximising agents, BUT, as any fekker who’s lived real life would tell you,human beings aren’t rational, wealth-maximising agents. That’s not how we act at all.
Apropos Blair, There are somewhere above 750k people in Iraq that are dead or maimed who wouldn’t be dead or maimed if Blair hadn’t been British PM. When I call him “evil”, thats why
Agreed. Though I am perhaps not quite so unenamoured with liberal economics as you are!
But we don’t even need to express our own opinions on issues like these – all that matters is what the electorate thinks. And they are well in favour of fiscal conservatism as the comparison between a household and an economy (typified by that man’s interjection on BBCQT a few weeks ago) is an attractive one in its simplicity.
Any deviation from this received wisdom will likely lead to calls of profligacy and so on. Particularly the Labour Party will suffer as they have not been able to prove their economic policy works since ‘they crashed the economy’. With Corbyn’s selection, the country will see a Labour Party who crashed the system and ever since have been committed to crashing it further. Whether or not that’s true is immaterial. That’s what people think; that’s what won the Tories the last election. With Corbyn, the contrast will be even starker.
That’s why the evidence so far points to Corbyn’s weaknesses. The by-elections in Scotland should be deeply worrying and his poll rating should be deeply worrying.
So being right does not matter and following destructive myths is better?
I despair of such logic
You must be in a position to change such myths.
Opposition is not one of those.
Credibility is needed when challenging fiscal conservatism and having such an incredible figure does the case no good.
One must heed the myth in order to be in a position to challenge it in the long run.
When the electorate sees a man argue for higher state spending alongside backing unilateral disarmament, hanging around with deeply controversial figures, and refusing to sing the national anthem, his first argument becomes associated with hard-line political extremes.
Do you not see?
Until then, Labour will only do worse, as the data are already showing.
Should is beyond wishful thinking here
I prefer to work on the basis of experience
John Appleseed says –
“…the comparison between a household and an economy… …is an attractive one in its simplicity.
Any deviation from this received wisdom will likely lead to calls of profligacy and so on.”
John, I don’t agree with a lot of what you post, but you don’t seem like a stupid fellow to me.
Surely you recognise that the economy of a sovereign nation is bog all like a household economy? It might be the commonly accepted, comfortable misconception that’s been peddled to the masses who don’t know better, but I suspect that you do. It’s the easy and lazy path to operate within the framework of a lie rather than challenge it. Surely the right thing to do would be to describe the actual economic effects of an anti-austerity agenda to the public and correct people when the claims of profligacy are made? Argue the actual truth rather than the comfortable route?
I noted earlier you said that Corbyn “…can fill out any town hall, but he hasn’t got support from the wider electorate”. Surely that’s working with the lie again? Polls say he doesn’t stand a chance, you say? Well, something about ‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’ leaps to mind. If he can indeed fill out any town hall (and repeatedly so), he has the popular support. He has the support of his party (59% of the PLP voted him in, wasn’t it?). Whether or not he can win an election remains to be seen, polls be damned.
I mean it – you sound like a smart fellow. Argue for the truth – instead of the lie that the broad mass of this nation have more easily fallen prey to – and be a decent fellow as well.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I am not saying any of the received wisdom is true, all I am doing is pointing out the clarity, simplicity and resulting strength of the ‘household equals economy’ line.
Hope that helps.
One thing I forgot
As wrong as the present received wisdom may be (and I don’t need to make judgement of it for my argument), it is what it is, and the fact is that an opposition leader with views perceived as extreme by most will not change economic discourse. Being right is not always the best way of doing the most right thing, and this is a prime case of that. Labour will need to out-economy the Tories (potentially by taking a politically good line if there is a recession soon) in order to get the Tories out.
And in re popular support, do not mix vocal support with a lot of support. Michael Foot was packing out civic buildings with loud supporters, but the quiet voter (which is the normal voter) simply didn’t subscribe to his views.
“Halliard” should be “Hallward”. I’m not brilliant at these modern-day IT contraptions!