These are, as we know, desperate times for the Conservative Party. The evidence is now clear that they must be. According to Politics Home Theresa May is being urged to appoint the former director of the Vote Leave campaign as as a vice-chair of the party to revive its fortunes.
And who is this wizard of populist sentiment? None other than Matthew Elliott, once of the so called (but in practice, anything but) Taxpayers' Alliance.
Yes, the reward for running a so called alliance that never revealed the sources of its funding and which specialised in a) dodgy statistics on the supposed savings available in government spending and b) issuing press releases blaming wasteful civil servants for every form of malaise known to society is now in line for promotion to a position from which he will be required to support re-election of a party that has borrowed more money since 2010 than all other governments, combined, in UK history even though he is adamant that doing such a thing is the certain route to hell.
Hypocrisy does not come bigger than that.
I urge him to issue a press release denying the report in unequivocal terms.
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:
Not, I’m afraid to say, anywhere near as desperate as they ought to be.
Lest anyone feels sorry for their predicament – they are the kind of people who are happy to do this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/uk-sales-of-arms-and-military-equipment-to-saudi-arabia-2017
A ‘spike of sales in the Spring’; – around about the time that the cholera epidemic started.
This is a quote from Elliott at the beginning on the report he did as Legatum Institute Fellow:
“I have been a strong supporter of free enterprise ever since I was taught A Level economics at
Leeds Grammar School by Terry Elsworth, who used the Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose as our
textbook (amongst other publications). I then joined the LSE Hayek Society–named after the
classical liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner, Friedrich Hayek–on my first day at the London
School of Economics, enrolled by the then President of the society, now Editor of the Sunday
Telegraph, Allister Heath. And in my early twenties, I founded the TaxPayers’ Alliance, to represent
taxpayers and make the case for lower taxes and less wasteful spending. So I come at this report
with an agenda: I believe that free enterprise policies are a key driver of prosperity.
Sadly though, it appears that a large proportion of British voters do not share this view …..”
https://lif.blob.core.windows.net/lif/docs/default-source/default-library/1710-public-opinion-in-the-post-brexit-era-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Most people want good public services, understand the basic distinction between public and private goods (even if they do not use those words). However hard the free-market fundamentalist might try they will never convince the majority that a well-funded NHS and state education system are a bad idea. And as I often remind people Hayek also believed in a welfare state, and the widespread dissemination of knowledge. Hayek’s greatest achievement was to inspire Jimmy Whale’s to set up wikipedia!
Thanks Charles
” free enterprise policies are a key driver of prosperity” but the Tories & Elliott never seem to define what these could be, apart from the one-dimensional – lower taxes. As for Elliott’s life, if he is such a believer in free enterprise – perhaps he would care to list the successful companies (or indeed unsuccessful ones – no shame in that – learn from mistakes etc) he has founded?
Stealing from “Easy Rider” “they’ll talk to ya & talk to ya & talk to ya about “free enterprise policies”. But they see a “free enterprise policy” it’s gonna scare ’em”.
It is, of course, true that I have created many more companies – most of them successful – than he has
But that is true of a comparison with most enthusiasts of ‘free enterprise’, most of whom seem to know remarkably little about it
Indeed.
One if the biggest and most bizarre cons ever is the alignment of Tory corporatism with the entrepreneurial heart, muscle and mind.
Mention if the Taxpayers’ Alliance brings to mind another imposter, namely the Adam Smith Institute. On which Adam Smith would I feel sure not take a seat.
Fairly sure he was even against limited liability.
He was….
The use of Adam Smith’s name in the ‘Adam Smith Institute’ I consider to be an oxymoron.
You are not alone
Hayek was at his best as an intellectual historian. He should have remained solely in that field. Unfortunately, too often people do not understand their own skills, or their own weaknesses …. ….
So what sort of message of contempt message does that send to the 48% of the electorate that voted Remain (Tories included)? And how would a divisive right-wing bully assist the image of a Tory govt. at a time when Labour is ahead in the polls?
For answers to these and other pressing questions call our helpline during business hours. Calls will be charged at a standard rate of 55p per minute.
Seriously though, from a purely cynical viewpoint the whole idea of hiring this guy would be so stunningly stupid and inappropriate for them that I hope they actually do it.
‘Taxpayers’ Alliance’, and other Orwellian-labelled groups formed to endorse an ideology, form a vital cog in Conservative capability to sell itself far beyond its flock.
The wider and darker problem is that they are enabled. TV and radio choose a narrative then hand them a microphone. Even though they are effective, this means that they only have to exist to throw punches and sway the collective mindset.
But it can and will be changed. And ‘desperation’ is indeed the key word, because the proposed action aligns with a growing pattern of the Conservatives choosing ways to help themselves that only compound their strife.
If I hear taxpayers alliance on phone in radio shows then I will be more than happy to ring in and challenge the station to let me on with an opposing viewpoint. I suggest other readers of this blog do the same, and also by writing letters to print media championing them.
Always he right thing to do
Yes most people want well funded services. However most of them did not want to pay more to fund them almost always opting for the ‘someone else’ option. Hence why since 2010 both tory and labour have been saying various things will only effect the rich.
Maybe because they are not paying enough? As the data shows
Compared with the rates from decades gone by perhaps but certainly compared with other countries it is not all that rosy. As I have remarked before Bolvia has a top rate of income tax of about 26% and yet corbyn thinks 45% is not enough and would have it at 50% for say salaries in the millions yet blissfully ignores that between 100k-123k is in effect 62% and under him would be 67% due to his 80k increase. Or cgt he would have at least 28% which is higher than a lot of countries. Meanwhile does he mention commercial property owned by non british nationals is cgt exempt? The answer it seems is no. From what I can tell if some countries have some taxes higher they have others that are lower than here, so from what I can tell France is the closest country to what would resemble corbyns taxation system.
And what is your problem with progressive taxation?
For what would you wish?
And why?
And what would you cut to ensure we did not get rampant inflation as a result?
I dunno the defense budget is ripe for cutting at least from around 2.2% GDP to 1.3 (the amount germany spends) given there is no country is a threat and we have hardly been good guys in recent years in the overseas department (the wars).
You seem to avoided my main point I can pose the question to you: How come the left can from time to time cite Bolvia is how socialism can work yet we need the higher taxes that bolvia does not go in for? (with headlines such as ‘Evo Morales has proved that socialism doesn’t damage economies’ )Or just why does the UK need higher taxes than a lot of countries to benefit the many when other countries can benefit the many with lower taxes than here?
No one cites Bolivia
That’s nonsense
And what is wrong with the French level of taxation? In the UK, France is often held up as some kind of socialist nightmare – a horror which we would do well to avoid. To be sure, France has issues with youth unemployment, although in reality the problems in the UK are far worse than the official number reveal.
When people refer to France in these terms I often wonder if they have ever been there. On my many visits (including staying with a French family) I find it a far more cohesive country than the UK with a strong sense of civic pride/community. This is perhaps in no small way related to the levels of tax that they pay.
Care to say which countries subscribe very close to the taxation system you propose then? I am almost certain you wont be able to find any. Or some countries will have similar/same policies in some respects but not others.
Neil: The UK does not have much sense of community but lack of tax is not the reason, in fact the smoking ban in pubs /high biz rates make it harder for pubs to make a profit/operate whith the resulting knock in effect to the community. Further I would wager given Sarkozy was the least popular president of France ever and then so was Hollande after I would wager if the economy was brilliant that would not be the case. As ever the problem of economies is how well the money raised is spent and countries run is the main issue not the lack of money raised. And so I was just saying France is the closest example on a tax by tax basis what corbyn would be similar to. Unlike other countries which the left cite and omit certain things. Such some say we need to be more Scandinavian yet ignore that norway/Sweden has no estate tax whatsoever.And in Swedens case the central goverment only gets 30% income tax as the other 30% goes to local goverment so not quite as simple as some would say.
Sam
With respect, all your points here are akin to trolling
I have pout up with your nonsense for a long time but am bored by it now
Please don’t call again
Richard
That well known Marxist/Leninist organisation, the IMF, recently said tax rates for the rich are not high enough and could hold back economic development. During what has been termed the “economic golden age” (1945-75) of sustained recovery tax rates were nut-crunchingly high with rates into the 90’s; there was also investment income surcharge and greater efforts to tax capital and avoid people switching income to capital to avoid tax. Now we seem to live in a “tax avoiders golden age”.
TO SAM,
Yet under Universal Credit if you earn £1, 67p is removed from your benefits, and if you are earning more than the income tax threshold then a further 20p on top of that. A far higher “taxation” rate in total than multimillionaires.
Desperate to stay in power, definitely. But there doesn’t seem to be any significant shift in public opinion. The latest ICM/Guardian poll puts both parties on level pegging at 42%. And when it comes to the next GE you can be sure that May’s Brexit campaign, whatever the outcome, will be hailed as a victory for the Tories. So, pending any major scandal or financial collapse, they could well be on course for another win. The household budget analogy still resonates strongly with the general public and, as May demonstrates in PMQs, their line of attack is to deflect criticism by dragging up Labour’s chequered past. The Mail, Telegraph, Times & Express will run pages of anti-Corbyn progaganda (not to mention any BBC bias), which is very difficult for the opposition parties to counter effectively, other than in social media which has its role but still lacks the impact of print and broadcast.
Matthew Elliott, with his neo-liberal agenda, knows exactly which buttons to press to scare the voters away from Labour. And doubtless he has strong connections with Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer, Rupert Murdoc & Christopher Chandler. Then there’s the eminence grise Sir Lynton Crosby and Philippa Stroud at Legatum. And goodness knows how many billionaires they can call on for funding. So they have the really heavy artillery against which Labour will struggle to get a progressive message across, except perhaps with higher educated under 35s. The final obstacle in Labour’s way is our minimally democratic FPTP voting system.
Desperate they may indeed be in terms of resolving their internal power battles and in confronting the truth of their appalling incompetence as a government, but I’ll bet they’re quite happy to have Corbyn as the enemy. Scary times for progressives.
Seriously John,
I think that you could pull a pessimistic interpretation out of the Second Coming should that occur in our lifetime.
Haha! Just analysing the facts, man. Just the facts. There’s a danger that the ‘progressive left’ cariactures people like Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fallon, Fox, Hunt – plus all the usual suspects – as laughable imbeciles. But, however appalling their ideas and track records, they are rich, powerful and not used to losing. Behind their Savile Row suits, RP English and (unwarranted) self-confidence they are sociopathic sharks. “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” (Lao Tzu)
“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” (Lao Tzu)”
Perhaps then we could find a genuinely rational balance between underestimating and overestimating them.
I digress a little here and cite the 2017 GE in Britain as an excellent case study of the unrepentant nonsense that so often passes as accepted public perception. The subjects of this case study would be:
1. PM Teresa May: pre-election, accepted by so many as the ‘strong and stable’ sensibly moderate governess who was best placed to guide the nation through the troubled waters of Brexit. Post-election, the general perception suddenly determines that she is the much-parodied, hopelessly embattled “Maybot”.
2. Opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn: Pre-election, we have the general perception of a relaxed but ‘unelectably’ silly, old-school Marxist promoted by students with £3 memberships. Post-election we dust off the old White Stripes album as its wall to wall “Oh Jeremy Corbyn”.
There are two things to note here: one is that these two leaders were basically the same before and after the event. They still are. The other is that a broad cross-section of the folks that generate or follow these perceptions rarely have the good grace to acknowledge their own hopeless inconsistency.
It may the case that ‘the facts’ as you call them are those that are not determined by pre-disposition or value-laden perceptions.
It is instructive to study folklore and the darker stories of the 19th century that emerged from it.
Specifically, seafarers tales, told by grizzled old men by lamplight and whisky: doomed ships where the captain and crew did not abandon their vessel, nor perish, but sailed on as it and they foundered, dark and terrible voyagers in the abyss.
The ship still has a name, and the form of a sailing vessel; but it and they are now something very different and terrible to behold.
So, too, the Conservative Party: no longer conservative, nor even pro-business; not a party, save in name, for there is no longer cohesion, merely momentum.
I recall that we teenagers and undergraduates found 19th-Century ‘Gothics’ hilarious, and parodied them mercilessly; and, despite the seriousness of our situation in these times, there is a great deal of mockery and humour to be found in it.
Remember: the Conservative Party is not foundering in the storms of the Atlantic – it is sinking in stupidity and mediocrity.
A caution, though: sailors’ tales and much of folklore have a purpose to instruct, and to warn. The origins of those tales are slavers and pirates plague ships; and the common theme is that all who sail too close to such a vessel risk contagion, and a crew becoming trapped in whatever curse impels them to sail the sunless depths.