Paying Tax As "Giving"

There is nothing quite as jarring as Peter Mandelson – a man who has a proven track record of resigning in disgrace – criticising another wealthy man for the heinous crime of trying not to pay huge sums in tax.

But there is no shortage of people attacking Mandelson and the members of all parties who appear happy to wade through a massive mire of hypocrisy in order to have a pop at a Tory benefactor. And I’ll leave them all to it. Instead, I wanted to look at an example of how this has been portrayed in the media – in this case, by The Guardian. Take a look at this paragraph, and see if you can work out what I find most troubling:

Ashcroft and the Tories have refused to answer questions about when Ashcroft fulfilled the less onerous task of declaring himself a long-term resident, which allowed him to continue to be a non-dom paying tax only on his UK earnings and avoiding giving tens of millions of pounds to the tax office on his substantial international estate.

Have you spotted the most troubling phrase? It is the idea that Ashcroft is avoiding “giving” his money to the tax office. Now, who actually “gives” their tax money to the Inland Revenue? Who “gives” their taxes up? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, no, at best – at fucking best – we pay taxes. Taxes actually tend to disappear without the majority of people in this country actually actively giving up the money. It goes before your pay hits your account. You pay tax whenever you buy a commodity that includes VAT. You pay tax all the time – however, people don’t tend to give tax money to the tax office.

Does this sort of distinction matter? I mean, it’s The Guardian we’re talking about here. They are never going to describe taxation as state sponsored theft. But the very fact that the use of the concept of giving taxes is so subtle is what makes it so troubling and pernicious. It is arguably far more damaging than any statist fuck banging on about tax avoidance like it is a financial equivalent of the fucking Holocaust. Because it is so subtle, and so easy to miss. Yet the more it is repeated, the more it feeds into the dominant discourse in this country that giving money to the state is a good thing. In fact, the use of the word give is very interesting – after all, we give to charity, so we can extend that to the state. Yes, giving to the state is like giving to charity. That’s the agenda that this sort of subtle framing wishes to perpetuate. Except the government charity is just as likely to spend it on war or banking bailouts than on something those who perpetuate this myth actually think deserves funding.

So the next time someone tells you that you give money to the tax office, please feel free to tell them to fuck off, and grow a brain cell while they do so.

Peter Mandelson, defending his "boss" against claims of bullying:

He said the book showed a "man who is quite emotional, who is quite passionate in what he believes and is doing ... who gets angry but chiefly with himself, who doesn't bully people".

Not to put a dampener on this desperate face saving exercise, but if the best person you can get to defend you against the charge of bullying is the political equivalent of Skeletor, then you may as well not bother trying to fight that charge at all.

Further Proof of the Shameless Lord Mandelson

Peter Mandelson:

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson this week claimed there was now a "contract" between the Sun and the Tories.

Yes, because there was never a contract between Nu Labour and The Sun, now, was there? And his tetchy response has nothing to do with the The Sun now having an effective contract out on the Labour party, does it?

He also accused the paper of "bad taste and crude politicking" over the story in a BBC interview.

In fairness, The Sun does do both "bad taste and crude politicking". But - hang on for a moment - so does Peter fucking Mandelson! In fact - and let's be honest about this - the only reason why Brown brought Mandelson back from the life raft for failing Labour politicians EU is because of his rare gift for media manipulation with no regard to taste and his abilities when it comes to crude politicking.

If you really want to make the case for your political leader being persecuted by an unfriendly media outlet then it tends to be best if you haven't spent the best part of your career wooing and coaxing said media outlet in to berating the opposition. Fuck me, what next? Alastair Campbell calling The Sun low brow and not that sophisticated?

There can be few clearer indicators of the likelihood of a Labour Defeat in 2010 than the ever odious Peter Mandelson talking up the option of a job with the Tories:

LORD Mandelson has disclosed that he is ready to accept a job under a future Conservative government.

I'm sure the power-hungry, two-faced little fucker would be more than happy to serve under any party in order to keep his greasy hands on the levers of power in this country. Just as I'm quite sure that even Comprise Cameron would rather immolate himself in Parliament Square rather than take on this godawful man who was a key figure in getting the terrible Nu Labour government elected in the first place.

Our Prime Minister Business Secretary, Lord Peter Mandelson, has come out swinging blindly against the Tories. From the BBC:

Attacking the Conservatives, the business secretary said David Cameron's party wanted "deep, savage, indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts".

He added: "The fact is that a new generation of Conservatives is now foaming at the mouth with excitement at the turn of economic events.

"They believe it releases them from the need to remake the image of the Conservative Party as a nice party with a genuine concern for fairness and commitment to public services now."

First of all, what is wrong with "deep", "across the board" spending cuts when the country is on the brink of bankruptcy? And what evidence is there that any spending cuts would be "savage" and "indiscriminate"? None, really. But I guess "deep, savage, indiscriminate, across the board" sounds far more terrifyingly arbitrary than "deep, across the board."

But it says something about the skewed logic of political debate and reporting in this country that a party has to be wed to colossal levels of public spending in order to be "nice". Well, what is "nice" about taking the taxpayer's money and spunking it away on inefficient and costly public service? What is "nice" about unwarranted and often deeply intrusive theft from the taxpayer's purse?

Yes, Lord Mandelson, you're in the "nice" party. Really fucking "nice".

Spinning Spending

Witness The Guardian rushing to the aid of Gordon, when the nasty Tories call him a liar over spending cuts:

Again, the Karl Rove down-and-dirty playbook has proved handy. Seeking to rubbish Treasury statistics, the Tories have gone for Brown's character and reputation, with accusations of dishonesty, lying and untruths happily bandied around. This week's try-on by the Tory frontbench about being denied access to government figures was all part of the same pitch. And, what is more, they are helped by a well-oiled and well-mobilised blogosphere who quickly wade in behind the Conservative line to take. The loyalists at ConservativeHome; the bright young Turks at the Spectator "Coffee House" site; the cloyingly sanctimonious Iain Dale; the masterful Guido Fawkes – not quite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but nonetheless a dedicated cadre of Conservatives dominating the new media and immediately following the central office talking-point. And their most resonant line of attack is to accuse various members of the government of lying. It is nasty, negative and yet surprisingly effective in taking attention away from Tory party policy and setting the agenda for the mainstream media. By the middle of the week, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson was asking Brown whether he was a liar!

Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed the problem with this paragraph. The problem is that, when Gordon and his drones talk about increasing spending when the government coffers have been spent on propping up failed banks, they are lying. On this issue, Gordon is a liar. Of course Nick Robinson is asking him about it - it is a valid question!

Which may also account for the paranoid alliance detailed above. I doubt that there is any effective union between Dale, Gudio, the Spectator and ConservativeHome - the fact that they are all reporting on the same story in the same way is a result of the story itself. When Gordon claims he won't cut spending, he is lying. Of course people who aren't slavishly and insanely loyal to Gordon are going to comment on that. 

Perhaps the charge that could stick against the Tories is that they have finally worked out how to spin things effectively. Lansley puts foot in mouth, the Labour party rubs their hands in glee, only to to find moments later that they are the ones in trouble with the media. Yet Labour getting the hump about someone else being good at spinning really is the pot calling the kettle black, given their behaviour under both Blair and Brown. And besides, what is this Guardian article if not spin - on behalf of the Labour party rather than the Tories? I mean, it even invokes Karl Rove - the master of the political dark arts who helped Bush Junior into the White House on two occasions. And referencing him (when there are other examples from the Labour camp like... ooo, I don't know, Peter Mandelson) is simply a piece of emotive, cynical spin. A bit like calling Gordon Brown a liar...

All we have here is an indignant yelp as Labour lovers everywhere realise that the Tories have suddenly got better at playing politics than them. And all this article represents is yet another distraction from what should be the key political question of today. Not whether spending cuts are coming, but rather where the spending cuts are going to fall. Yep, Gordon Brown is a liar if her claims that he won't have to make cuts - he's a deceitful, delusional lunatic if he refuses to now start talking about where the Labour party will make those cuts. 

Axing Gordon: Get It Done, Or Shut Up

Peter Mandelson warning Gordon Brown of further plots against him is rather like a cobra warning its prey about the danger of snake bites - you somehow suspect that young Peter may yet play a role in the demise of Gordon Brown.

Nonetheless, the warning about more potential coups against Gordon Brown is probably an accurate one. Whether or not they will succeed is open to debate. After all, the only people less capable that the Prime Minister in the current government are those who would bring him down. 

Still, the Tories and the media must be looking forward to a story of salacious gossip, endless paranoia and absolute paralysis in the government from the top down. And whilst laughing at the misfortune of Gordon Brown is always good fun, I can't help but think that this endless speculation about whether the Prime Minister is going to survive or not has gone on for long enough. It is bad enough that we have a dickhead for Prime Minister; we can really do without these plotters ensuring that our Prime Minister is an enraged dickhead fighting against enemies real and imagined. 

Brown's critics should, to use the comment of another beleaguered Prime Minister, put up or shut up. And no more loaded resignation statements, or angry backstabbing and endless whispering campaigns. If they are going to do it, then they should make sure that they have an iron clad plot that can't fail. Rather than a half-baked scheme relying on amateurs no-one gives a fuck about leaving the Cabinet. Otherwise, they should just grin and bear it: both the grinding incompetence of Gordon Brown, and the inevitable election meltdown that will lead to. 

Bringing Back the Blairites.

Alan Milburn: Looking like a chipmunk who has just smelt a particularly bad fart*

It is ok, people. Britain is about to become a far fairer place to live. Our visionary Prime Minister, as part of his ongoing commitment to ressurrect the careers of Nu Labour drones who you hoped had finally left the public eye, has given a job to Alan Milburn. Something about social mobility, I think, but I cannot really be arsed to work out exactly what Milburn's new job is. It sounds made up, and I doubt that the man who, for all the world, resembles Nu Labour's answer to Alan B'stard, will be able to achieve anything in this *role*.

What does worry me is the precedent that seems to have been set by this appointment and that of Peter Mandelson. Because this all seems to be leading to what must be considered the worst case scenario - the return of David "machine gun 'em" Blunkett to the Cabinet. And I'd argue that the last thing we need is Blunkett back at the front line of British politics in a role such as "Minister for Brutal Suppression of Any Political Opposition", or whatever other role Brown might invent for him.

*Photo from the BBC.

George Osborne and the Adventure of the Billionaire

There is something about George Osborne that reminds me of Harry Potter. Seriously, stick some glasses on his boyish face, scratch a bizarre birthmark on his forehead, and Osborne becomes Harry Potter. Just a boy, with powers he can’t understand or use effectively, desperately trying to make sense of a dizzying world. I don’t rate George Osborne – the Tories I know who have met him don’t either – but somehow he projects this image of innocent, feckless charm which means that he’d be one of the last politicians to be involved in a donations scandal.

Just goes to show how much I know, eh?

I don’t care about who said what at any given point of time. The tedious, playground level of this debate infuriates me, and I don’t really want to acknowledge it, let alone dissect it. What I will say about it is this: if Osborne really did meet a billionaire and didn’t try to solicit money by any means necessary, then he has a lot to learn about modern politics. He should have ignored the legalities and been begging for that loan. After all, that does seem to be the done thing…

What really does get on my tits is this attempt by the Tories to position themselves as the party of the people – more in touch with the man or woman walking down the street than their counterparts. Seriously, what a lot of big hairy bollocks. Osborne is in this position because he was invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. Maybe I just have the wrong sort of friends, but I have yet to meet anyone who has a private yacht and wants to invite me onto it. Osborne can do what the fuck he likes on his holidays; but he can’t then expect us to follow the Tory line that they understand the lives and concerns of the vast majority of people in this country. Frankly, a lot of the concerns in this country at the moment are about keeping jobs and homes. Not what went down on a billionaire’s yacht over an opulent summer holiday.

And before any Labour types start clapping their hands and gleefully shouting “class war!” like the guest speaker at a moron convention, let’s remind ourselves that a senior Labour party figure – and now government minister – was there as well. And this is the same senior Labour party figure who has had issues – resigning issues – with rich people before. And apparently this isn’t his first visit to a billionaire’s yacht under dubious circumstances. I’m sure that there are genuine working class people in the Labour party; those who want to fight for social justice and fairness in British society. To them I say this – look at Mandelson. He is – and pretty much always has been – at the very heart of the Labour party leadership. Look at him, as he swans around on the yachts of the exceedingly wealthy. He is indicative of the Nu Labour leadership, and has precisely fuck all to do with and in common with any socialists in the Labour party.

Oh, and before any Liberal Democrats get excited and start pointing out that their leader wasn’t on the yacht, let me point out that there is not a hope in hell of your boy being invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. He simply isn’t important enough.

This whole shabby incident, that has gone from Osborne gossiping about Mandelson to Osborne being asked serious questions about his conduct, shows just how rancidly corrupt and outrageously self-serving our political class is. Seriously, Osborne isn’t in power because he wants to change the world for the better. If that happens, it is a happy accident. Osborne – and Mandelson, and the vast majority of the turds in the Houses of Parliament – are there for one reason, and one reason alone. Naked self-interest. And this incident should stand as a stunning rebuke to anyone who argues that the Tories will be better than Labour. Ultimately, the Shadow Chancellor was on the same yacht as Mandelson. They are all cut from the same cloth, and their arguments are just a smokescreen for their real intentions. Which is to live off you and me as much as possible, for as long as possible.

There is an alternative; an alternative that has such a long journey to go on and needs as much support as possible. But if you are sickened by the behaviour of all parties in the self-perpetuating oligarchy that rules this nation, then I urge you – I absolutely urge you – to take a look at the Libertarian party. Yes, they will be tested on their bold claims if they ever attain political power, but at least they are willing to start from an open and honest standpoint that seems to be an anathema to any of the major political parties in this country:

“...they (LPUK politicians) will not accept offers of hospitality, travel junkets or similar freebies, which could be seen as an attempt by any individual or organisation to gain influence or favour”

I’m not just using this issue as a plug for LPUK as I am a member; rather, I am sick to the back teeth of the opulent corruption of the ruling class, and I know that change will only come from a new party committed to fighting that corruption. If you are waiting for the main parties to put their own house in order, then you are going to be waiting in perpetuity. It ain’t gonna happen.

Mandelson - Third Time Lucky

I haven't commented on Mandelson returning to the Cabinet, mainly because everything that needs to be said has pretty much already been said. That fucker has more (political) resurrections than Lazarus on speed during a zombie epidemic; however, given his total inability to avoid resignation issues, it can't be that long before he is returned to that political grave where he appears to be most at home.

That said, I can't help but hope that Mandelson does manage to make it until 2010, and Labour's seemingly inevitable kicking at the feet of the electorate. There would be something wonderfully cyclical and karmic about watching Mandelson, who was there at the beginning of the Nu Labour dream, also being there when that false dawn finally unravels completely and passes into the dustbin of history. Mandelson was one of the architects of Nu Labour - I really hope he is there, on site, at the very heart of both the Labour party and the Labour government, when it finally gives up the ghost and the edifice crumbles away into nothing.