Writing's a fight and this boy needs a battle
Carole Chadwalladr’s piece in The Guardian outlines “what increasingly looks like a cover-up”.
It sounds to me like laws have been broken, that the outcome of the referendum was manipulated, allowing leave to win.
I’d argue for a pause to Brexit proceedings until the truth can be clarified. It also raises the question, is this scandal cause enough to demand a second referendum?
Year-round daylight saving time would would reduce energy demand.
I’d be interested to see where this goes, especially considering the Treasury Committee are launching a new inquiry into economic crime.
The media is awash with stories from the Paradise Papers, a cache of 13.4m leaked files exposing measures taken by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals, to minimise their tax liabilities.
The Guardian’s article highlights the extent of the problem that allows “Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”.
Another example exposes “A previously unknown $450m offshore trust that has sheltered the wealth of Lord Ashcroft”.
Another highlights “Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple”.
All of the examples in this article, and the many more in the Paradise Papers, expose one thing, the extent to which wealth insulates itself against taxation.
I think tax is the price you pay to live in a civilised society. If you want to do business in any country, you should pay tax in that country. Tax pays for the infrastructure that allows you, as a company or an individual, to make a profit.
If there’s no tax income, there’s no schools to educate your workforce, no roads to transport your goods, no healthcare for the consumers of your services. If you do not pay your fair share, you have no right to agency in that society, and no right to profit.
The real problem exposed in the Paradise Papers is the low tax territories that allow the wealthiest to move their money into off-shore accounts or trusts or businesses.
For me the only solution to this kind of behaviour is a single rate of tax, all over the world, no matter the territory you are in. The only way to stop wealth being moved to low tax territories is to remove low tax territories. I know this won’t happen. I have no faith that anyone will do anything to curb these aggressive tax avoidance schemes. The political will just isn’t there, the vested interests are too powerful.
But a single worldwide tax rate is the logical extension of the multinational business. If multinationals trade internationally why not make them pay an international tax rate. If rich individuals live internationally, why shouldn’t they pay an international tax rate.
That would close the loophole allowing low tax territories to exist in the first place. What’s the point of moving your money if there is no benefit to this slight of hand.
Just a thought.
This article in The Guardian reports there are 1,652 properties listed as unoccupied in Kensington and Chelsea.
That’s 1652 properties that could be used, not as an investment, but as homes.
(This map shows London’s 20,000 empty homes: Time Out: May 10 2017)
It is estimated there are twenty thousand “ghost” homes across London. That is twenty thousand properties that could be a home to someone.
That is an outrage.
There are many reasons for this, not least because interest rates have been kept at ridiculously low levels since the 2008 crash. Those who have money, have been buying property because it gives them a return. This nugget of information was given to me by the estate agent who sold the flat we rented, when our landlord wanted to sell. Throw into this mix foreign nationals, encouraged by UK based estate agents to buy as an investment, and you have a deepening crisis.
Most people, even those on above average incomes, are priced out of the market.
There are a couple of thing that could be done to stop this kind of hoarding. Interest rates could be increased so those with assets get a decent return on their money. This might force the prices down so hoarding brings less of a return. If interest rates went up, some of those who’ve benefited from historically low interest rates would not be able to afford their mortgage, properties would be repossessed, releasing property into the market, forcing prices down.
This brings with it a whole level of misery I wouldn’t wish on anyone. I also don’t think it would have the desired outcome. I suspect the repossessed properties would be swallowed up by those with pockets deep enough to speculate.
The other strategy is more radicle. The fist half involves extending the rights of private tenants. We need laws that give renters long term leases. Not six or twelve months but five or ten years. People need that kind of stability in their lives. These long term leases also need to come with rent controls. The second half of this strategy is to force the owners of all property that sits empty to become landlords. Your property sits empty for more than six months, you have to rent it out, on a long term lease, at rent controlled prices. Investors will either sell their property because they don’t want to be landlords, or the properties would be used as they were intended, as homes for people to live in.
I can just feel the vitriol coming my way, but the neoliberal market is broken, and we need radicle solutions. These are about as radical a way to home people as I can think. Yes build more affordable homes but also put the stocks we have to better use.
The Canary ran a story about the funding for Theresa May’s election campaign.
This prompted me to look on the Electoral Commission website, where you can search donations made to all the political parties.
Here’s a list of donations made to all the political parties in the last month.
What strikes me is how much The Conservative Party has been given. It’s far more than any other political party, double contributions to The Labour Party. It’s no surprise that Labour gets much of its funding from the unions. Neither is it a surprise the wealthiest few donate millions to The Conservative Party.
In the interests of the many, I donated to the Labour party.
I’m voting Labour and I urge everyone to do the same. As far as I can tell it’s not in the interest of most people to vote otherwise.
The Tory manifesto is a statement of poorly thought out ideas informed by a dogmatic ideology that puts profits before people, private interest before the public good.
Austerity is an ideologic strategy designed to make the poor pay off the debts of rich. The Labour manifesto, by contrast, feels optimistic. It aspires to the positive in us all, the sense of community, the desire to do good by the many, not just the few.
I have survived successive neoliberal governments both Labour and Conservative that have done nothing but keep me poor and in debt. The system is rigged to keep us all in our place. I know it has ever been thus, but it’s time for a change, a radical change. I am sick of these paternalistic parasites controlling us with lies.
This election, more than any other, has shown me how the mainstream media colludes with the vested interests, to drip feed a narrative of pessimistic division. Those people over there are to blame for your problems. Meanwhile I am free to go ahead bleed society dry like a spider feeding on an insect.
None of this is new. The difference this time, for the first time in my life, there is an actual alternative to the way things have been done since Thatcher. My fear is that most people will be blinded by the lies and vote against their own interests. My hope is that people with see through these lies, vote to do some good and vote Labour.
I, like many, was horrified by the recent election result which brought another Conservative government to power. The day after the election someone asked me if I was disappointed. National Health Service gone. Affordable housing gone. Welfare gone. As far as I can tell austerity is an excuse to dismantle the welfare state, and I can’t believe people voted for the worst version of it. Too right I was disappointed.
The person who asked the question replied to my predictions with the ever-so slightly patronising “we’ll see”. This from someone who has never really had it tough. I don’t mean “can’t decide which holiday to go on” tough. I mean “can’t feed your kids” tough. How do I know they’ve never had it tough? I once overheard them, in a conversation about how hard it is to find somewhere to live in London, say “I just pick up the phone, tell them how much I earn, and they give me what I want”.
That’s not unusual, it presumes because others haven’t achieved financial success they’re weak or lazy. This attitude is all too common. It’s a soulless attitude that takes no account of personal circumstances, or the hardships most people go though just to survive. In short, it’s an egocentric view of the world, at the core of a model of rampant self-interest, this nation was infected with since Thatcher.
For me it’s an attitude implicit in the ever-so slightly patronising coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. I, like most people, had never heard of Jeremy Corbyn before the recent Labour leadership campaign, but I keep finding things that make me say “this guy is interesting”. He seems to be offering a genuine, straight talking, alternative to rampant self-interest at the core of the current social and political landscape, an attitude that puts the values and interests of the very few at the top of this vast pyramid scheme we call capitalism.
This is just a small example of what I mean when I say “the ever-so slightly patronising coverage of Jeremy Corbyn”.
I had a conversation last week about my writing. A colleague asked how things were going. I had to confess my writing had all but ground to a halt. He wasn’t unsympathetic. He has aspirations to be an actor but has shelved his ambitions to put money in his pocket; “needs must when the devil drives” is the way he put it.
I’ve had the same conversation several time over the last few months and always find myself squirming, telling half truths to explain my lack of output. The stock responses that explain “I’ve been busy with this” or “I’ve had that going on” invariably feel like excuses, probably because they are. I never tell the truth about what has got in the way of me writing. I don’t lie to people. I just don’t tell them what’s happened. I’m pathologically uncomfortable revealing the things I consider private.
I am aware this runs counter to the zeitgeist. The world is awash with people willing to expose the most intimate parts of their private life to public scrutiny. I don’t know how or why they do this? My gut reaction is to maintain a wall of silence. Why? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. Something of the unreconstructed “man” in me; the stoic, boys don’t cry, men just get on with it attitude taught to me by by the generations that preceded me.
It could just be that I don’t want the reaction that comes when you tell people “my partner had a miscarriage” or “my dad died”. Privacy could be my way of coping, of staying in control of some very stressful events. There’s definitely an element of self-preservation being employed.
I want to see people as caring and generous individuals but I have a view of human nature that sees people use the information you give them to their advantage. It’s not a charitable understanding of the world but one taught by experience. When push comes to shove people will do what’s best for them and if details of your private life help them get what they want, they’ll use it.
Reading back over this post I realise I have revealed more than usual, more than I’m comfortable with. I now have to ask myself, what now; to post or not to post?
Just another quick thought regarding my previous post. Part of us securing the new lease is having to submit credit reports and references. Understandably our landlord wants to check that we are reliable. Throughout this process the subject of the landlords reliability has not been bought into question. This strikes me as entirely one sided arrangement.
You must be logged in to post a comment.