Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week June 10, 2012
Posted by Garibaldy in Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week.trackback
As we might expect, the Sindo is making hay during the sunshine of Mick Wallace’s tax evasion – the caption below the photo is a particularly effective way of doing so. The story quotes Alan Shatter also sticking his oar in, saying the independents
need to decide whether they are self-serving street anarchists, addicted to opportunistic populist protest and obsessed by out of date left-wing or right-wing ideology or real democrats
A taster, then, of what we can expect in terms of the increasing political and media focus on the members of the technical group – and particularly those on the left who have yet to call for Wallace to go.
The Sindo, something which I should have expected but didn’t, is in full-on Jubilee mode this week. So no winner this week, just a score draw. Ruth Dudley Edwards, for inaccurate, patronising, nauseating, borderline racist drivel.
For the party I wore a red, white and blue fascinator, with attendant corgi, made by an American friend: she will go home eventually, but she loves the richness of British heritage.
Mass immigration to the United Kingdom over the past few decades has been a source of communal tension, not least because those who opposed it were denounced by the liberal elite as racists and bigots. The Jubilee provided an opportunity for these immigrants to say — as many of them did on radio and TV vociferously — ‘Thank you for having us. We subscribe to your values and we honour the woman who is now our queen.’ It did far more for social harmony than tens of thousands of well-meaning speeches from politicians and clerics.
There is nothing comfortable or easy that we can get behind in the same way that the Brits got behind the Queen. It feels as if their history and identity are settled, whereas ours is still in flux. A work in progress. We don’t even have a president that we can genuinely unite around at the moment, because Michael D seems determined to be so very political, whereas the Queen is studiously above all that nonsense.
I could have sworn that there is a real prospect the union might break up within the next 15 years or so given the way things are going in Scotland, and that Cameron’s government has turned its back on multi-culturalism, throwing UK policies towards minorities into a state of confusion. But apparently not.
Actually, in fairness to the Sindo, you do learn things from it occasionally. Like this
De Valera came within a whisker of being shot for his part in a rebellion that tried to put a German prince on the throne in Dublin Castle.
And this
Commonwealth membership might also have destroyed the grim lock exerted by the Department of Finance on the Irish policy process well before that place’s long-deserved implosion in 2010.
And this
One of the most remarkable economies in the world today is that of Singapore, another Commonwealth country willing to risk association with monarchy in exchange for access to a talking shop where the economic talk seems pretty good
God Save the Sindo. And the Queen.
“Michael D seems determined to be so very political, whereas the Queen is studiously above all that nonsense.”
It’s breath taking really. What do you think, are these commentators genuinely unaware of how astoundingly warped and incomplete and ideologically soaked their nonsense is, or are they cynical manipulators? I may have mentioned before that my father was a journalist. He wasn’t self-consciously ideological. I suspect many of them simply don’t have the wit to realise how complicit they are in the propagation of the shock doctrine. Conor McCabe had a brilliant piece on Dublin Opinion a while ago (I can’t find the link) where he talked about the small parts people play in crimes against society & humanity, cogs in the machine, knowingly or not, and perhaps often willfully blind.
I was thinking about this while reading this stuff actually. I think it’s a combination of the two. They believe say 60 or 80% of it, and what makes the Sindo the Sindo is having the gall to ratchet things up to a ridiculous level and feel very smug about it. It’s daring and outrageous and iconoclastic to say what they do. Or at least they think it is.
Conor’s point is well made.
I always like the quote nothing born with tooth or claw is innocent, but there’s different levels of innocence and I also think Conor’s point is spot on – not least in how indifference, ignorance and in some instances malevolence enter the picture.
As we might expect, the Sindo is making hay during the sunshine of Mick Wallace’s tax evasion
Apart from the Sindos hay-making or otherwise, theres no question that the technical group have played this one very badly indeed.
Clare Daly in particular has made a right eejit of herself with her insistence that he remains fit for office after \’fessing up, clearly allowing personal friendship to trump her political judgement and/or moral sense.
On the other hand, its possible that in her naïveté she doesnt actually understand the gravity of a false VAT declaration. This is far worse than evasion of say income tax (or non-payment of the household charge), as Wallace is this case was effectively acting as an a agent of Revenue, collecting tax on its behalf from the purchasers of his apartments. That money was only ever held in trust by Wallace, and by not passing it on to the Revenue, he was directly stealing from the state coffers as sure as if he\’d held up a post office.
I suspect that it’s going to become increasingly difficult to defend the position that he remains fit for office, given what Wallace is guilty of. If anyone who comments here from Clare Daly’s political neck of the woods wants to comment on it, I’d be interested to hear what they had to say about why he might remain fit for office. The Sindo didn’t go into a great deal on it, and I don’t see anything on the SP website one way or the other.
There’s some truth in what you say Bartley.
But I can’t help but feel that it’s because the TG is a disparate and non-political group that this has been the outcome. They don’t have a Press officer. They don’t work as one. They sort of coalesce and then break apart on various issues. Then there’s the fact that there are different strands within it.
I do agree that there was a slowness in response, though I think part of that was that the TG didn’t learn about this until very late Wed/early Thurs and weren’t able to meet until after the legislation in the morning. I also think that the fact there’s been no charges has blunted them (and perhaps a sense of collegiality too, not ideological because truth is Wallace’s stance is fairly mixed). But I was just thinking, I was out with a friend for a pint on Wednesday evening and hadn’t a clue this would hit. We were talking about the aftermath of the Treaty for a fair while. And now… Treaty, what Treaty? An inadvertant gift to the government.
And, by the way what of the dog that hasn’t barked on the issue once? A silence from a certain quarter that presumably indciates they’re happy for this to tie the Indo’s and ULA in knots for as long as it takes.
One other thought. The fact it drags into a second week is pure poison.
It is amazing how one phrase seems to be blown out of all proportion – let me have a go at ‘defending’ it.
Now who would I perfer to have sitting in the Dail – Mick Wallace or Enda Kenny or Eamon Gilmore or Micheal Martin or Joan Burton or Leo Varadker or Michael Noonan or hatchetman Hogan? – for me htere is no contest on that one.
Out of the above list who would I consider ‘fit for office’? – again sorry – no contest on that one either.
Bizarre. It’s a bit out of character to see SP people making a case that Wallace is a substantial improvement over mainstream TDs (ok, allowing that JRG is equating him with gov’t ministers which is slightly different). I don’t understand it. Wallace is far from the worst of them, for sure he has a Leftish rhetoric and anti-authoritarianism that shows future potential for swinging further Left, but but but. For a party that makes a big deal of principle-driven politics it seems just a bit odd that the SP are taking the position they are on this. One would hope that it isn’t just a case of cosyness on the Dail benches leading to a reluctance to “do the right thing”, as that stinks of a very establishment way of conducting Politics.
I think the idea is to avoid the trap the Indo and government TD’s are trying to set by getting ULA TD’s to call for Wallace to go over failure to pay taxes then turning around a few months down the line when the government come to prosecute ULA TD’s for non payment of the Household Charge and calling for them to resign as they called for Wallace to resign in “similar” circumstances.
It’s not for nothing the main item on Wallace on the Indo’s website has a picture of him with half his face hidden behind a banner calling for non payment of the Household Charge.
There’s also the fact that Joe Higgins has never, in his 12 years of Dáil membership, called for any TD to resign their seat (holding a position as a government minister is another matter). So it’s not like the Parliamentary reps are treating Wallace any different from Lowry or Burke.
With all respect Neil, that’s a stretch and a half there. So will the SP be defending all tax dodgers from now on, including MNCs that route their profits through the Double Irish, lest it reflect badly on the CAHWT? I don’t buy it for a minute.
You are conflating the issue of approving of or defending someone with the issue of whether or not to call for someone to resign as a TD. That’s a rather dishonest trick which the mainstream media have been using.
The Socialist Party didn’t call for far worse behaved TDs to resign as TDs either, yet strangely nobody pops up here claiming that it was defending the conduct of a Lowry or a Burke. People have the right to choose their TDs, and for once I broadly agree with Sinn Fein statement: It’s up to the people of Wexford whether to elect him or not.
And for the record, the Socialist Party didn’t support Wallace’s last election campaign and won’t be supporting any he runs in the future.
Sorry, how are the SP “defending” tax dodging? Was Joe Higgins “defending” planning corruption because he never called for Ray Burke to resign his seat?
You may think the stance of Joe Higgins and other ULA is tactically incorrect LATC and that’s fine you are entitled to that view, but the idea the SP defends tax dodging beggars belief!
It’s the kind of remark I’d expect from a Sindo columnist or government minister, not a self proclaimed leftist.
Ah I see now, I’m the one who is wrong here, got it, nothing suspect at all in how the SP is handling this. My mistake clearly. My hole.
Rather than throw insults and insinuations perhaps you could actually explain what you think is “dodgy”? And did you think it was “dodgy” when Joe Higgins didn’t call for Lowry to resign as a TD?
What insults and insinuations have I thrown? I find it unconvincing that the SP are using kid gloves on this. I can see there is a warped logic in trying to avoid the future trap which Neil points out in terms of the CAHWT, but I think it’s a case of trying too hard, getting tied up in logical knots, and ultimately getting it wrong.
You are still being entirely vague. What precisely do you think is wrong or “suspect”? Is it that the Socialist Party hasn’t demanded his resignation as a TD, or is it something else specific? Waffle about “getting it wrong” isn’t particularly useful or interesting.
LATC,
So you accept that the Socialist Party are in no way defending Wallace, but think it’s wrong not to go along with the right-wing media’s demand for his resignation?
Socialist Party statement on the issue
http://www.socialistparty.net/comment/971-socialist-party-statement-on-mick-wallace-tax-controversy
In fairness it’s not just a right wing media demand for resignation (whatever the rights and wrongs of it, and whether it’s appropriate, or even whether it is feasible). It was a fellow ULA TD who made the first call from within the Technical Group for MWs resignation on Saturday (even before John Halligan) – and few would argue that Seamus Healy wasn’t his own man, now would they?
You know Mark, there’s no point in me trying to expand on what’s wrong here, because you have a 100% track record here of always being right on every issue and expending such energy and detail on the defence of your every opinion. if I ever wanted a barrister I’d go to you, but I have neither the time nor the energy nor the will to debate this with you, it’s just not worth the effort. The point is Mark, sometimes it really doesn’t matter about the forensic detail, sometimes it’s about the smell, and this one smells off.
In my opinion the calls for Wallace’s resignation from all of the TDs is undoubtedly the result of pressure from the right-wing media.
I think that’s to misunderstand the dynamic that has evolved in the last four years. Of course a property developer elected to the Dáil would get it in the neck for tax issues after a financial collapse caused in large part by developers and the financial sector, and the release of a report not two months ago on the connection between politics/construction and corruption in local government (BTW, I’m not suggesting that the latter two are anything to do with MW).
It’s a no brainer, whatever party such a TD belonged to.
It’s true the SP hasn’t in the Dáil at least as far as I can see called for the resignation of other TDs in various circumstances, but then again isn’t this a bit sui generis?
I said it this morning. Wallace is a good and decent man but he arrived in the Dáil trailing significant issues, the sort that would inevitably lead to days like these, and it would seem to be highly optimistic that they will suddenly go away.
Or to put that more clearly, LATC, you can’t actually point to anything wrong at all in what the Socialist Party has actually said or done. But you are willing to try and score a point anyway.
The “general smell” has been created by media framing of the issue and by dishonest attempts by the right wing parties to give the impression that the technical group is a political alliance rather than a technical arrangement. There’s no substance there when you look more closely. The Socialist Party has been forthright and pretty explicit in its negative commentary on Wallace’s actions.
WbS:
There have been plenty of TDs who have engaged in dubious or downright illegal behaviour. The Socialist Party has never demanded that they resign as TDs (rather than resign from Ministerial office), because who represents people is a decision for the electorate concerned, not the right wing media and not other TDs. That goes for Wallace and it has gone for people very much worse than Wallace.
But the added extra component is the fact of the TG and working with the TG. But talk to anyone connected with those TDs from the TG and you’ll know that they’re getting a firestorm of calls asking why they don’t do x y or z. This isn’t just the media, right wing or otherwise. In this state in 2012 being a property developer alone is bad enough. Being a left wing one is a distinction that few are willing to make. And having issues with Revenue is an added extra calculated to incite cynicism/rage/antagonism. That’s a pretty organic response that has happened. Sure, parts of the media have egged it along, and part of the media response has been disgraceful, but it’s not unpredictable or in some senses not understandable.
Mick Wallace himself saw the danger of collateral damage to those in the Technical Group by this who series of events and did the right thing by stepping aside.
One doesn’t have to ask for him to resign, and it may not, as I noted before be either appropriate, necessary or feasible, but I think there is a sense of a lack of willing to look for some sort of distance, be that psychological rather than real. Wallace himself appears to understand that entirely.
WbS:
Yes, there is understandable anger about Wallace avoiding VAT, and that’s both predictable and understandable because it’s justified and correct. But this isn’t really a discussion about that, because nobody disagrees that what he did was disgraceful.
What there does seem to be some disagreement about is whether there’s some great failure of principle involved in condemning his actions while not demanding his resignation as a TD. And for some reason, a few people here, echoing the right wing media and government, seem to be implying that there’s something particularly wrong with the Socialist Party or ULA or independent TDs taking that stance, as opposed to Sinn Fein taking much the same stance. This seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of what a technical group actually is, a misunderstanding pushed by the right wing media and the right wing parties.
That’s why I keep pointing out that the Socialist Party has never demanded the resignation of elected representatives from the Dail, whether the TD in question be Lowry or Burke or Wallace or anybody else. Who represents a constituency is a decision for voters, not the media and not other TDs. The people of Wexford voted for Wallace to represent them and its for them to vote him out.
It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with that stance, but it’s not reasonable to make vague insinuations about “a stink” and the like.
Actually if you read the thread you’ll see that LATC never called for the SP to call for his resignation. And reading through the thread even Bartley isn’t explicit that he should resign while other comments are both sympathetic and the furthest people go is that one or two suggest his position may be untenable. So I think it’s very important to be clear that this is something of a projection on your part. There is no ‘echoing’ of right wing tropes on this thread. We’re all able to look at a situation and come to our own conclusions.
What LATC suggested – in a colloquial fashion – was that the response from the SP appeared (and I hope I do him no disservice) to be much less robust than might be expected.
Consider your own response across the weekend. From the off you were dismissive (as indeed was I) of the potential for Wallace to leave or be asked to leave from the TG. But whatever form of alliance/group it is eventually he was because the definition of the TG was trumpd by realpolitic (and in fairness a realpolitic that was in part an element of the way the TG has operated across the last year or so). And Wallace himself saw how that functioned and did the right thing. Indeed recusing himself in that way is probably the best way forward because it takes some of the heat out of the situation.
Even the statement on the SP site ignores the fact that one (and perhaps more) TD in the ULA called for his resignation. One just has a sense of a dislocation between the stated position and that more broadly – even, and this is crucial, well short of calling for the resignation ( as I’ve said that’s not necessarily appropriate or feasible – and in truth he’d be entirely justified to stand again and chances are he’d win again) that is hard to shake.
There are also a few additional points worth noting. The SP statement is interesting enough, but there’s still very much a “Yes, but … ” element to it. Yes, Wallace is in the wrong, but others are worse. Similar enough to the point that JRG made earlier.
Clare Daly’s earlier intervention on Wallace was, frankly, shocking equivocal, stating that he made ‘a mistake’ as well as claiming that he was up front with Revenue, a claim which would seem to be dubious, based on the – admittedfly speculative – report in today’s Examiner but which also elides the fact that he admittedly submitted false returns.
In both cases, it’s reasonable to ask whether the response would have been the same if this issue had arisen in the case of a member of a Government party or Fianna Fail or, indeed, in the case of an independent T.D. who hadn’t worked with SP members on various issues.
As for the question of calling for his resignation, I think the SP is tying itself in knots with that statement. It’s somewhat Jesuitical to claim that the party hasn’t called for T.D.s to resign in the past (actually, did Higgins and Daly not support the motion of censure against Michael Lowry last year? That called for his resignation.)
It’s easy to claim that the right-wing media are out to get Wallace. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily wrong, though. They could be right for the wrong reasons. They’ve been out to get others in the past in no way connected to the left – Lowry, Burke, Foley, Lawlor and Ahern, to name a few. And, as WBS points out, it’s not just the media who are condemning Wallace here.
Of course Sinn Féin aren’t getting involved. Why should they? They’re sitting back and laughing at TG members chasing their tails on this. They’re not associated with Wallace in any way, and won’t be damaged by this.
But that’s not going to be the case with the SP and, to a lesser extent, the ULA. Rightly or wrongly, they’re going to be tainted by that association – not the membership of the TG but the closeness of the relationship with Wallace and, more importantly, the equivocation over the response. Now I’m sure the response will be ‘We don’t care – it’s only the right-wing media anyway’. Which is fine. When it comes to the media, and electoral politics, you’re never going to win anyway. But you can definitely lose. And unless this goes away quickly, and decisively, it’s going to hang like an albatross around the neck of any future campaigns in the coming years.
As I don’t know the ins-and-outs of Wallace’s situation, I think it best to let the legal system decide the issue. I don’t think he’ll have the benefit of a ten year tribunal but will merely face the wrath of the legal system in solo and pronto‘ish.
It is, however, funny and instructive how the right-wing middlestat can codify corruption (Vat cheating is worse than some other form of tax dodging) when it suits their class based perspective. The moral outrage is also instructive when seen within the context of a country which bases a large part of its economy on tax avoidance for foreign based corporations.
It seems the middlestat class codification is a method whereby a filtering screen be used that allows them to largely ignore the “foibles” of their employers whilst assigning damnation upon their perceived opponents; which are really the opponents of their bosses upon whom they depend for their survival and so feel some sort of loyalty. I suppose creating a filtering screen alleviates but also reveals the anxiety of ultimate powerlessness of the middlestat. From their neutered state, they hope to exercise some illusion of power by attacking the opponents of existing orthodoxy whenever the chances arise.
I think Jim Monaghan wrote something similar with regard to the Austerity referendum when he compared the situation of usually docile pupils piling in behind a bully to give the victim a good kicking, even though the bully is fully capable at a later date of turning on one of his erstwhile allies. When the victim is losing, the docile find reasons for their support of the bully. If the bully should be confronted and defeated, they quickly finds reasons to dislike the bully.
It’s not easy being in the middle.
It is, however, funny and instructive how the right-wing middlestat can codify corruption (Vat cheating is worse than some other form of tax dodging) when it suits their class based perspective.
No, withholding VAT really is worse, thats just the way our tax system is constructed.
Its on a par with an employer deducting PAYE & PRSI from their employees wage packets and then not passing it on the Revenue. In both cases, that is money held in trust by the company on behalf of the Revenue – it was never owned by the company in any sense in the first place (unlike say someone failing to meet their income tax or household charge obligations out of earned income).
The moral outrage is also instructive when seen within the context of a country which bases a large part of its economy on tax avoidance for foreign based corporations.
Avoidance and evasion are very different things.
In particular only the latter is illegal.
It seems the middlestat class codification is a method whereby a filtering screen be used that allows them to largely ignore the “foibles” of their employers …
Only a small sliver of the middle-class in Ireland works in the MNC sector, far more middle-class people work for the state.
… whilst assigning damnation upon their perceived opponents; which are really the opponents of their bosses upon whom they depend for their survival and so feel some sort of loyalty.
Really, Mick Wallace is an opponent of the bosses? Is his Reality Distortion Field really that strong, that you cant see through the hair and the polo shirts?
Are the Wallace Costcutters and Super-Valu down in Wellington Bridge run as workers co-operatives? Does the Italian Quarter remind you of the Paris Commune?
Waking up, strong coffee and the smelling thereof, needed stat!
As I wasn’t neither defending nor condoning Wallace, I don’t see the relevance of the comment regarding bosses.
The commune comment is rather off the wall. Did I hit a nerve?
It’s too true that avoidance and evasion, in legalese, means different things. Yet the results are the same.
As to your codification qualifications, my original comments stand.
I’d suggest a quiet glass of wine instead in tranquil surroundings. Anxiety is endemic.
As I wasn’t neither defending nor condoning Wallace, I don’t see the relevance of the comment regarding bosses.
So who exactly did you have in mind when you referred to assigning damnation upon perceived opponents who are really the opponents of their bosses?
It’s too true that avoidance and evasion, in legalese, means different things. Yet the results are the same.
Again, no, its chalk and cheese.
If my wife avoids giving Tescos a few hundred euros a month that she saves by shopping in Lidl, then shes just managing the familiy budget in a smart way.
Whereas if she were to stick her hand in the Tescos till and grab that same few hundred euro when the shop assistant has his turned, then thats a totally different story, no?
Anxiety is endemic.
Endemic, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_(epidemiology)
Having read the SWP’s statement on Wallace ‘the capitalist’ and see how eager some are to denounce him (while others hedge their bets) I think it’s important to note that he’s never been ‘just another capitalist.’
Firstly he put his money where his mouth is, on issues like the Iraq War and the Nice referendum, well before the rash of 2008 made opposition more popular. He was a critic of the Celtic Tiger during the Tiger years.
Secondly he lost money and contracts because he was outspoken on these issues- the big banners in the city centre etc.
Thirdly, those in the know assure me that the buildings Wallace constructed will stand the test of time far better than most of the shite that was thrown up during the boom.
Fourth: The SWP mention a dispute over travelling money, which is a bog-standard row in the construction industry, but he was hardly William Martin Murphy.
Finally, Wallace chose not to be part of the Fianna Fail dominated developers clique- he described FF as being like the ‘Mafia’ and said when he started out how he was told if he wanted to get on, he should ‘get a haircut, buy a suit and join Fianna Fail.’ He didn’t do any of them.
In terms of the technical group I would say he was more left-wing than Finian McGrath (who is fresh from propping up the FF-Green coalition) and more principled on abortion than most of them.
Personally I think his position as a TD is untenable, but he was far from just another tax-dodger.
“If my wife avoids giving Tescos a few hundred euros a month that she saves by shopping in Lidl, then shes just managing the familiy budget in a smart way.
Whereas if she were to stick her hand in the Tescos till and grab that same few hundred euro when the shop assistant has his turned, then thats a totally different story, no?”
A laughable analogy, as I’m sure you’re well aware. Your wife doesn’t have the option of hiring KPMG to manage her tab at Tesco, moving her credit card transaction through a series of shell companies and off-shore accounts so that ultimately her grocery bill ends up being 12 cents for a month’s shopping.
Tax avoidance has nothing to do with prudence; it’s what companies and rich individuals can do to artificially reduce their tax liabilities. Any company based in Ireland that pays significantly less than 12.5% on their profits (which is a very low rate in the first place) is engaged in pure gangsterism, regardless of whether they have breached the letter of the law, and their gangsterism is a far more urgent problem than anything Wallace has done.
As is the fact that the two men who dominate media ownership in Ireland have not paid any tax here in decades. If somebody chooses not to participate in Irish society as a taxpayer, as O’Brien and O’Reilly have done, then they should certainly be barred from participating in Irish society by controlling newspapers and radio stations. When the people getting worked up about Wallace turn their sights on that perma-tanned pair, then we will know they are sincere in their indignation.
A dictionary suffices to tell us that ‘endemic’ is a qualifier or adjective requiring a noun or thought to qualify. While I used it as an open-ended qualifier in repsonse to all your posts on the topics, I should have gone the whole hog and written: Anxiety is endemic (. my mistake)
I.e. fill in the blank
However, this point leads into an over-arching response to your first paragraph in rebuttal and indeed to the manner in which you choose to rebut those points you thought worthy of response throughout. You choose to deconstruct and decontextualise those points. Decontextualisation is a worthy endeavour, and when used to interpret a statement in its potential multiplicities can be quite enlightening.
However, as it the wont of modern pundits who will not address the meta context of their world nor the multiplicity of ideas generated or indeed sentiments they just don’t plain like, they choose to decontextualise and then attack the points often using examples which are not germane to any context but that of their own specific choosing – not entirely out of context but conveniently detached enough that examples are not substantive in the original context nor to any other context other than that of suggestion. In short, they refuse to recontextualise but rather wish to dissemble, often dragging the debate into cul de sacs of inanity – an endless circle of disassembly signifying bombast but little of relevant substance. It seems to a journalistic technique often used these days.
So, as to your first paragraph, go back and read the orginal statements I wrote and the narrative provides the answer.
As to the avoidance and evasion point, the terms only serve to provide meaning(s) when put into their contexts. Avoidance takes on meanings and functions by those who have the power to decide on their meanings; especially their legal definitions. A brickie who under reports her income is a thief. A corporation who can declare their full income but cites laws which allow them to avoid paying taxes are upstanding citizens. That the CEOs and top brass happen to pocket ever increasing salaries while satisfying their big shareholders just happens to be coincidental.
That Tax “Avoidance and evasion are very different things.” is a very, very upper class trope.
The most significant difference between tax avoidance (or tax management) and tax evasion is that tax avoidance costs the state more and is practised chiefly by the wealthy.
As for that villainous Mick Wallace he did not keep his mouth shut when others did and I respect him for that. The world needs more street anarchists.
I will wait for the facts to come out about the nature of the VAT fraud but it does make me sad. It has given ammunition to the Irish Independent in their war to curry favour with the establishment by attacking the opposition and distracted the public from Labour’s betrayal of principle on the Fiscal Compact.
“The Jubilee provided an opportunity for these immigrants to say — as many of them did on radio and TV vociferously — ‘Thank you for having us. We subscribe to your values and we honour the woman who is now our queen.’”
Of course the Windsors include such champions of an
multi-ethnic Britain as Prince Philip, Prince
Harry and the Queen Mother :
In 1998 Woodrow Wyatt’s diaries confirmed what many former courtiers had said. The Queen Mother was portrayed as an elderly woman who adored Margaret Thatcher and apartheid-supporting South African PW Botha, disliked Europe, the unions and middle classes, was against immigration and regretted the loss of imperial possessions in Africa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/30/queenmother.monarchy1
Thought I had posted this earlier, apologies if it comes up twice.
Basically on the subject of the state of the union, I read that of the 9500 UK jubilee street parties, there were only 60 in Scotland – 20 of which were connected to the Orange Order.
So, not quite so unified as some on the Sindo make out.
There is nothing comfortable or easy that we can get behind in the same way that the Brits got behind the Queen.
Eilis O’Hanlon may like to think that but (as Ramzi suggests above) it was more the English who ‘got behind the Queen’ (and not universally there either) rather than ‘the Brits’ (i.e. the masses in England, Scotland and Wales).
I was in Scotland for the Jubilee weekend and even I was (pleasantly) surprised at how little Scots ‘got behind the Queen’.
I saw a handful of homes and cars bearing Union Jacks apart from the Rangers-supporting bars in Glasgow and church-centred Jubilee parties. Some of these parties were run by the Orange Order with Glasgow City Council grants courtesy of Scottish Labour. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/city-funds-orange-events.17763327?_=0c3438f797b4b64c06d620bf6e202889ff1dc922
Not sure whether the smattering of shops with Jubilee displays were driven more by patriotism or commercialism.
The longer bank holiday weekend was, of course, wholeheartedly ‘got behind’ by everyone: royalists and republicans, Brits and non-Brits.
Fortunately popular expression of royal adoration seemed much reduced compared to last time (the 50th?) and certainly compared to 1977 – when it was a royal pain in the arse. I saw very few flags (union jacks) around and am aware of only one street party near me, which seemed to be one, or possibly two, houses. Now of course the English flags are out for the Euro 2012 football. You do see more of those around trhese days, used to -BNP/NF. Maybe it’s just the footie, or maybe it is a slow identity change in England?
The area where I live in North London is almost entirely made up of the people RDE has in mind – Turks the biggest group, lots of black and Asian people too, some East Europeans. White Anglos a distinct minority. Didn’t see any sign of these immigrants who love the Queen – it was paradise around here last weekend, crowds of eejits in the city centre with union jacks but not a trace of it here, no bunting, no street parties, you wouldn’t have had a clue there was anything going on. Magnificent performance.
Out my way (Dublin 15) the houses are covered in tricoloured bunting and flags. But I had to double take on the bus this morning. On the Navan Road I spotted a Vatican flag out a window. Must be something else going other than the football.
Coming back from town this evening, another Vatican flag in Manor Street and one more on the Navan Road. Pity we weren’t playing them in Poland.
Must be the Eucharistic Congress, no?
As well as the papal flags there have been Dublin flags popping up in that most tricolored of suburbs, Crumlin. Seem to be more remnants of the ban on foreign games around here than the RCC – I counted 3 dub flags vs. one papal flag in the clogher rd / kildare rd area.
Back to Ruth Dudley Edwards…
At last weekend’s History Festival of Ireland in Carlow, both Dudley Edwards and Kevin Myers described themselves as “religion friendly atheists”.
What next? Whiskey friendly teetotalers? Murder friendly pacifists?
For all their supposed “intellectual” abilities, I reckon you could get both their brains through the hole in a Polo mint.
“Back to Ruth Dudley Edwards…
At last weekend’s History Festival of Ireland in Carlow, both Dudley Edwards and Kevin Myers described themselves as “religion friendly atheists.””
There are agnostics and atheists who don’t adopt a
Dawkins-like militant secularism because they don’t
want to upset religious relatives or friends, but I suspect
what RDE and Myers have in mind is similar to
a right-wing attitude that goes all the way back to Plato,
and was articulated by the late Irving Kristol :
“Let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let the handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded esoteric doctrine – for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1463