I posted this very short thread to Twitter last night:
This story is going to be everywhere in the news over the next couple of days (which is very convenient for the former Post Office CEO, who is appearing at its inquiry). It is entirely right that it is.
Far too many people - haemophiliacs, most especially - lost their lives as a result of being given infected blood products imported from the USA.
The NHS knew the risk, early on. So, too, it seems did ministers.
The claim is that the report will recommend NHS managers should be prosecuted, but Norman Fowler and Kenneth Clarke both knew about this and the former, at least, seems not to have taken action, apparently to save money. I would like to know why they might be exonerated.
But absolutely vitally in terms of the reactions that will be offered, the cost of compensation for those impacted need not constrain future spending on the NHS or anything else - whatever both the Tories and Labour will, inevitably, claim. Chapter 6.1 of the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 explains how the funds could be raised in ways to satisfy these politicians' demands, and reduce inequality at the same time.
Restricting pension tax relief to the basic rate of income tax, which is the suggestion to which that chapter refers, will promote social and economic justice, and for those ministers obsessed with the supposed funding of government spending, provide all the cover for the required compensation that they require in less than a year, so let's not pretend otherwise. £14.5 billion a year could be raised by this one, simple, tax change. So, what is the problem in making that change?
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:
In policy terms I think we need to look at information like the following to understand the mindset of politicians like Sunak and Starmer they exist to serve the interests of the very rich and one of those main interests is to minimise tax on themselves and to hell with anyone else. Accompanying this of course is their failure to recognise the Achilles heel of market capitalism is that of continuous profit growth regardless of the effect on the planet. Achieving that profit growth is of course directly linked to minimising tax on their companies and themselves.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmer-joined-secretive-cia-linked-group-while-serving-in-corbyns-shadow-cabinet/
https://www.declassifieduk.org/cps-has-destroyed-all-records-of-keir-starmers-four-trips-to-washington/
Tangentially – as regards getting investment up, Will Hutton seems to be moving in the right direction
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/19/weve-got-the-talent-and-the-tech-so-why-cant-britain-grow-its-own-world-beaters
He refers to
, “Turning the Page” from City financier Michael Tory, ‘ who has trailblazed this debate for some years – telling pension funds they will only enjoy their current tax privileges if a quarter of their investments are in UK companies. ‘
The case for ‘there is money’ has to break through, if the country is to avoid catastrophy
Agreed – but buying the shares of UK companies is not the same as investing in UK companies and Will does not seem to appreciate that fact.
If the “there is money” argument is to break through a key component will be understanding that a country cannot have stable value money without government’s ability to tax. It’s absolutely no good pretending that money can simply be created alone from thin air either by a central bank or licenced banks standing on their own. Further there has to be an understanding where the money goes to if a government fails to tax all that is created by a central bank and why licenced banks are different than central banks in that they are governed by full balance sheet accounting in both micro and macro aspects.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
Over the week-end and with regard to this issue, one of the broadsheets quoted Starmer as saying “we should not worship the NHS”. I fear this scandal will be used to undermine the NHS.
I don’t understand how so many NHS workers fear criticising Labour.
During the pandemic, I noticed French medical professionals kept their distance from politicians, even not appearing at press conferences when measures were announced. In addition, the professionals asked the French public not to clap for them, but, instead, to pay them properly and fast track citizenship for immigrant professionals.