We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Hammond’s Britain

I do not like British Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond.

I often hear it said that the UK is considering participating in unfair competition in regulation and tax. That is neither our plan nor our vision for the future.

Whose side is this man on? He considers it unfair on French people if British people are not sufficiently mugged when transporting goods across the border. At least we have an adversarial system and he can be opposed.

“The truth is that the British people will not believe the fake U-turn of a Tory chancellor in a French newspaper, while he is still going ahead with billions of pounds in corporation tax giveaways in this parliament, and refuses to rule out further cuts,” said shadow minister Peter Dowd.

Oh dear. I had rather hoped that Britain might end up more like Singapore or Hong Kong.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

22 comments to Hammond’s Britain

  • Philip Hammond needs to either support the government’s approach to BRExit or he needs to resign and conduct his undermining from the back benches where tilting at windmills is acknowledged and potentially treatable.

    He has made it clear time and again that he holds the decision of the 2016 EU Referendum in contempt and therefore the people also.

    This is not to say people cannot have concerns and reservations about the process or the outcome, but to undermine matters publicly while his Cabinet colleagues (who actually have the task of negotiating BRExit) are doing so behind closed doors to the best of their ability is just shoddy.

    If he doesn’t resign he should be fired for holding democracy in contempt.

  • Mr Ecks

    The useless Fish-Faced cow masquerading as Prime Minister needs to fire Hammond at once.

    And find some pretext for him to be beaten up as well.

    “Resisting Arrest while Littering” would do very well.

  • Paul Marks

    “German Federalism” – first put into practice in Germany in the 1920s, this was the idea that crossing a state (“Lander”) line, should not mean that one pays less tax or is subject to less regulations. “German Federalism” is essentially not Federalism at all.

    Mr Hammond appears to be under the delusion that he (as a “Remainer”) won the referendum campaign a year ago – indeed that the British people voted for the E.U. to control things it does not presently control (such as the level of overall taxation). Why is this man Chancellor?

    To answer my own question – Mr Hammond is Chancellor because Mrs May (the First Lord of the Treasury) appointed him to this position and refuses to dismiss him. It is almost as if the Prime Minister is also a “Remainer” – who wants the thousands of pages of E.U. regulations to remain in force, and does not want to roll back taxation and “Social Justice” government spending. With HS2 and “Crossrail 2” on top.

  • NickM

    “Oh dear. I had rather hoped that Britain might end up more like Singapore or Hong Kong.”

    Much though that would be grand anyone who actually thought it might actually happen ought to contact me because I have a unicorn to sell…

  • Bruce

    “Oh dear. I had rather hoped that Britain might end up more like Singapore or Hong Kong.”

    Singapore is pretty much a benign dictatorship.

    Hong Kong is the money machine for Beijing.

    Decisions, decisions……….

  • Roué le Jour

    I can remember when chancellors were hired and fired. These days they seem to form an inseparable double act with the prime minister. I think May is the straight man and Hammond does the jokes but it’s hard to tell.

    If Britain engages in unfair competition with the EU, it will be because Britain has an unfair advantage. That unfair advantage being, of course, that Britain is not in the EU.

  • bobby b

    “I had rather hoped that Britain might end up more like Singapore or Hong Kong.”

    You mean, parked next to a semi-hostile entity that views it as a stolen territory and wants it back?

    Yeah, I think you’ll get that wish.

  • Rob Fisher

    Bruce and bobby, obviously I meant the low and flat taxes and no tariffs. But I’m sure we’ll get the other things instead.

  • Lee Moore

    I do not like British Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond

    Which immediately poses the follow up – who could like him ?
    Rapidly followed by – why are so many politicians so transparently unlikeable ? How do they get themselves elected when they are such obvious sh1ts ?

    Who could like Chuck Schumer ? I mean, honestly ? Surely even his mother crosses the street to avoid him. Hillary ? Gordon Brown ? Ted Cruz ?

    I can understand Bill Clinton, Obama, Blair, Cameron – there’s a sort of honest dishonesty laid out as entertainment, a sort of “I’m spinning you a yarn, we both know it’s just a yarn, but it’s a good yarn and I tell it well, so come along with me.”

    But I simply don’t get – “I am a sh1t. I make no pretence otherwise. Vote for me.” How does this work, exactly ? Because it clearly does.

  • Darin

    Oh dear. I had rather hoped that Britain might end up more like Singapore

    Mandatory death penalty for drug possesion?
    Mandatory death penalty for gun possesion?
    (here go the two most important libertarian freedoms)
    Mandatory racial integration?
    Military conscription?
    Ban on religious proselytizing?
    Ban on homosexuality?
    Ban on pornography?
    Ban on suicide?

    Let freedom ring!

  • PeterT

    Bruce and Darin. You know that isn’t what Rob meant. Don’t be disingenuous and waste everybody’s time.

    You mean, parked next to a semi-hostile entity that views it as a stolen territory and wants it back?

    This may not be far off the truth though. In both cases, or at least in the Singapore case, it is not impossible that the line of thought was “We are under grave threat so can’t afford this socialism stuff” Free healthcare doesn’t seem like a priority when survival as an independent nation is at stake.

    Hammond is irrelevant. He isn’t popular enough to become PM and will probably be moved as soon as TM is no longer PM. Probably it will be Davis although my view is that he is yesterday’s man and Boris is more likely to keep the conservatives in power.

  • Stonyground

    “I often hear it said that the UK is considering participating in unfair competition in regulation and tax. That is neither our plan nor our vision for the future.”

    I’m still struggling to get my head around this. All I can keep thinking is, why the hell not? I can only think that to do so would be to admit that Brexit might have been a good idea. Our politicians actually have an opportunity to make Brexit a runaway success. Surely they are not trying to screw it up on purpose because they are terrified of being proved wrong?

  • Darin, we’ll probably get all of those with the exception of compulsory homosexuality 😉

  • Stonyground,
    Not very social justicey is it? I mean, using a natural advantage to our, er, advantage. Not the done thing, these days.

  • Like PeterT (August 2, 2017 at 11:00 am), I expect (and hope) that May’s inevitable retirement from leadership of the Tories will include the departure of Hammond. That said, consider the possibility that Hammond is simply lying to the French* during the negotiations, and if (God forbid ) he is still in post post-Brexit, he will raise or (we can hope 🙂 ) lower taxes for whatever reasons seem good to him at that time, little troubled in his conscience by something he said to some frogs a couple of years before.

    * I mean “saying what was appropriate at that time to the French”

  • Watchman

    Re-reading his words, Hammond said he “often hear[s]”, so something others have said which means he is not committed to this term, about our plans for “unfair” competition. I am struck that he doesn’t define unfair, and is not ruling out fair competition – always check what a politician says carefully (journalists seem to have forgotten how to do this, probably because so many politicians keep delivering stories by being very stupid).

    So whilst I have no doubt Hammond favours a medium-tax (in his view…) economy, as stated, he has not in that statement actually said he will not engage in fair tax competition. Not sure what unfair means here, but it is something that Hammond hears from other people anyway, so we can kind of guess what nonsense this covers.

    We still need rid of this idiot who believes taxation is important. We could do with getting rid of the whole bloody Treasury considering that it seems to have institutionalised the importance of chancellors to be counter-balances to the prime minister (blame Brown and Osborne), and a department that does that is not doing its job.

  • Alisa

    Just saw this, and this seems to be the most relevant thread on which to post it – very much worth reading. And yes, the film is as good as all the hype.

  • Bob H

    Don’t just moan, do something useful and sign the SACK PHILIP HAMMOND petition and help get the traitorous cretin booted out.

    https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-sack-philip-hammond?mc_cid=8ca209f720&mc_eid=78af60c8c3

    Sign it and send to all your friends.

    Reinforce it by complaining to your local MP.

  • Nicholas (Unlicenced Joker) Gray

    Q. Why did the politician cross the road?
    A. Because that’s what a chicken would do, and the average politician is a chicken!

  • James Hargrave

    A chicken washed in chlorine?

    Most of them, alas, are better as road kill than as chickens.

  • Eric

    I’m frankly amazed at the low quality of the Tory leadership. You’d think people who spent a life in politics would be, well, better at it.

  • Paul Marks

    Eric – you are making a classic mistake. They are “good at politics” – they have got to the top. That does not mean they are any good at policy – the skill set for getting to a position (in politics – but not just in politics) and the skill set of working well in that position are different (utterly different).

    For example, who was the last President of the United States who both believed in the Constitution and could have answered detailed questions about the Founders?

    The answer is – Calvin Coolidge. That does NOT mean that later Presidents were bad at politics – because politics is about gaining power and keeping it (naught else really).

    Mr Hammond may be ignorant (well forget “may be” – he is ignorant), but he has all the skills needed to get a good degree from university, become a millionaire, and become Chancellor – a success in this vile world.

    I am not ignorant – and I am a total failure.

    From an evolutionary standpoint being ignorant may well be the path to success – at least in this world.