Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

I saw an odd headline on the BBC saying "Blair to receive US peace medal", so I investigated. An sure enough our ex-PrimeMinister is getting the US's National Constitution Centre's Liberty Medal. From their press release:

Philadelphia, PA (June 30, 2010) – David Eisner, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, announced today that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will receive the 2010 Liberty Medal in recognition of his steadfast commitment to conflict resolution.

The spokesperson goes on to say

“This award recognizes both his dedication to and his success in building understanding among nations and creating lasting solutions in areas of conflict.”

Then they give a quote from the Democrat Governor of Pennylvania, Edward G. Rendell:

“Tony Blair, both in his time as British Prime Minister and in the work he has
done since leaving office, has been one of the world’s most important catalysts for reaching the goals of peace, freedom, and liberty."

Reaching the goals of peace?

Peace? The Prime Minister who had more wars than elections.

The goals of freedom and liberty from the man whose legacy he wanted to be 90 days detention without trial?

The main justification is his work in Northern Ireland leading up to the Good Friday agreement. That was a major achievement, and his style worked for it (if in doubt leave it out and lie about it, which in this case got us to the point were the blocking issues seemed less significant than losing the progress. It worked.). Should be remembered that the work was started by John Major.

However mentioning the middle east is taking the proverbial. Iraq ought to be enough to say. And I don't see major breakthroughs between Israel and Palestine at the moment.

Blair put military intervention back into British foreign policy in a way that had gone out of fashion. I fear because he was remote from the costs of war, and lacked the imagination to see them. It should only be used if there is no alternative, which was certainly not the case too often.

What are they thinking?

VAT remains regressive, so why don't people care?

They did it. I hoped they wouldn't. They raised VAT to 20%.

I really wish we could have a serious discussion about tax.

VAT is the easy option to raise. People notice it at the time but quickly forget about it. It isn't a fair tax, in that it hits the poorest hardest. It has been widely blogged that this tax rise hits the lowest incomes harder as they spend more of their income on VATable stuff. On luxuries like food and fuel.

The problem is that prices go up. Everyone is nostalgic for when you could get change from a penny/groat/schilling/pound/tenner [delete as applicable] when buying something. We accept inflation today, so the hit on what we can buy is small and one off. So prices go up now, and the tax take continues despite no further change, but people won't notice as prices go up anyway.

The result of this I have no idea how much of my income goes in VAT, but I get reminded how much goes in income tax every month because it is printed on my payslip.

In the States many years ago I saw shops explicitly put sales tax figures on their bills. I hated this as it looked anti-tax and made the costs clear without linking the benefits. However this same charge goes on the tax deductions on our payslip. Would it be healthier to ask shops to make the VAT explicit on more receipts, so we see when we are paying tax?

Of course we'd need to defend the benefits of taxation: health, education and other public services. This needs doing within the coalition anyway (and is why I'm still glad the LibDems are on board: we can be the conscience or handbrake for the Tory party's natural instincts) and in fact amongst the general public. Noone likes to pay tax, but we should benefit from our society and government.

However until people see how much of their pay goes in VAT it will still be a more invisible hit than income tax. That means that it will hurt less at the ballot box and be the easier option.

Would this transparency help, or would it (like my initial reaction) just make people more anti-tax in general.