"Shared objectives", "illegal" briefings, and . . . Take That

What today's emails tell us about Jeremy Hunt and his relationship with News Corp.

After an explosive day, the Leveson Inquiry has published the email correspondence of News Corps’ top lobbyist, Frederic Michel, and it is not looking good for the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. (You can read all 163 pages of it here).

First and foremost is the email dated 24th January 2011, quoted in today’s proceedings, in which Michel gets early warning about an announcement to be made by Hunt. Michel forwards it to James Murdoch saying:

Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow (although absolutely illegal)

In the hearing, Murdoch defended this saying that the use of a winky face indicated that this was a joke.

Equally – if not more – damning, is an email sent the day before, in which Michel says that Hunt has stated that “he shared our objectives”:

He understands fully our concerns regarding the publication of the report and the consultation of Ofcom in the process; but he wants us to take the heat, with him, in the next 2 weeks.

He very specifically said that he was keen to get to the same outcome and wanted JRM to understand he needs to build build some political cover on the process.

If he were to follow our Option 1 and not provide any details on the Ofcom report, he would be accused of putting a deal together with ns behind closed doors and it would get in a much more difficult place. The more this gets out now, the better it will be as the opposition will lose arguments. This week’s events do not give him much choice.

He said we would get there at the end and he shared our objectives.

Finally, he asked us to stick with him in the coming weeks, plan the upcoming Tuesday’s publication and the debate which will unfold.

On a lighter note, an email sent to Hunt’s adviser Adam Smith on 7th June 2011 has raised some eyebrows. In it, Michel complains that his attempts to meet Ed Vaizey have been unsuccessful:

I tend to think that he could see us on specific policy items. We’re still involved in the media agenda even during the Sky deal.
It’s a very punitive decision ... I feel victimised :)

For example, I am working on our response for the open letter and it would have been great to discuss it with you before finalising it at some stage before end of June. Possible?

By the way, does that mean you and Jeremy will not be coming to Take That on the 4th July?

At the moment it looks like Hunt didn’t go to see the boyband’s reunion tour with News Corps. It is just as well really, as the scheduled date, 4th July, is when the Milly Dowler story broke. How is that for irony?
 

Take That performing in February 2011. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Taxation without benefits: how our tax system increases inequality

We often hear the progressive income tax used as a proxy for all tax when it actually accounts for just over a quarter of the tax take.

Tax may not be the burning issue on everyone’s minds over the next month, but the Panama Papers leak has proven that the thorny issues of who pays what, and what level of tax is fair, are ones that are never too far away from the public consciousness.

One of the most important annual publications on tax is the Office for National Statistics’ Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income. Published today, it shows, among other things, the proportion of income paid in tax by people at different points on the income spectrum. This may sound like the natural domain of the data nerd, but it actually tells us some rather interesting facts about our system of taxes and benefits.

First, the good news. Our much maligned welfare system is in fact a beacon of progressiveness, drastically reducing the level of income inequality we see in this country. In fact, overall, taxes and benefits are quite substantially redistributive. Without them, the income of the richest 20 per cent of households would be 14 times higher than the poorest 20 per cent. With them, that gap falls to only four times.

The benefit system as a whole decreases the Gini coefficient, the most frequently used measure of inequality, by 14 percentage points. For anyone who sees taxes and benefits as a key component in reducing economic inequality, or boosting the incomes of the poorest, or, frankly, tackling social injustice, this is rather welcome news.

But now for the bad news.

While our welfare system is undoubtedly progressive, the same cannot be said of our tax system when looked at in isolation. The poorest face a disproportionately heavy tax burden compared to the richest, paying 47 per cent of their income in tax, compared to just 34 per cent for the richest. Last year (2013/14) this difference was 45 per cent – 35 per cent, and the year before (2012/13) the gap was 43 per cent – 35 per cent. So while the proportion of income paid in tax has fallen slightly for the richest, it has increased for the poorest.

While some taxes like income tax are substantially progressive, those such as VAT and Council Tax are not. Even after adjusting for rebates and Council Tax Benefit, the poorest 10 per cent pay 7.1 per cent of their income in council tax while the richest 10 per cent pay only 1.5 per cent.

Should this matter, if our system of benefits continues to narrow the gap between rich and poor? Well, yes, not least because that system is under severe pressure from further cuts. But there are other good reasons to focus on the tax system in isolation from the benefit system.

Polling by Ipsos MORI has shown that the public believes that the tax system by itself reduces inequality, and it is often spoken of by politicians as if that is the case. We often hear the progressive income tax used as a proxy for all tax, for example, when it actually accounts for just over a quarter of the tax take.

Understanding why the tax system does not by itself reduce inequality is therefore important for both thinking about how tax revenues could be better raised, and for understanding the importance of the benefit system in narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest.

John Hood is Acting Director of the Equality Trust