Sunday, June 11, 2006
£12 BILLION, £20 BILLION, ALL THE SAME TO MING
He then moved on to taxes on the rich whom he said was no more than 250,000 & Ming did not disagree. Since this will not include spice, children, dependent grannies etc we are probably talking about a million people all told so Andrew's figures of super rich are probably not to large. He then calculated that this would be Â£40-50,000 annually per person (actually Â£12 billion/250,000 = Â£48,000 so he was being generous). In reply Mingspecificallyificly that it would be possible to raise "Â£20 billion" from the rich this way, not 12. Now it was a Sunday morning & he wasn't reading from a brief but this is supposed to be a very serious matter - Â£20 billion is not a small amount & he should know, to his bones, what these figures are.
Marr didn't call him on this & once again it appears that Ming's reputation as a wise patrician elder statesman exists to a large extent because interviewers treat him as such & aren't impertinent enough to push on difficult questions.
Compare & contrast, for example, the way that Galloway was treated when he said, quite properly in my view, that Bliar personally is at least as much a legitimate target as our squaddies in Iraq with the unquestioning support for Ming's pompous rebuke that "violence is never justified" - this from the man who got up in Parliament to support bombing civilians to help our Nazi KLA friends commit genocide.