How the Daily Mail Scored a UK Uncut Own Goal
Our very own Adam Ramsay stars in the Daily Mail today. I’d recommend clicking on the link. The more hits they get, the more likely they are to print more of these stories. It’s a great example of how the Daily Mail’s desire to publish scurrilous stories undermines their message. The article contains at its heart an ambivalence about wealth and power that undermines the Daily Mail’s criticism of UK Uncut.
I imagine what the Mail is trying to say is that UK Uncut protesters are not genuinely hurt by government cuts, they’re protest tourists. UK Uncut protesters are, claims the Mail, elements from outside, people who don’t understand Britain’s middle classes – because they are students, or because come from wealthy backgrounds. If they had to work for a living they’d understand that massive cuts to public services are a good thing.
But while that message is implicit in their story, what’s much clearer is that there is a massive coalition opposing cuts. From those whose family have owned property since the 13th century, through to the thousands of other UK Uncut protesters from more modest backgrounds – people right across society can see that cuts will damage everyone. By highlighting Adam’s family, the Mail show just how widespread opposition to cuts is.
Opposition to cuts is so widespread because the impact will be so widespread. Far from benefiting the middle classes the cuts will do substantial damage to everyone in Britain, apart from the spectacularly wealthy – multi-millionaires. It’s not just because more children from middle class families will have to pay £9000 a year fees for their children to go to University, or the loss of child benefit and Working Families Tax Credits. The brilliant Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett that equal societies are better at almost everything. Cuts will make Britain more unequal. And that inequality will make life worse for us all.
UK Uncut’s campaign highlights the problem of tax avoidance. We’ve targeted businesses owned and run by people who’ve avoided very substantial amounts of tax. Fortnum and Mason is owned by Whittington Investments, which dodged £40m in tax. That’s £40m that could be used to provide EMA for more students, to invest in care for the elderly, or to support homeless services – things this government says it has to cut. But instead it’s being used to line the pockets of the already very wealthy.
Having a proper day care for our older people, properly educating our young people and caring for the most vulnerable are things that benefit us all. A society that spends money on its shared future is better than one that gives money to the rich to spend on themselves. The Government’s cuts aim to slash spending on our shared future, and give it to the rich. It’s in the interests of almost everyone, even the descendants of Baronets, to make sure that we create a good society, not a greed society.
So thanks, for once, to the Daily Mail for highlighting just how much of Britain will be damaged by the cuts. Thanks again to the Mail for showing that you don’t have to be in receipt of benefits to see the positive impact a more equal society can have. And thanks to the Mail for showing that almost everyone will be worse off due to the government’s cuts agenda.
The message I read is that “The message I read is “protestor is real pompous, smug, stuck-up, self-righteous twat, who will never have to worry about poverty, other than as some bullshit ideological tourust ego-trip whilst playing at being revolutionaries…”
Solidarity ! Tally Ho !
Good points well made Peter.
…
I agree that the overriding message is intended to be “cuts protestors have nothing to do with cuts”, but the dots are joined up so poorly that I’d say the net impact is in fact positive. Their portrait of Adam that’s only negative if you have a chip on your shoulder about the upper classes, and that certainly does not cover all Mail readers.
Perhaps we can have more nice illustrated backstories of radical activists in the tabloids? The message I read is “protestor is real person” 🙂
Gilbert
March 29th, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
Just for the record, Adam’s and my parents paid inheritance tax in full. It took them years and years, but they did it. Not that I’m suggesting people deserve some kind of special praise just for paying the taxes they owe.
Yeah but taking £595-£800 a night at the holiday cottages will more than make up for it. Hope your mumsy and dadsy isn’t screwing the tax man over that?
Great article. So what if Adam comes from a wealthy family? He got off his arse on Saturday and protested. In doing so, he was arrested for taking part in a peaceful and non-violent sit-in. It doesn’t matter what his family surname is or where he lives, he did something.
Good on you!
Ignore the stupid trolls Adam.
Good for you!
If you came from a council house they would accuse you of the politics of envy.
Your doing good and that want to stop you, glad to see you defending the future of my children.
Gilbert
March 29th, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
“Not that I’m suggesting people deserve some kind of special praise just for paying the taxes they owe.”
No but your brother thinks he deserves some kind of special praise for being arrested over the weekend.
I mean how dare those ignorant police officers arrest him and keep him in a small cell with just a very small window. And by God they didn’t even give him coffee and croissants either!
Just for the record, Adam’s and my parents paid inheritance tax in full. It took them years and years, but they did it. Not that I’m suggesting people deserve some kind of special praise just for paying the taxes they owe.
“I’ll join an occupation of Adam’s house any time…”
Darling, you don’t need to occupy the house, we’ll invite you over for drinks with some of Adam’s other nice Uni chums…
@Cassius
There’s a more full discussion of Whittington here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/28/this-is-why-uk-uncut-picked-on-fortnums/
Two points I’d make.
1) These people are funding the Tory party, so are partly responsible for a higly ideological attack on public services.
2) Giving to charity is a good thing. But not if you’re funding it with tax avoidance. We should have control over how tax money is spent, we shouldn’t over charity money. That’s a big difference.
@Squire Tucker
If you’d read the article you’d realise I’m praising the Daily Mail…
@Anon
I’ll join an occupation of Adam’s house any time…
Why don’t we discuss how much inheritance tax was paid when Adam’s parents inherited the house. You say your campaign highlights tax avoidance so why not look closer to home?
Oh ol’ chap the Daily Mail are sooooooo ghastly! So beastly! Does one fancy a G&T in the castle drawwwwing room?
Nice to see the accuracy of the Mail’s captions too. Chronology clearly isn’t important to them…
Given that Whittington investments profits go almost entirely to charity, to the tune of approximately £30-40MM per year – and have built schools, libraries, and provided hundreds if not thousands of individual community grants in the uk – isnt your statement (quoted below) a little misleading?
“Fortnum and Mason is owned by Whittington Investments, which dodged £40m in tax. That’s £40m that could be used to provide EMA for more students, to invest in care for the elderly, or to support homeless services – things this government says it has to cut. But instead it’s being used to line the pockets of the already very wealthy. “