I have noticed a behavioural change on Facebook.
I have already written about Jim Ratcliffe and his pronouncements on immigration. His comments were revealing enough. But what has been more revealing is what happened afterwards. The shift has not been in Ratcliffe. It has been in the behaviour of those now rushing to defend him.
The man who physically removed himself from the UK tax system is suddenly being praised as a patriot. Nothing about his economic behaviour has changed. Only his rhetoric has.
This is a man who moved to Monaco. Not for the weather, but for the tax regime. Monaco does not tax personal income. It is a convenient place to live if one wishes to retain the benefits of British enterprise without the inconvenience of British taxation.
Ordinarily, this would provoke outrage. Social media is usually full of anger at billionaires who "don't pay their fair share." But something curious has happened.
Ratcliffe entered the immigration debate, using language that aligns with a particular political narrative. And suddenly, his tax exile status evaporated. The Monaco residency, the detachment from the UK tax system, and the asymmetry between public subsidy and private contribution, all quietly forgotten.
It is obvious, apparently, that Jim Ratcliffe, that famously patriotic UK taxpayer now resident in Monaco, has embraced Reform's rhetoric purely out of civic concern, and absolutely nothing to do with their enthusiasm for slashing taxes on the very wealthy.
After all, when a billionaire relocates to a tax haven and aligns himself with a political movement promising unfunded tax cuts tilted toward people exactly like him, the only reasonable conclusion, we are invited to believe, is coincidence. A remarkable coincidence that aligns perfectly with his financial interests.
Whether intentional or not, the alignment is unmistakable. The public response to it has been even more revealing.
His industrial empire has benefitted from substantial public support, funded by taxpayers. That cost does not vanish. It is transferred onto the public balance sheet. And if every wealthy individual behaved the same way, relocating their tax residency while retaining the benefits of the system that created their wealth, the burden would not disappear. It would shift onto those without the means to leave.
In defending the behaviour, people are legitimising a system that, if widely adopted, would worsen their own financial position.
This is not an economic calculation. It is an identity calculation.
Ratcliffe has not changed his contribution. He has changed his signalling. And that has been enough.
Humans filter reality through identity. When someone signals tribal alignment, inconvenient facts recede. Behaviour that would otherwise be disqualifying becomes forgivable, even admirable. Moral standards are not abandoned. They are applied asymmetrically. Identity does not erase judgement. It redirects it.
We have seen this before. Brexit provides the clearest example. Faced with economic harm, reduced trade, and weaker growth, many of its strongest supporters did not reconsider. Instead, the explanations multiplied. It was the pandemic. Global inflation. Ukraine. Sabotage. It was not the right Brexit.
Anything except Brexit itself.
This is not because the evidence does not exist. It is because accepting it would require abandoning an identity that has become psychologically important. Like a football supporter defending their club through defeat, loyalty becomes untethered from outcomes.
The same mechanism is visible now. Ratcliffe’s tax exile status, once disqualifying, becomes irrelevant once he signals alignment with the tribe. The facts have not changed. The identity has.
The contradiction is stark. A migrant who works and pays tax is framed as a burden. A billionaire who removed himself from the tax system is framed as an asset.
The difference is not economic. It is psychological. Contribution becomes secondary. Alignment becomes primary. The man who left the system is embraced as its defender. Those who sustain it are treated as its threat.
It reveals something uncomfortable, but important. For many, the debate was never really about economics. It was about identity all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment