The TaxCutter - fighting so people keep their own money!

R&D Tax Credits - the truth

2006-11-02T02:33:00.000-08:00

One of Labour's leading moans against the Tax Reform Commission's work will be the plan to get rid of R&D Tax Credits. The DTI's recent findings show that they are have not achieved their objectives, UK R&D spend, on a like for like basis is at 4% compared to 7% in the rest of the world and had actually declined in 2 of the years since Gordon introduced the credits.

Not only that but the main increases in R&D came in the Financial Services, retail and media industries. If Gordon meant these industries to be beneficiaries of the R&D tax credit then I'm a socialist. And the cause of the change, accounting standards, ie nothing has actually changed, its just balance sheet presentation.

If you look at the DTI scoreboard then on page 47 you can see that the UK has comfortably the lowest R&D as a percentage of sales of any major economy. The stats also show no evidence of R&D increasing more in the UK than elsewhere in the world.

That's not all. HMRC's latest Tax Bulletin indicated that 7 local centres were having to be established to deal with R&D tax credits. Why, can I suggest its because the rules are too complex for business to simply know if they qualify for benefits.

Brown should face the facts, he should abolish this relief as the TRC said. And cut the mainstream rate of tax, and the compliance burden, accordingly. If you want to really tackle the R&D crisis in the UK you need to rectify the comprehensivisation of UK education during my lifetime.

A bit too much self-promotion

2006-11-02T02:02:00.000-08:00

Genuine quote from Councillor Coleman's latest newsofBrianletter:

Vanessa Feltz recently called him "One of the few politicians worth talking to"

The TaxCutter actually has some time for his GLA member despite such boasts. However, try the link to GLA Conservatives from the official Conservative Party website portrait of Brian. I don't think that's what was actually intended.

Vince - its all gone quiet

2006-10-29T09:57:00.000-08:00

Given that the purer than pure LibDems might need to give back over £2m donated to them from someone dishonest - lets just remind ourselves of their own moralising on similar issues in recent years......, all courtesy of Vince Cable,

Dr Vincent Cable MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Trade & Industry Secretary, commenting on the collapse of WorldCom after the discovery of massive fraud, said:
“This fraud clearly shows that the false accounting at Enron was not a one off. It calls into question the effectiveness of self-regulation of auditors and accountants.
“Repeated disasters of this kind will have a wide-ranging effect on the UK: collapsing share prices, reducing pension funds and resulting in job losses.
“The solution to protecting the public must lie in tougher audit requirements, independent regulation of the accounting profession and a more expansive and stronger role for non executive directors”

UK MUST NOT BE LEFT BEHIND IN TACKLING ACCOUNTING FRAUD - CABLE
17 July 2002

Dr Vincent Cable MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Trade & Industry Secretary, commenting on reports in the Financial Times that under new Government proposals company executives and employees would face up to two years in prison and unlimited fines if they mislead auditors, said:

“At the meeting of ministers, regulators and accountants, the Government will have to come up with radical proposals to restore confidence in companies and the accounting profession.
“The government has taken the view that Britain has more rigorous standards than the US, but with the Fairbanes Bill sweeping unopposed through the Senate there is a great danger that Britain will be left behind.
“Liberal Democrats believe that the restoration of confidence in business and the accountancy profession requires some bold steps which means the Government standing-up to the vested interests in the big accounting firms.”

"I welcome also the move to strengthen the independence of audit committees in companies. Does the right hon. Lady agree that for that to become effective, there must be much more far-reaching reform of independent directorships following the Higgs review? Does she agree also that at present the largely self- selecting group of non-executive directors means that a few individuals hold far too many directorships and are unable to provide the focus and professional supervision that companies need?
The right hon. Lady has not referred to fraud. Is she consulting the Law Officers on how to introduce a tougher approach to real financial fraud? Are there not still too many cases, such as Allied Carpets a few weeks ago, where crooked directors who steal from their shareholders are treated far more leniently by the criminal justice system than criminals who rob the same amount from a bank? There must be a tough and consistent approach"

"There has been a crisis in capitalism and there is a fundamental lack of trust in corporate behaviour, particularly in independent audits. It is striking that on the three big issues that the Government had to confront-audit rotation, competition policy and conflicts of interests-they have not taken the robust action that one might have expected. I shall pose a series of specific questions. First, on corporate governance and Higgs, I welcome the fact that the Government are now taking the initiative to break up the magic circle and break the incestuous links between non-executive directors. As there will be a demand under the reforms for more non-executive directors, what action will be taken to ensure that the existing community does not take on excessive numbers, which is already happening? Why have the Government not responded to advice to set limits on the number of non-executive directorships and chairmanships?

Will there be UK version of this cartoon

2006-10-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

Its OK2B but its not OK to treat mental health like this government does

2006-10-22T12:48:00.000-07:00

2 weeks ago saw the fantastic Big Smile event at Hackney Empire, organised by ok2b.org a charity aimed at removing the stigma from mental illness. It was a great night for a great cause. Please get behind this charity, and if you a famous person, eg an MP, please sign their Statement of Support - if you don't know where then eMail me at taxcutter@tiscali.co.uk

Compare and contrast this with the current government's general apathy in dealing with Mental Health, as shown by Reform in an excellent publication issued last week entitled "Mental health services in the NHS: using reform incentives".

Who did write the Tax Reform Commission Report?

2006-10-22T12:33:00.000-07:00

Call me sensitive but I don't think that those of us on the working party got sufficient credit for our efforts. Indeed, some did not get any credit anywhere in the report. I only ever saw the Commission at the launch, the hard and very good work was done by the Special Advisers and Secretariat although I wouldn't underplay say Alistair Craig or my own efforts on Business Taxation and others helped on other chapters.

At least I got a reference to the tome I produced whilst at CCHQ a few times, but lets be honest I wrote a large chunk of The Reform is Possible Chapter. However, I would have liked my proofs that the Australian tax cuts have raised more revenues each time, ie tax cuts create economic stability to have stayed in. ....

Other matters that failed to make the cut, were case studies of Hong Kong and Canada, and the estimate of how much shorter group tax computations would have been. The reason for their omission, almost certainly due to the desire to get the Report down to a sensible length. Hong Kong and Canada tell the same story as the other countries mentioned. If you want a copy then please eMail me at taxcutter@tiscali.co.uk - otherwise they just clutter up my hard drive.

PS - If anyone thought it was me who leaked stuff, you're wrong. I behaved myself at all times and it was privilege and a pleasure to work with the Secretariat.

Boy George struggles at the launch of the Tax Reform Commission

2006-10-21T01:17:00.000-07:00

Its a good job that the TRC Report is top quality, because the Press Conference was a mess. Journo after journo lined up to probe Boy George about the £21bn of tax cuts. And he struggled.

George could have defended the concrete proposals before him in terms of the economic growth they would generate, and by questioning the current levels of public expenditure. Instead he bought into the false Dave-Brownian logic that reducing tax rates reduces tax revenues, despite considerable evidence to the contrary in the report he commissioned. And he banged on about environmental taxes, I think you will find George that petrol is taxed quite enough in this country already.

However the killer quote came when Osborne announced

"We will not be proposing a reduction in the level of taxation at the next General Election"

Maybe George would like first read chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the report that show the benefits of reducing tax. He might also like to consider who "We" was in his quote, because I don't think Dave is either strong, or good, enough to fight off the party's desire to cut taxes. It was notable that when asked did Dave and George try and get the TRC to take the tax cuts out of the report, Lord Forsyth didn't even come close to a no.

The case for tax cuts is clear in the TRC Report - if Dave and George should embrace it because the more they argue the contrary the weaker they look.

And the candidate for Thanet South

2006-10-17T13:48:00.000-07:00

ain't Charlie Elphicke. And she ain't Eurosceptic either. Don't worry about the lack of a picture you're not missing much.

Here's some of the wit and lack of wisdom of Laura Sandys. The quotes come from different articles.

Europe has asked the Commission to fulfil too many roles. It is not that the Commission needs to become more democratic – in many ways it should be totally divorced from politics. It is that we need to develop an explicitly political and democratic European master under which the Commission can operate.

The European Union (EU) has embarked upon a decisive phase of reappraisal and significant reform. Under the chairmanship of Giscard D’Estaing, a Constitutional Convention is under way. Its aims are greater democratisation, transparency, accountability and a new contract between the governed and governors to be encoded in a new Treaty.

The arrival of a European currency is also changing the nature of interdependency and is having a fundamental impact on people’s perception of their identity. Despite the hitherto low valuation of the Euro, the European economic force is now in the game – and it is only Europe as a whole, not its constituent parts, that make up this force.

The common currency has also resulted in a significant change in Europe’s level of confidence internationally. And, as with all markets, confidence is key to success. The coming recession (Ed - only in the Eurozone) may be bad for everyone, but it looks as if Europe will gain support for its enlarged currency in a period of general weakness.

And some people on ConsHome wondered if she actually was Europhile

Larger tax on lager, thanks to Brussels stitch-up

2006-09-09T02:57:00.000-07:00

The EU has recently announced an increase in the minimum rates of duty on alcohol, ie your German / Czech half-litre will cost more. Alcohol duties have to be set within a range determined by the EU, its one area where tax harmonisation already exists to a limited extent. The increases are calculated and presented as inflationary.

Consequently several member states will have to increase duties on beer and whiskey. But not on wine, as the minimum duty is nil, which when multiplied by an inflationary factor still comes to nil. So at least the maths ability of the EC is improving. They might even get their 1994 accounts drawn up within the next decade at this rate of progress.

This isn't harmonisation to ensure that the internal market functions smoothly. Nor is it an attempt to reduce smuggling, that would be best done by UK Customs being more efficient or UK duties reducing, or failing that forcing France and the UK, and Sweden and Denmark to align their rates.

Its protectionism for the European wine industry by enabling Continental Member States, in fact 7 of them, to avoid having duty on wine, whilst charging, and being forced to charge duty on competitor products, eg UK spirits and Eastern European beer. Curiously, there are a number of State Aid cases going on throughout Europe whereby a specialist tax relief available to a particular region or industry is held to be an illegal subsidy. The TaxCutter fails to see why not levying duty on wine, whilst levying duty on other alcoholic beverages, is not similarly illegal state aid. And the answer is because the EU applies the rules based on political not legal analysis.

How does this affect the UK. Predictably, UK duties already exceed the new minimums.

To get to this answer, the Commission wrote to Member States asking for the information to compile their analysis. Here's what help they got:

"We have received data on excise rates and consumption from some member states, but not all. We received comprehensive replies from Austria, Belgium, Germany,Denmark, Finland, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. We received partial information from Greece and Portugal. We have not received data on excise rates from France, Italy and Luxembourg and data from these countries had to be completed using other sources."

Really......

Dave the Irrelevant

2006-09-06T15:29:00.000-07:00

Call me old-fashioned but aren't you meant to do your gap year between school and university, rather than between party leader and Prime Minister.

Whilst New Labour falls apart, with widespread criticism of the government's failure on crime, tax, health and education Dave tries to write the Not-so-Rough Guide to Asia.

Law and order is in a shocking state, but its David Davis scoring all the points against the opposition. British troops get killed in Afghanistan, but DC doesn't call Blair to account for broken promises. Education standards slip again, but where are DC's reforms to raise standards. The A-List has been ignored by party members, and reforms to the employment of Party Agents and local campaigning strategies have not been heard of. Dave taunts Gordon Brown as being the Fossil-Fuel Chancellor but about the only remaining supporter of Brown's attitude to taxation is DC's guru Oliver Letwin.

And in the meantime, the wider party is leading public opinion on tax cuts, a broken windows law and order policy, continued Euroscepticism, and greater choice in health and education. The new political agenda for the UK is being set by rightwing bloggers representing the wider Conservative party. DC just goes on holiday and rides his bike. Dave better jump on the bus quick, because its moving forward, in the right direction, and sooner or later it will work out that it doesn't need the current designated driver.

Gordon's achieves 116% growth.....in UK tax laws

2006-09-04T13:57:00.000-07:00

A quick count of my Tolley's at work today showed:

9,841 pages of direct tax law now exist - there were 4,555 on 1 May 1997 - an 116% increase

12,763 pages of total tax law now exist - vs 7,013 on Brown becoming Chancellor, an 82% increase

The only reason that the VAT laws have grown slowly is that Gordon's too scared of changing the rules without the EU's permission. The above stats miss out Gordon's bungled tax reforms that he' s since had to repeal, eg the zero rate of corporation tax for small businesses, stamp duty relief for disadvantaged areas, numerous goes at film tax reform etc.

All told UK tax law is a mess. Whilst the rest of the developed world seeks to make itself more attractive for investment the self-penned Iron Chancellor rusts the UK economy with pointless complexity.

The above figures include Statement of Practices, Concessions and secondary legislation. The former has barely increased, the latter have been used with ever increasing frequency

Lots on cutting taxes in the paper

2006-09-03T02:05:00.000-07:00

Lots on taxes in the papers. We are about 5 to 6 weeks off from the Tax Reform Commission publishing, so raising tax on the political agenda is as always a good thing.

1. Conservatives still don't really understand the art of tax-cutting

The Business tears apart the Dave illogic to not cutting taxes

2. Britain's poor are paying higher taxes under Brown

A-List Rejectee, Charlie Elphicke makes great ground with tomorrow's publication stressing how the poor now may more in tax than in 1997. Norris and Cameron - please note, increasing road fuel duty will only make the poor's position worse

3. Public sector reform then tax cuts

Chairman of Reform publishes a Cameroon article which has a streak of "economic stability must come first". Its also contrary to some of Reform's own views on taxes. He is right that making increasingly necessary reforms of the public sector would enable tax cuts, but these should be more tax cuts, the arguments for tax cuts, which will actually increase tax revenues, in the first place is strong - see the first article. Cutting taxes and reforming the public sector should be concurrent policies.

4. Senior Tories call for cut in taxes

Several MPs look to have had their lot with DC's economic stability and nonsense and will push tax cutting back into the debate. If DC has any sense he'll absorb some of this into policy and remove the sting, and please the party, and when properly argued the electorare. If he does not and keeps refusing to pledge tax cuts, then he starts to look like someone who just doesn't get it.

Bush tax cuts

2006-08-29T15:08:00.000-07:00

Human Events explain how those Bush tax cuts meant the revenues came pouring in. Big time. Something for both Dave and Gordon to read and learn.

A song for Dave?

2006-08-29T15:00:00.000-07:00

Try this cheery little number from New Zealand

Big City Law firms

2006-08-29T14:35:00.000-07:00

Some organisation of second rate professionals published a report today on the experiences of homosexuals in law firms. Most entertaining is the claim reported in the papers that solicitors regular attendance at both strip clubs and rugby games was somehow homophobic, when the former is only really a sign of having more money than either taste or sense. In my many dealings with city law firms I have noted the machismo, but only from female lawyers. Although obviously not from the bird at Herbert Smith who sort of fancies me.

The TaxCutter recommends that the Law Society spends its time on more useful matters, such as informing its members as to how to add value, ending the closed shop practices - especially at the Bar, and teaching its membership rudimentary maths and the concept of materiality.

Guardian gives the green light for cutting stamp duty on shares

2006-08-28T01:14:00.000-07:00

The pledge to abolish stamp duty on shares passed its first test today when Manchester Guardian attacked the proposal with its usual ignorance of the financial world. The Guardian's comments are of course in red

"The awkwardness of the party's stance - promising to put economic stability above cuts, and to focus on helping the poorest in society" - the policy most helps anyone with a pension. Anything to encourage the low level of pensions savings, especially among low to medium earners should be highly welcomed.

"Treasury sources said cutting stamp duty would primarily benefit the wealthy." In proportionate terms it most helps those planning to make contributions into their pension funds and other long-term savings. All too predictably, the Guardian ignores the fact that measures that increase the UK's competitiveness generally translate into more jobs, and better paid jobs at that.

"The people who benefit directly [from axing stamp duty] will be merchant bankers and traders. Think what you could do with the £4bn it will cost." The Guardian won't let research or basic knowledge of city finance get in the way of its polemics. The biggest payers are Pension Funds and Life Assurers. Merchant bankers arrange the sale of shares, they don't pay for them. Stamp Duty is usually passed onto the ultimate holder of the shares, banks holdings of equities are actually relatively small.

If the Guardian wanted to make its outdated socialism more accurate it should have mentioned that since Gordon Prudence Brown ended dividend tax credits, and hence made debt more attractive post-tax than equity, then UK investors have invested more in debt. Compared to 1997, a notably higher percentage of UK shares are held by overseas investors, they will benefit from this policy, and are likely to increase their investment in the UK as a consequence.

Ending Stamp Duty on Shares

2006-08-27T02:24:00.000-07:00

Today's Telegraph showed that the Conservatives will cut Stamp duty on shares. It won't win many votes directly, cutting income taxes will do that best. However, its a well-thought through policy for the health of the country that will greatly assist in convincing the public that only the Tories can handle the economy. Here's some of the benefits

It will provide a boost to individual's long term savings in pension funds and life assurance policies . Pension Funds, Life Assurers and ISAs are the largest payers of stamp duty on shares - so the burden most falls on the long term savings of your typical voter. The cut will assist in reducing the long-term savings gap, the biggest structural flaw in the nation's accounts.
This policy will make the UK more competitive on an international basis. The Netherlands has just announced the abolition of its own capital duty.
It removes a market distortion between debt and equity investment. Buying and selling debt carries no stamp duty, selling equities/shares does. There's no logic for this distortion, indeed regulators and rating agencies would normally prefer equity investment
Raising revenue in other forms, not necessary to my mind, would increase economic stability. Revenues from stamp duty on shares are highly volatile, being £4.5bn in 2000-01 and dropping to £2.5bn in 2002-03/2003-04.
Upfront taxes on capital hurt more than taxes on profit. Stamp duty is effectively charged when payments are made into a Pension Fund, which are then used to buy shares. Hence the tax penalises pensions from day one to final receipt of annuity, as it prevents the accretion of return on the amount of stamp duty paid, ab initio
The City, pension funds, banks, life assurers and corporates in general would be liberated from the administrative hassles of stamp duty, and especially Stamp Duty Reserve Tax
It will Fulfill a broken promise of the 1992 Conservatives General Election Manifesto

Grave Diggers

2006-08-27T02:14:00.000-07:00

The good work of SeadogBytes is shown in this post

The Lib Dem Stealth Tax Commission: The Findings

2006-08-14T13:37:00.000-07:00

Review of the Lib Dem Tax Commission Paper “Fairer, Simpler, Greener” or more appropriately “Stealthier, Stealthier, Stealthier”

Overall, this is an uninspiring document. The LibDems have wasted the opportunity to come up with substantial and good tax reforms, especially for business.

A number of the measures, not least in relation to capital gains and pensions are potentially very harmful, and the better measures are in nearly all cases contradicted by corresponding bad measures. In that sneaky LibDem way, a number of the taxraising measures are strongly of the stealth tax flavour, eg increased Vehicle Excise Duty and reduced tax relief for pensions, whereas the 3 main tax cuts mentioned, ie raising the threshold at which tax becomes payable, increasing the 40% income tax rate threshold, and 1p (possibly) off corporation tax are clearly visible tax cuts.

Graphics

The few graphics look plundered from a 70s textbook. Figure 4 makes very little, if any, sense. Figure 7 compares the UK to high tax jurisdictions. Figure 8 has unlabelled axis and ignores the impact of local income tax. The average A level is better presented. That's now and not 20 years ago.

Assessment of LibDem proposals

HIT – increasing the threshold at which income becomes payable, taking many of the additional 3.6m taxpayers since Labour took power out of the tax net

MISS – there’s no mention of making the corresponding adjustments to the tax credit regime

MISS – lower earners will be hit harder by the higher Vehicle Excise Duties, as they will form a higher proportion of their net earnings

HIT – reducing the marginal tax rate by 2% to 20%

MISS – increasing the marginal tax rate by the local income tax rate, 4.5% (a low estimate) with the introduction of a local income tax, meaning a net higher marginal tax rate for most families and individuals by at least 2.5%, when taking the 2 measures into account.

HIT – increasing the threshold at which income tax becomes payable at the 40% band

MISS – Reducing tax relief for pension contributions for higher rate taxpayers to 20%. Money that goes into pension funds would then become “dry income”, ie you have to pay 20% tax on it, even though you won’t see the underlying cash until retirement. In practice this will be a very problematic measure. There is also no measure to reduce taxation on pension payments so none are taxed at the higher rate. This negates much of the increase in the threshold. Virtually all commentators recognise the UK is facing a pension crisis, this measure will only worsen the problem. A vicious, unnecessary and unwise stealth tax.

HIT – General anti-avoidance rule, this part is well-written

MISS – No corresponding tax cut to be shared amongst all taxpayers. Note also, there’s no mention of any particular legislation that could be removed. The Australians who are mentioned, also have considerable anti-avoidance rules. A GAAR does not reduce avoidance as much as simplified and more consistent tax law would.

HIT – increasing the amount of tax raised at local level

MISS – the contradictory policy to harmonise corporate tax rules, but not rates, across Europe

HIT – reducing corporate tax by 1p

MISS – its not enough. The reliefs to be abolished are not mentioned or stated other than some discussion around R&D

HIT – graduated stamp duty land tax, ie the higher rate is only payable above the threshold

MISS – the lost revenues, from one of the simpler taxes to collect, have not been included in the LibDems calculations, and would more than wipe out their £1.3bn contingency. A more appropriate measure might be to have a single rate of Stamp Duty Land Tax.

MISS - The continued support for Local income tax, the tax that hits 2 earner families hardest and increases marginal tax rates, creating a disincentive to work. The alleged administrative savings forget the basic problem, that many people do not work where they live, and employers would need to separately monitor the rates of each employees tax bill to fit the borough or county they lived in.

MISS – the implication on page 32 that small business deliberately understates taxable profits.

MISS – The environmental taxes are an attack on the use of motor vehicles, already taxed far beyond their cost, and are an attack on individual choice. There is also no corresponding commitment to increase expenditure on public transport. The environmental taxes are potentially regressive and may hit families hard, and may mean the cost of second car gets so expensive the second earner in a family may decide not to be employed.

MISS –Vehicle Excise Duty of up to £2,000 a year.

MISS – 5.1.3 “There have been two major problems with past efforts at so-called “green taxation”. The first is that so called green taxes have often been used as stealth taxes to boost general government revenue” . So the LibDems propose a new raft of them.

5.1.5 Note the comment that the congestion charge had to be increased to deter congestion. The congestion reduced due to the fact that pre-imposition of the charge both excessive roadworks were performed and the green man at pedestrian crossings was switched on for longer, in each case to twist the statistics. The charge went up to pay for the Mayor’s excessive expenditure.

MISS – Aircraft take-off taxes. Aircraft might well choose to miss out the UK altogether, taking their business with them.

MISS – Inheritance tax. Taxing lifetime gifts is daft, an individual should be free to dispose of their wealth as they choose. The inheritance tax paragraphs are especially confused and non-committal.

MISS – Land taxes. How do you value land separately from the property attached to it? It would also be administratively inconvenient to launch an entire new tax.

MISS – Removing taper relief and business asset taper relief. Only the LibDems could propose to abolish one of the better measures Gordon Brown introduced. If you take the disposal of a business, the income may already have been taxed at 40%, the capital gain on disposal would then be taxed again at 40%, and then inheritance tax might also apply at 40%. This can give rise to an effective 78% tax rate on such earnings (40% +40% of 60%, plus 40% of 36%). And in addition, you only get 20% relief for any pension contributions, but can be taxed at 40% on then when you draw the annuity. This move could greatly restrict and discourage entrepreneurial activity, and hence job creation, and is simply a ridiculous idea. The more sensible measure would be a simple abolition of both capital gains tax and inheritance tax, or to increase the thresholds and to reduce the rates. In fact the LibDems former policy of a 50% tax rate for income over £100,000 was potentially more sensible.

DO THE MATHS

MISSING THE POINT – The LibDems accept the government and HMRC’s bizarre premise that tax is a behaviour-neutral concept when estimating the costs of these measures. Any sensible analysis of tax cuts and rises, both in the UK and more recently elsewhere, shows that tax clearly does influence behaviours and hence a strictly pro-rata approach to costing.

£8.1 bn is a large increase in revenues from environmental taxes. Surely if these work, then they do not raise any money as they have discouraged behaviour. I consider that revenues would actually increase if marginal rates of tax were lowered based on experience overseas and in the UK in the 1980s. However, as the introduction of local income tax combined with the income rate tax cuts would cause a net increase in marginal rates, the actual impact of the 2 policies is likely to be to reduce revenues as incentives for additional work are reduced.

It is an incredibly insular survey. The LibDems rarely, if at all, refer to any other jurisdiction’s tax reforms, apart from some obscure taxes in Denmark. LibDems - please note, everyone else in Britain also lives in the global economy. There is no mention of the Irish, Eastern European, Australian, Canadian or American experiences in cutting taxes. On Business tax there is no mention of the international perspective at all, other than the LibDems clear indication of their willingness to surrender tax-law making powers to Brussels. Bet that doesn't get a big mention at the next election.

Comrade - Don't Get Angry

2006-08-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

The TaxCutter, not pictured, can recommend a game of "Comrade, Don't Get Angry!", invented by Czech hippies during the communist era.

Resembling a black-humoured cross between Game of Life and Monopoly, players must accrue funds to escape the Iron Curtain. Risks on the equivalent of chance cards include giving Blood for the cause and catch Hepatitis, and persuading the National cycling team to train near Chernobyl (apparently really happened - most have died of cancer since)

SHOCK: CCHQ in good tax campaign

2006-08-09T23:42:00.000-07:00

OK, it only relates to bed and breakfasts, but go to the party site and there's a well-written piece with a great graphic. Labour often spends the silly season leaking suggested ways of raising more tax to the press, as it experiments to see which will be least politically damaging and can be included in the next Budget.

The TaxCutter applauds CCHQ on this good work, and looks forward to more in the same vein.

State not to organise Margaret Thatcher's funeral

2006-08-09T23:36:00.000-07:00

As a far more appropriate tribute, the event will be organised by the spontaneous order of the market.

The candidates respond

2006-08-08T15:05:00.000-07:00

Two mayoral candidates responded to my eMail suggesting the following policies

http://taxcutter.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-good-mayoral-candidate-should-be.html

http://taxcutter.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-all-hours.html

The responses are below:

Dear Damon

Thanks very much for your email. As you can imagine, things are a bit hectic at the moment so I have not had time to review your ideas in detail. But I will definitely do so over the summer as I begin to pull together a policy platform.

With best wishes,

Nick Boles

Dear Damon,

Thank you for getting in touch. I am pleased that you enjoyed my website. I have tried from the start to set out a full policy platform for the government of London by a Conservative Mayor, that addresses the need for reform of London's public services and is at the same time a practical policy agenda given the strategic character of the Mayor's powers. My starting point is that London needs a Mayor that will add value by bringing the complex range of bodies involved in governing London from central government departments to the London boroughs, along with the private sector.

I enjoyed your blog and you and I are essentially agreed on what amounts to a public service reform agenda in a free society. If I may I will make a general comment on the powers of the Mayor. The Mayor cannot legislate for social policy in London. You, for example, refer to pre-nuptial agreements, something that I have a lot of time for, but the Mayor has no power to change family in London, such as the law relating to marriage and divorce proceedings.

The Mayor of London likewise has no powers over national tax policy. As former adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I think that it is difficult to have national public services funded by different regional tax regimes for income, corporation and value added taxes. What is required is a broadly neutral tax system that is principally focus on raising revenue, with high tax thresholds and low tax rates to pay for public expenditure programmes that meet the test of yielding more economic and social benefits than the cost of the taxes that go to pay for them.

With regard to local authority finance the big difficulty is that many local authorities do not have a tax base that can raise the revenue needed to pay for local services such as schools and social care. The result is that they are dependent on central government grants that cover around 70 per cent or more of their spending. Each potential source of local tax base whether it is property, sales or income has inherent difficulties. The key thing is that spending should not rise so high that these problems become aggravated. The Council Tax was bearable when it was invented in the early 1990s and nationally raised about £7.5 billion. This year it will raise around £21 billion and will have more than doubled under Labour since 1997. The heart of the problem in my view is not so much the structure of the tax, but the amount of spending that means that taxes have to be so high.

My first priority is Police reform to tackle crime. I agree with the 'Broken windows' approach, but it could not be properly implemented in London without fundamental reform of the management of the Police starting with a review of the Police Act and a Police force that is accountable to Londoners. That is why I am campaigning for these changes that are imperative if we are to grip crime. This reform of the Police has to be combined with a general reform of the management of the tube and the fire service so that Londoners get results from the huge amounts of money they are spending from their taxes. It is my intention to make the City Hall budget sweat and to start with a zero-based budget.

This agenda of public service reform is radical and substantial and that will require huge amounts of political will and purpose to bring about. It is my intention to focus on these issues that directly affect Londoners and are within the strategic policy remit of the Mayor; and in the context of the Mayoral election to step aside from other important national social and economic issues where the Mayor of London has no direct policy responsibility or capability for decision. One of the main criticisms I have of the present Mayor is that he allows himself to get distracted too easily from the task of sorting out London's problems where he has direct responsibility and influence.

Thank you for getting in touch.

All good wishes,

Warwick.

Vote Lee for Mayor

2006-08-08T14:41:00.000-07:00

Another week, another Dave gaffe. This time he postpones the Mayoral election until a "celebrity" goes forward. I haven't a clue who Nick Ferrrai is.

Maybe Londoners might want to ignore the literati version of Jade Goody and elect someone who is good at the job. Or even better someone who will be good at not doing the job... Dr Rotherham's views are pretty close to the party membership, too close for DC's liking.

The TaxCutter recommends

2006-08-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

Reform and The Smith Institute's publication on Public Sector Reform 2006-2010 contains the best argued, researched, factually backed and presented analyses of the state of each of the NHS, Education and the Police that have been produced for a long time. Better than others, Reform see through government spin to the reality.

These essays deserve a wide readership.

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/publications.aspx

Castro-ated

2006-08-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

Well done for Conservative Home for spotting this total waste of Licence-payers money

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm

"....the population's admirable health is surely one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power. "

And there was me thinking it was to do with there being no elections and political oppression.

Note this comment

"In 1997 A group of 18 Cuban doctors exiled in the United States released a statement denouncing the Cuban Government and specifically Fidel Castro. They claimed that in Cuba -"the medicines and equipment, even the bedsheets and blankets, (are) reserved for regime elites or dollar-bearing foreigners, to the detriment of our people, who must bring their own bedsheets, to say nothing of the availability of medicines."

Cuba actually had a very good longevity before Castro came to power and the years of American rule early in the twentieth century wiped out certain diseases. Bizarrely, most of the advocates of the Cuban health service believe the stats the Cuban government publishes.

Try this link

http://www.finlay-online.com/nicolasgutierrez/livinginsidecuba.htm

Laughing in jest...

2006-08-02T14:15:00.000-07:00

but just wait..... there's something coming to end that laugh

Oliver Letwin on tax cuts - the record so far

2006-08-01T14:14:00.000-07:00

Oliver Letwin was in today's Evening Standard moaning about tax cuts and how great economic stability is again.

In the 2005 election Oliver promised £4bn of tax cuts. This is less than 1p off the standard rate of income tax. Its less than the A$12bn the Australian government tried to cut off income tax in 2000, with a third of the population - of course as typical tax revenues actually increased.

What happens. At the start of the election the only measure announced is that OAPs will pay less Council Tax. What measures follow, a sensible but complex one on increasing pension savings for basic rate taxpayers, too difficult for voters to easily understand, and a cut in Stamp Duty on properties, launched as an exclusive in the FT, hardly a paper with a mass readership.

Tax cuts did not work in 2005 for the simple reason the ones promised were too little and too vague, addressed at particular target groups of voters. If the tax cuts had been larger and to income tax and aimed at all voters, like they were in 1970, 1979 and 1983 then we might have won votes. Granted Oliver wasn't helped by having to fight a marginal, the then leader's insistence on the Howard Show, or some of the lefties in CCHQ being against tax cuts as a concept but its a big mistake to confuse the 2005 manifesto with a proper taxcutting agenda.

I found that many of the public perceptions of Oliver are highly unfair on a very reasonable man. But please Mr Letwin use your political nous to distinguish between poorly presented, confused rushed policy and a properly thought through and well argued tax cutting agenda - like the ones John Howard and George W Bush got elected and re-elected on.

PS The photo here actually is from the Shadow Cabinet page on the Tory party website.

New candidate for London Mayor

2006-07-31T14:27:00.000-07:00

Cameroon Nicholas Boles announced his candidacy for London Mayor today. Bizarrely for someone who runs a thinktank called Policy Exchange he seems to be policy-lite, if not policy-zero at present. Luckily, The TaxCutter has been on hand to remind him of some good ideas.

Not wishing to upset the electoral balance, I've also eMailed them to Warwick Lightfoot and Victoria Borwick too.

May Primary Battle commence!

http://taxcutter.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-good-mayoral-candidate-should-be.html

http://taxcutter.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-all-hours.html

www.mysinglefriend.com

2006-07-30T14:28:00.000-07:00

Here's a recent post found on a dating website

39 year old straight male looking for females aged between 18 and 40

recommended by: George, Samantha, Rebekah, Francis and Rachel
children: three
area: Notting Hill

drinking: cocktails
smoking: regular

education: university
employment: marketing
religion: Christian (non-practising)

height: 5ft 8in
build: curvaceous

summary:
Party-loving, intelligent, jovial, compassionate, moderniser, fond of biking, the enviroment and ciggies

George has this to say about Dave:
Dave loves riding his bike with me. He always looks out for his friends, and is great at dinner parties.

Samantha has this to say about Dave:
Dave is a great young guy who loves being with his family, until we send them off to boarding school in 2 years time.

Rachel has this to say about Dave:
Dave is a fantastic friend! He's the type of person who will always give you a second chance nevermind how mad you sound

Rebekah has this to say about Dave:
I took Dave to Becks party. He was disappointed when he found out that Becks was a footballer and not a beer, but was dead pleased that someone else admitted to being Posh.

Francis has this to say about Dave:
Dave is the sort of guy who looks to make big changes to any party. He's the kind of guy who is Built to Last.

to which Dave responded:

Thanks guys. I have always avoided online campaigning but since one of the staff showed me how to turn on a computer, I guess I have no more excuses. You know how difficult it is to make friends in London, you end up hanging around with people who all went to the same school and university as you. Being a modern chap, I have a long list of female, gay and coloured friends, many of whom I'd like to work with in the future. I am looking forward to adding to them in the next couple of weeks.

I've found that for some reason my friends have not been good at sorting out girl voters for me. I thought that I would give this a go as I'm told I speak to women in their language. I enjoy travelling and have this year been to a Norwegian glacier. I'm thinking about where to go the next time I have a local election, some people have suggested Australia or Ireland to learn about tax cuts, or Belgium to learn about sticking to promises. I also like to learn about new things, some of my new friends have also suggested that I consider nightclasses in business and economics.

I regard myself as family friendly. I worry about general wellbeing and I prefer to buy local produce and am not a fan of shopping in shops like Tesco that sell things cheaply to poor people. I'm not really interested in talking about politics. I like to look at new ways of doing things and am a big fan of change.

So girls, if you're looking for someone new, and a bright future, then give me a go!

Check the real site at http://www.mysinglefriend.com./ Call me a cynic but aren't these girls a bit too good looking.

Top of the Pops is dead

2006-07-30T14:18:00.000-07:00

Jim should have Fixed it for this so-called National Institution years ago. TOTP was one of the most obvious examples of what state run television channel produce best - mediocrity.

TOTP's only use in recent years was for its Christmas special to make the following Queen's speech look exciting. Its tried to trade on past glories, but anyone who remembers TOTP as being the cutting edge of music in past decades is looking at matters through rose-tinted NHS spectacles. OK, so it was popular in the 1970s, that's when it was against an entire 2 other TV channels, one of which was under the same state control. TOTP insistence on mimed music was just as prevalent then, between The Who in 1972 and Iron Maiden in 1980 not a single act performed live, meaning the entire period of punk, probably the UK's biggest contribution to world music other than The Beatles, got wasted. Some performances on TOTP were so contrived they would have made Emperor Nero, or even Lord Hutton, blush. TOTPs liking for formulaic acts meant that once music became more open it was doomed to die. Educated consumers would always choose the real thing.

In addition TOTP moral reputation was dubious, its association with DJs long known to have committed misdemeanours is well known, it lied to its customers by pretending acts were live, it followed charts long fixed by record producers, it banned God Save the Queen (anti-monarch) and Relax (gay anthem), it refused to play music its producers disliked regardless of record sales (eg heavy metal, early rap, punk), and TOTP was so cutting edge that it took until 1982 to have its first female presenter,

MTV showed that a music TV channel could be popular and cover wide tastes (MTV Raps, Metalhammer etc), US radio shows cover wide tastes encouraging greater talent and openness. Its no coincidence that US versions of TOTP flopped. Whilst TOTP wasted time showing Boney M, Bucks Fizz, Bros, Boyzone and Milli Vanilli artists such as REM, The Ramones, Metallica, The Pixies, Public Enemy, NWA/Dre/Cube, The Fall were making great album after great album with none or little coverage from the UK's so-called leading music programme. You have to wonder whether a privatised, and competitive, BBC would have stuck to a failed 1960s formula past the end of the 80s.

The youth and enjoyment of millions of UK music lovers were restricted due to successive UK government's reluctance to open both Radio and Television to market forces. The death of Top of the Pops was long overdue, its been rightly put out of our misery by empowered consumers choosing superior musical options.

A question of interest?

2006-07-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

The main parties accounts make painful reading

Those famous loans

Something ain't right with the interest charge on the loans made to the Labour Party

Interest on the loans to the Labour Party, per their accounts is 6.5% to 6.75%. Yet if you assume all loans were made prior to 31 March, when the election campaign started, then there's some severe amount of interest gone missing, how does a £1 million loan only accrue £11,000 rather than £48,000 of interest.

The Conservatives had £14.5m of such loan liabilities - but the interest chargeable was an expected £1.07m, despite the terms of the loans having almost identical interest terms described in the accounts.

So how did Labour have £11.95m of loans yet the interest thereon only came to £436k?

Labour's so-called commercial loans are paying interest at a lower rate, approximately half, than their overdrafts or mortgages from the Co-Op. Which makes even less sense when you consider that mortgages and overdrafts are lower risk, and hence lower interest rate, due to the security and right to call in at any time. Anyone would think that interest was only charged when complaints were made about the loans were non-commercial and really gifts.

Pension Deficit

The Labour Party has a £6.5m pension fund deficit. This is only fair when you consider how much they've stuffed everyone elses' old age savings.

Rent-a-CCHQ

Its not just Prescott who has more homes than he needs, Tory Party money is still being wasted on renting out Smith Square.

What do they all do?

Another question is how does CCO have an average of 192 staff. When I worked there I reckon that the yearly average would barely make a 100.

Overall these accounts beg the question, why should the taxpayer fund political parties when they make such a ham-fisted effort with the money they already have

Shagged if we pick Shagger

2006-07-25T14:35:00.000-07:00

Twice-thrashed Steve was very generous in saying he'll stand aside as a Mayoral candidate, if that's what Dave wants. Funny how comment makers on blogs seek to discredit anyone against a 3rd Norris attempt. Anyone would think that he's already got a campaign team, and they are behind those attacks.........

By my reckoning, Red Ken's desperate for Steve to stand again. Its time to expose those Shagger myths

Steve is a good campaigner: The evidence shows that Norris is a vote-loser for the Conservative party

2000 - Norris won 27.1% of the vote in London. The party as a whole won 29% of the vote.

Norris only got to 42% against Livingstone's 58% after 2nd ballots - he was only 13% of the electorate's second choice. Norris' 27.1% of the vote is one of the worst ever performances by a Tory in a constituency the size of Greater London.

By comparison, the Conservatives got 30% of the vote across London in the 2001 General Election.

2004 Norris got 29.1% of first choice votes. This compares to 31.2% of the votes for specific London Assembly candidates, and 28.5% on the party vote.

Norris got 14% of second choice votes. This represents a 2% increase in his vote.

The Conservatives got 32% of the vote across London in the 2001 General Election.

Basically, both times Shagger has stood for Mayor he's basically underperformed the party by 2% to 3%, ie he gets between 6% and 10% less votes than other Conservative Candidates

Norris as MP As an MP he lost Oxford East in 1987 and won Epping Forest in 1988. In 1987 Labour got a 1,300 majority overturning a previous Conservative majority of 1,267. Norris was the only Tory to lose his seat in the south of England

His 5 mistresses brought unwanted attention to the party when it least needed it.

Steve was up against top quality opponents: OK, in 2004 UKIP did put up Frank Maloney. However, most candidates dream of opponents such as Susan Kramer vs Kramer, Simon "Straight Story" Hughes and Frank Dobson.

And as for Red Ken, well how difficult is it to campaign against the epitome of the Loony Left. The 'Mare is famous for overspending, in 6 years he has doubled the amount of Council Tax payable to him, he has welcomed the IRA, he lauds an Islamic scholar who supports the death penalty for homosexuals and the right of husbands to hit their wives, he has twice been caught making anti-semitic remarks, he built himself a palatial officeblock with taxpayers money, issues numerous propaganda also with your cash, he introduced a new tax on motorists and then broke his promise not to raise it with a 60% price rise, he pushed someone down the stairs at a party, and appoints his cronies to overpaid positions etc. Don't forget, Livingstone isn't even loved by Labour, he's more tolerated and I've not even mentioned his awful record as GLC leader. But despite this incredible ammunition, Steve didn't make any headway.

Steve is the only recognised name: The Tories are having Open Primaries as a great way to ensure that the winning candidate has established a high profile, and will be a recognised name before the proper campaigning begins.

Steve is a hard-worker: Only by the standards of some in CCHQ. In 2004, Norris lived by the old motto "Don't give up the day job".

Steve is really charming: So what, this is London, we don't do charm. Livingstone, see above, is Mayor is you've not noticed.

Steve is the best candidate: I'd quite like to know who the candidates are before deciding who to vote for. The TaxCutter will stand if otherwise only Norris would go forward, so Shagger definitely won't be the best candidate

Steve is a great ladies man: Even the thing he is most famous for, Steve isn't really that good at. Norris once got off with Edwina Currie. Proof, that those who do quantity only do so by sacrificing quality

Steve has a great record: Steve was the Minister for Transport responsible for the Jubilee Line Extension. You know the one meant to cost £2.1bn but which came in at £3.5bn.

Was I right not to vote for Norris to be candidate in 2004?

Don't get me wrong, Steve often comes across well on TV and some of his more liberal ideas should be given more consideration by rank and file Tories.

But his record is poor, I nearly forgot the Conservative Party had a mayoral candidate in 2004. However, following Norris lovers comments in my view I have changed my mind on his worklevels. Indeed, I don't think anyone has ever been more determined to come in 2nd place

Kiwis - bigger tax cuts needed

2006-07-25T14:03:00.000-07:00

New Zealand doesn't just produce decent chicks (pleasant, sense of humour, like sport, never spoilt, don't read The Guardian etc). Kiwis get the idea of tax cuts too

The New Zealand government today announced its Business Tax Review. NZ plans to cut its corporate tax rate from 33% to 30%, and increased depreciation rates and new tax credits. Bear in mind that New Zealand does not tax capital gains and has a full imputation system - ie Kiwi Pension Funds, unlike the UK, are not subject to tax on dividend income.

Here's an example of general reaction in NZ ......................

"The discussion document Business Tax Review proposes fairly timid moves towards improved business taxation, says Business NZ. Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly welcomed the fact that the Review has picked up on Business NZ’s recommendation to move to a 30% corporate tax rate as a first step.“But this should be a first step only. Business would like to see evidence of the Government looking beyond simple parity with Australia, to a situation where New Zealand’s rate is well below Australia’s, so New Zealand companies can compete more effectively. The Review lacks a strategy for further reductions, within a dynamic framework. What if Australia now drops its business tax rate below 30%? They could potentially do this even before these proposals are implemented.

“The Review appears to be looking at lower business tax as a cost, not a benefit. This is a fallacy. The evidence shows that lower business tax stimulates business growth, bringing a higher tax revenues as well as increased economic growth. "

Contrast this with the attitude of Cameron, Letwin etc. Kiwis understand the need to cut taxes in an increasingly competitive world, why then don't some leading Tories?

Maybe we could have campaign posters like these

http://www.national.org.nz/images/billboards/austaxcuts.jpg

http://www.national.org.nz/images/billboards/placefortaxcuts.jpg

EU Tax Harmonisation: Last will and testament?

2006-07-25T13:42:00.000-07:00

The European Commission know of no issue too petty for them to attack in their drive towards tax harmonisation.

Today Germany was referred to the European Court of Justice for its VAT treatment of supplies made by executors of wills.

Cutting off Luxembourg's nose to spite the EU's face

2006-07-23T11:14:00.000-07:00

Luxembourg is famous in the tax planning world for having "holding company" regimes. These reduce both withholding taxes on dividends and allow investors to sell their underlying investments tax-free. Consequently, a huge proportion of new capital, especially US capital, enters Europe via Luxembourg, as these entities enable overseas investors to increase their post-tax return on the capital invested in their Continental operations.

Step forward the European Commission which has now ruled that these are a form of unacceptable State Aid and is forcing Luxembourg to change its rules. Its another case of the Commission opening its tax harmonisation mouth before engaging its business brain. Virtually all the capital that went into these entities was ultimately invested elsewhere in Europe. UK, Italy, France, Spain and Germany are already among the highest taxers, based on marginal rates, of business income in the developed world. The sense then of the Commission removing this tax benefit for overseas investors is to make Europe an even a less attractive place for overseas, and notably US investors. Yet again the Commission is harmonising taxes up when the higher-growth parts of the world are pushing them down.

This does raise one curious question. If this benefit goes, and given that the EU Savings Directive was never great news for Luxembourg, then what's the benefit for Luxembourg of staying in the EU. Its got quite a lot to gain from moving to a Swiss or Norwegian style status and retaining rights over its domestic tax laws.

Mole in CCHQ

2006-07-23T04:41:00.000-07:00

Not the hero of South Park, I'm afraid. Instead The News of the World reveals today that a female party researcher in CCHQ is giving away secret info, having fallen for a Labour man. Given that there are about 3 female party researchers in CCHQ it won't too long to work out who it is. The TaxCutter did note that there was a post on Guido Fawkes site in the name of one female researcher suggesting intense dislike of Steve Hilton - so we can probably rule her out then.

Once you get over the obvious jokes, eg Labour must be falling apart if they think people in CCHQ have info worth knowing; Labour have no standards; what - there's someone pumpable in CCHQ; CCHQ is employing girls as researchers?! - then this raises a very serious point about how CCHQ is being run.

In the TaxCutter's experience CRD especially sought to employ people who did not have a history of party activism, or even basic membership. One male researcher in his 30s admitted to never having voted Conservative. If true, this leak should provoke a review of CCHQ employment strategies, and reach the obvious conclusion. The best way to maintain confidentiality is to employ sound and committed persons in the first place.

Prezza's number skills

2006-07-23T02:11:00.000-07:00

Prezza's use of words has been much criticised, but his use of numbers is even worse. I've just watched Prezza on Sunday am. He keeps repeating "in my 35 years in politics". Didn't the June 1970 election took place 36 years ago.

Prezza claims that £5bn of investment has gone into the Greenwich Peninsula due to the government. Really, I think you might find that fulfilling the needs of the skyscrapers full of capitalist bankers built about a mile westwards has more to do with it.

Only Labour could actually claim Canary Wharf's success for itself, the only part of Docklands' growth Labour is responsible for is the vast expansion of the Financial Services Authority. For "£5bn" (or whatever the sum really is), Labour should be able to point to something more than just the North Greenwich tube car park.

Every picture tells a story

2006-07-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

Heather Wheeler, the A lister, has made several final selections for PPC yet failed to win one.

Some cruel people have suggested the reason is not because she narrowly failed to beat the National Average on The TaxCutter's own rating guide for former PPCs.

Genuine release from the European Commission

2006-07-19T15:20:00.000-07:00

VAT: Commission asks the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Portugal for information on the application of reduced rates to children's diapers

The European Commission has decided to send requests for information in the form of letters of formal notice to several Member States about their application of reduced VAT rates to children's diapers. The Commission believes that reduced rates on these goods do not comply with the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), which was revised for the last time in February 2006. However, the Commission fully supports social and family friendly policies, as part of the EU’s response to the pressing challenge of demographic ageing. For these reasons the Commission will in parallel take the necessary steps in order to create a legal basis for the application of reduced VAT rates to children's diapers.

The European Commission's tax section really is getting desperate in its desire to harmonise taxes. This is almost as pathetic as the time they took action against Portugal for operating a lower rate of VAT on a Lisbon toll bridge, entirely in Portugal, on the grounds that it was preventing the workings of the Single Market.

Turn Again Coleman

2006-07-16T14:08:00.000-07:00

Here's an extract from my conversation with the GLA Chair at what was a very fine barbecue yesterday evening:

TaxCutter: Brian, what's your view on having an Open Primary to select the London Mayoral candidate

Brian Coleman: If that's question about whether I'm standing, then I'm not

TaxCutter: I thought it was obviously a question about having an Open Primary

Tory party adopts Imelda Marcos clone as candidate

2006-07-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

Quote from newly adopted PPC and A lister, Harriett Baldwin, found on JP Morgan's website

"You can never have too many shoes. I adore shoes, and am happy to say that although my new house doesn’t have a wine cellar, there is plenty of room for my shoes."

Tax Cuts are economic stability

2006-07-16T01:06:00.000-07:00

There's no questioning the excellence of this article in The Business, the only paper that routinely dismisses the false orthodoxy of DaveGordism, the Butskellism of the Noughties. Nice of them to use the TaxCutter's statistic of 9,050 pages of legislation without reference again.

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?A%20tax-cutting%20lesson%20from%20across%20the%20Atlantic&StoryID=F3C22961-AFBD-41CE-B04E-F97827668AE3&SectionID=803597D7-4BD5-45D5-BF88-E1AC85BF7FDF

The article should be compared with George Osborne's dreary answers to questions he chose to answer on ConservativeHome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/interviews/2006/07/george_osborne.html.

The TaxCutter notes that The Business only looked in detail at the US experience. Maybe they could do a whole series.

Eg Series A - Also look at Ireland, Australia and Canada, recent taxcutters whose taxcuts also increased revenues and economic growth

Series B - Old Europe, including theUK, who have either held taxes at a high level or raised them, and how virtually all the budgets are in deficit

Series C - look at Hong Kong - low tax, payable by few that means the Territory has huge back-up funds accrued over the years

Series D- The Flat tax champions of Eastern Europe

Hang on - I might just do it myself.

Recent murmurings suggest that the UK government might exempt overseas dividends from tax when repatriated to the UK. This of course should have been done years ago,
business has had to keep funds offshore rather than pay a poll tax when dividending profits of overseas subs to the UK - a factor the OECD has felt need to comment upon. An IMF survey a few years ago indicated that exempting such dividends increased the size of them by 50% - which would approximate to an additional £16bn of investment in the UK each year.

The reason for the change? Its because the ECJ will rule that UK law is illegal - so good to see that Gordon still has total control over direct tax matters

How low can the Indie go?

2006-07-12T16:56:00.000-07:00

Many who read the Indie decry the Tabloids as base publications. I've never read anything in The Sun quite as nasty as the article in The Independent today claiming that Keith Joseph had Aspergers. It also claims the same, after focussing on the high-priest of monetarism, of fellow under-achievers George Orwell and Isaac Newton.

Keith Joseph's beliefs in free choice and the market, compared to the power of the state, suggest to me that he suffered from the opposite of Aspergers - he understood that individuals are far better placed to make decisions about their lives than a politican is. On the occasions I was lucky enough to hear Keith talk he was nothing other than incredibly graceful to those of all political persuasions because he felt they shared a common objective of genuinely wanting to improve the world we live in.

What does the Indie's article really tell us? Simple - its got no real argument to attack the great man who spoke the truth against the then conventional postwar miswisdom. Its no different from a kid on the playground calling another one a spastic - pure spite.

Oh why are we waiting?

2006-07-12T16:50:00.000-07:00

According to Guido, Shiny Dave will announce tomorrow that the Tories won't leave the EPP until 2009. That's the year 2009 rather than the TaxCutter's preferred time of 20:09 tomorrow evening

Why do Tory MEPs have to be in the EPP just because Dave told them? They could simply ignore it - after all they would only be doing what Dave himself promised.

At last some good news for Prezza

2006-07-09T06:57:00.000-07:00

Since July 1st, VAT on condoms has been reduced from 17.5% to 5%.

Why the Irresistible John Prescott must be saved!

2006-07-09T02:26:00.000-07:00

Tim Montgomery and Will Norton's analysis of the DPM's policy failings in ConservativeHome was top drawer. However The TaxCutter is very perturbed at the skills of better-known bloggers at putting the knife into Prezza. Two Jags is a One Man Vote Losing Machine - worth far more to the Tory Party in office than forgotten on the backbenches . Its crucial that he is saved - so here's why

What does Prescott do - his roles have been so limited that when it comes to what's good for the country, there's no real harm in leaving him on the front bench
Prescott is essential is keeping Blair and Brown on a happy footing. And, presentationally, this ties Brown into New Labour's failings, as he should be. Hence, Gordon will get less of a clean slate when he becomes PM.
Prezza's rise from a modest background to Jags and Bitches is to be applauded. And contrasted with the fall in social mobility under Labour since 1997. I can't get wound up about mangled syntax - Prezza communicates well to the general public and is a lesson to those Tories who want to do everything in the form of a dull JCR discussion
Harriet Harman as Deputy PM(T)? Harman has the incredible achievement of being sacked for incompetence by Blair, who habitually backs lost causes past their sell-by-date, after only a year. She's also married to Jack "What loans?" Dromey - the Labour Party Treasurer who couldn't explain the £18m sat in the bank accounts he was in charge of.
David Milliband as Deputy PM. Blairism without the charm but even more patronisng. And do we really want someone representing the UK who is rumoured to have dated a particuarly ugly sitting Cabinet Minister.
A backbench Kingston-upon-Hull MP would spend more time in his constituency. Humberside has enough problems
It winds up the sisterhood - its highly amusing to see female Labour MPs getting, sotto voce, upset by Prezza staying in office. Serves them right for being so two-faced about Bill Clinton and his antics
Entertainment value - croquet, homophobic americans, women who really should not wear leather trousers - what's next!
Setting a good example on crime - Prezza's Two Jabs was to be fair a perfectly reasonable reaction to someone violently assaulting him at close distance. Could JP implement a Broken Windows policy in the UK
Punch and Judy politics - is much more fun than a consensus style - and Prezza remains up for it. And whilst government MPs vie for the role of Hangman and Crocodile it lets Labour appear as the sort of divided party the votes dislike
Let's hit Labour where they have really hurt the country - Prezzabashing takes care of its Tabloid-self, letting the Tories concentrate on Labour's dreadful record on crime, health, education and tax

Daddy, what did you during the by-election?

2006-07-08T08:33:00.000-07:00

In respect of the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election, then in the TaxCutter's case, - the answer is absolutely nothing. There's no excuse for me not having the initiative to get my own backside down to my home county to drop leaflets, knock-on doors, and give Bob Neill the lining he clearly needs.

But what did CCHQ or the wider party do to encourage me or any other London Party members to go to B&C. There was

no eMail
no leaflet
no phone calls
no website campaign
no organised campaign days
no persuasion, gentle or more forced

All in stark contrast to the LibDems and Labour.

No wonder the Tories do so badly in by-elections when they can't be bothered to conscript their own volunteers.

Not Open All Hours

2006-07-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

The Labour and Conservative party voted not to extend Sunday opening hours. Funny, because I don't remember asking to be banned from Sunday evening shopping.

With the development of the internet, the need to remove Sunday trading restrictions remains as strong as ever. The rules create a market distortion that favours virtual shops compared to physical shops - and hinder the much-loved local retailer compared to giants like Tesco and Amazon. I would like to buy as much fresh food as possible as close to the start of the working week as possible.

What's so special about Sunday anyway? The Sabbath in North London takes place on either Friday or Saturday.

BGE 2005: Part III - Its the economy Dave

2006-07-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

It’s the economy, Dave

The authors attribute Labour’s victory to the general perception that the economy was doing fine so hence why change. The Conservatives greater success in London and the South-East is credited to the fact that house prices and the economy has slowed more there than in the rest of the country. London and the South-East suffer especially from higher Stamp Duty costs and stealth taxes, eg the failure to increase the tax allowances by wage inflation has dragged many in the Home Counties into the 40% tax net, whilst much of the additional tax yield is spent in the North. Despite the latest trends, the need of the Conservatives to promote constant and sound economic policies, including tax cuts, remains as vital as ever, yes its still the economy Dave.

One man and his dog

The Study is especially critical of the Tories presentation of Michael Howard as a personality, whilst Labour presented its front-bench as a government. Other Conservative spokesmen got only a fraction of the exposure of their counterparts, and the second most commonly televised individual was Liam Fox, who was well behind Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown in visibility. Andrew Lansley at Health and Tim Collins at Education were not even in the Top 10 of visible Tories, but Nick Herbert, never previously an MP, and Ann Widdecombe, now a backbencher were. Yet, all the evidence showed that Michael Howard was not voter friendly and the need for a wider front was tactically obvious, a factor compounded when he called Tony Blair a ‘liar’. The LibDems decapitation policy has been seen as a failure, but with hindsight, by keeping the Shadow Chancellor, Home Secretary, Health Secretary and leading female spokesman in their seats, and off national television, its secondary impact of making the Conservatives less look like a government was a success, even if an unintended one.

View Stateside

2006-07-03T13:49:00.000-07:00

Check this on the US TaxGuru blog: http://www.taxguru.net/. You also get far better films out of the Mafia....

Notice a trend developing

2006-07-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

2006 – Wayne Rooney was sent off playing for England in the World Cup, after being deliberately provoked by Christiano Ronaldo who also encouraged the referee to issue a red card. Both players play for Manchester United

2002 – Alan “Leeds ‘til I die” Smith is sent off in the European Championship qualifier. In injury time, against Macedonia, in the opposition’s half. Alan Smith is later transferred from Leeds to the subs bench at Old Trafford

1999 – Paul “2 bags” Scholes is sent off in a European Championship qualifier against Sweden – Scholes has only ever played club football for Moan U, and at 66 caps has the amazing achievement for a central midfielder of having made more appearances than successful tackles for his country.

1998 – Paul Ince is sent off in a qualifier against Sweden, Ince is formerly of, wait for it, Moan U

1998 – David Beckham is sent off in the 1998 World Cup, whilst being a Moan U player. He is sent off again in 2005 when captaining England vs Austria

Early 1990s – Neil “Postman” Webb is sent off playing for England B, whilst being under Fergie’s charge at guess where.

1986 – Butch Wilkins is sent off for England in the 1986 World Cup in a game against might Morocco. Ray Wilkins of course spent several years playing for the perpetual 2nd placed team of the 80s – Moan U

Of the last 8 sending-offs of England players (ie all those since 1977) only one, David Batty, did not involve a player who has not spent a considerable part of their career at Old Trafford. By contrast only 1 player, current, former or future, of each of Tottenham, Liverpool, Arsenal, West Ham, Notts Forest and Newcastle has ever been sent off playing for England. Even really dirty teams like Leeds and Everton only manage 2.

Death of a great Tory

2006-07-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

The best speech given at the Young Conservatives 1992 conference was delivered by Fred Trueman . Admittedly, being more inspiring than Chris Patten or John Major wasn't difficult, but FieryFred gave the "please donate to the begging bowl" speech with the gusto, character and attitude that got him over 300 test wickets at less than 22.0. Fred Trueman wasn't the sort who wanted to have matches off, complained about burnout, or came up with excuses about how the LibDems are just so good at by-elections.

Fred Trueman was one of the best ever Test Match bowlers, and the greatest English one by some distance. His sporting talents have largely gone unmentioned in my lifetime, despite being one of the outstanding English sportsmen of the twentieth century. May he rest in peace.

*PS: Chris Patten - do you still have the leaflet I gave you outside the Eastbourne venue challenging your views on - your words - "the triumphalism of Thatcherism". If so can you pass it along to David Cameron please as he might benefit from reading it too.

Dave gets his rights right

2006-07-01T06:11:00.000-07:00

Dave has got something right! Its always been amazing how a unicameral country with an ineffective separation of executive and legislative does not have a Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the excesses of government. So Dave was spot on when he suggested a UK Bill of Rights this week - so spot on he passed the acid test of being slagged off by Bagehot in The Economist. Strangley, The Economist's errata has yet to apologise for backing Blair in the 2005 General Election

We should do what the US did, when they wrote a Constitution that has lasted for over 200 years, and keep it short, basic and assume that people are free to do what they choose, unless government has the specific ability to legislate in that particular. The EU version of Human Rights confuses liberty and socialism-lite, and achieves neither.

What laws would fade away if Dave introduced a Bill of Rights Uncle Sam style. Lets take the US version and apply it to the UK

The powers not delegated by the United Counties of England by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the Counties, are reserved to the Counties respectively, or to the people

How great it would be, if the UK, let alone the EU, government could only pass laws on certain matters. Hence, matters get left to individuals unless the government has specific permission to impose restrictions on those matters. So no national laws on what magazines we can read, when we can drink, what we can smoke, smacking your kids, who and where anyone can get married, what can be advertised, etc

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This would block Gordon Brown's trick of issuing a press release changing tax law, and then passing the necessary rules through Parliament 6 months later.

Nor shall private property be taken into public use without just compensation

What just compensation do I get from my private property being taken into public use from my taxes. Is the current level of public service provision, or non-provision, just compensation?

Congress will make no law establishing a religion or the free exercise thereof

No official state religion, and no nomination of bishops of the Prime Minister Millions of kids sigh with relief as they avoid having to recite the lord's prayer in assembly, again.

The right to bear arms

Its only a matter of time before carrying a penknife is banned. Note, its not the right to use arms.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed

That's one not subject to any EU dictats or political correctness.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Hence ending Inheritance tax as an unreasonable seizure, levied on income already taxed at 40%.

There would be a ban on smoking bans, to enforce it would be an unreasonable search stopping people being secure in their own houses.

Excessive fines shall not be imposed

Bye, bye congestion charge. A second go at Inheritance tax, which levies an excessive fine on people for the not especially malicious act of dying.

Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

No playing Keane or Coldplay at high volume.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

And shall not be construed by Human Rights Lawyers to fight ridiculous cases at the taxpayers expense. Mrs Blair - its not just your husband that needs to think about a new job.

Sponsorship

2006-07-01T05:06:00.000-07:00

If you can stomach accidentally stumbling on the Butskellite musings of Hot Dog Portillo, KPMG will this weekend sponsor a Sunday Times survey on the best privately owned businesses in the UK.

By amazing coincidence, a few months ago, KPMG were No.1 in the Sunday Times survey on best firms to work for.

The BGE 2005 - Part II: Communication let me down

2006-06-26T14:19:00.000-07:00

The Tory campaign was contradictory. How were voters meant to identify with a party that wanted more tax but tax cuts, attacked yet supported the Iraq war, wanted enterprise but not those with that enterprise to move to the UK, and whose thought leadership in schools and hospitals extended to longer detention and cleaning? Old Tory winners were ignored, eg only the modern Tory party could hide its opposition to the Euro at the precise moment when ithis policy was being vindicated. The Tories biggest impact will be to get the LibDems to drop the idea of a local income tax, but this was more Sun led than CCHQ led. One of the most fascinating tit-bits reported is Michael Howard’s rejection of a big idea, when the campaign cried out for a unifying theme to base the campaign around, just like the 1970 and 1979 campaigns focussed on giving individuals the right to run their lives instead of the government seeking to do so. The Conservatives were identified as the party that people were most unaware of what it stood for, when the chamaeleonic Lib Dems are regarded as more purposeful then something’s gone wrong big-time.

Not only were voters confused, there was a lack of Conservatives to talk to them. In my experience too many in CCHQ, where I was on secondment during the election, regarded canvassing as a waste of time. Sorry guys but there’s not been the business invented yet that’s too good to talk to its customers. One Tory MP in safe-seat did no telephone canvassing. The recognition of the handwritten posters was high, which is good until you question how effective those posters were, not least as they cannot be targeted in marginals due to rules on expenses. In London the “Its not racist to impose limits on immigration” ended up in seats with high voting immigrant communities, which put the idea in people’s minds that the party was racist.

On the upside the campaign leaflets were good and a definite improvement since 2001. Yet the party has failed to move with the times. Labour used mobile phones to knock-up voters on election day, the Tories used knocking. Note also John O’Farrell’s amusing weekly eMails to chivvy up Labour supporters and got them knocking on doors, and if you responded as I did, they followed up. It certainly beat the bland eMails from CCHQ saying come to GENEVA. The recent trip to Washington to learn about internet campaigning is very welcome, but its also 2 years too late. The power of excellent websites can be shown in the differential between the Cameron website and the other websites in the leadership campaign. Certain candidates developed their own websites, and more importantly eMail communication. Witness Andrew Griffith in Corby who in 2 elections has reduced the Labour majority from 8,000 to below 1,800 with above national average swings, and whose communications included a weekly eMail on his activities send to a very wide audience. The party should consider expanding and enabling all candidates to do this for the next election. It also bypasses the local press who can be institutionally favourable to the incumbent.

The TV broadcasts were a mixed bag, the worst was the Shadow Cabinet’s espousal of Howard’s virtues which reinforced the view that the Tories had only 1 man, whilst like the TV series “The Office” made the population wonder if the unknowns before them were real people or actors.

Review of the British General Election 2005 - Part I

2006-06-25T12:59:00.000-07:00

Assessment of the “The British General Election of 2005” by Dennis Kavanagh and David Butler

During the Christmas period I picked up a copy of “The British General Election of 2005” by Dennis Kavanagh and David Butler. Written in an objective manner, it does not seek to make judgements, yet piece together its piercing analysis, and its clear that the Conservative Party screwed up the 2005 campaign through poor organisation and bad strategy. Here's what it inspired me to write

Campaigning in the 21st century

During the London hustings for Tory leader, the candidates were asked what they would do to improve the party’s organisation. DC’s response was that he had the support of 115 MPs, which is a great answer… to a different question. The killer quote in the Study must be:

“The Conservative Party certainly concentrated on too broad a front of seats; mass targeting was a contradiction in terms”.

Despite losing 2 general elections by a landslide the Conservative party still could not get back to electoral basics. In a first past-the-post system concentrating the team marginals is crucial. I remember being in CCHQ during the election and one shadow cabinet minister taking umbrage at my suggestion that their majority could be reduced, in order to put more effort into a marginal. The 2 big swings in London came in the 2 seats injected with large numbers of Tory CCHQ staff on the day of the election. (Putney and Battersea). Other London marginals like Finchley and Golders Green suffered on election day from a total lack of resource from safe and loser seats, whilst Labour packed the place. The Conservative party must play as team, otherwise its simply handing the more coherent Labour an unnecessary advantage.

The Party has 120 full-time agents, yet these are often in safe seats and are often recent graduates. This point was made by Peter Walker in a 2003 Conservative History Group discussion, who compared them to the elder and more experienced agents of the post-war period. Rather than concentrating on a Gold or A list of candidates, the party could better train and develop an A list of Agents for marginal seats and to let the higher membership in safe seats to look after themselves.

The Study credits Labour with preparing well for the street battle long before the campaign, even when the New Labour aristocrats were having their customary spats. Labour presented its MPs as local champions. For example in Finchley and Golders Green their campaign literature stressed that Rudi Vis MP was a hard working local resident, which any survey of his attendance at the House indicates that only the latter part is true, but they got away with it. The Lib Dems were smart, focussing not just on seats with slim majorities but taking into account voters with a high propensity to change to Lib Dems, eg Asians and students due to the war and tuition fees, and made gains in consequence. Such tactical nous was missing from the Tory campaign. Much is made of the inbuilt bias towards Labour in the current electoral system but read this Study with a critical mind, and you have to question whether its bias against us or our own incompetence and lack of teamwork that generates this distortion.

Part II of this essay will follow later this week....

Lib Dems and tax - only a 173% rate makes their numbers work!

2006-06-24T15:34:00.000-07:00

The LibDems new tax policies weren't even worked out on the back of a fag packet, unless it was the type of fag packet that got dropped on Oaten.

To be fair, they ain't all bad. Taking 2 million people out of the tax net, and reducing the basic rate to 20p are very worthwhile measures, they should have been in the Tories 2005 General Election Manifesto . Unfortunately, but less than coincidentally the LibDems subscribe to the Cameroonian illogic that tax cuts mean less tax revenues. Remember the Aussies have cut income taxes 4 times since 2000, yet raised more revenues every single year, and kept the budget in surplus.

Taking 2 million people out of the charge to tax might go some way to dealing with the nearly 4 million of people Labour have brought into the tax net. Although, by my reckoning, the LibDems would take at least a million people out of the tax net by making them unemployed when exercising their longheld but all too conveniently forgotten policy of joining the fixed exchange rate mechanism called the Euro.

As for the remainder of the policies - can anyone in the LibDems use a calculator....

The LibDems say they will raise an extra £13bn from capital gains tax on 2nd homes and shares on the rich? Yet Capital gains tax did not even raise £3bn last year despite a soaring stock market. And that includes all gains, not just investing in UK business and making more rental accomodation available. For higher rate taxpayers the current tax rates on assets on which the LibDems wish to increase the tax charge already range from 24% to 40%. To raise £13bn the Lib Dems would need to increase the rates to 104% - 173%. Capital gains tax receipts are also highly volatile, so this is a taxrise that would bring about economic instability.

£7bn will be raised by taxing planes on emissions when they take off, and increasing Vehicle Excise Duty on car. There are already 2 taxes that discourage car use, being VAT and Fuel Duty, both of which you pay more of, the more fuel you consume. What the Lib Dems really want to do is implement illiberal measures to stop you choosing what car you own - in which case they should say so. There's 32.3 million licenced motor vehicles in the UK, so this proposal means up to a £217 average increase in Vehicle Excise Duty per vehicle. Therefore, for anyone earning less than £10,835 above the threshold for income tax but owning a car, ie poorer workers, they will actually be worse off under the LibDems total measures.

Where do these new ideas come from. Well, the Lib Dem Tax Commission has been in progress since last summer and per the LibDems website....

"The group will in general make recommendations on the direction of tax reform rather than being expected to produce a full schedule of tax rates, thresholds and exemptions"

What's the point of having a year long commission if all it will do is recommend directions - does it really take even the LibDems more than a year to realise that UK taxes are too complex, too high and often unfair. Precise thresholds might be a bit much, but rates are pretty fundamental and its a poor study that won't recommend what level of rates it favours. And if there were no recommendations on rates, then howcome Ming has announced cutting the key one by 2%?

Reformed alcoholic to make unlikely comeback

2006-06-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

Gazza thought that he'd attempted some bizarre comebacks, but he's only just heard the rumours of Charles Kennedy's return to parkbench politics

What a good mayoral candidate should be saying

2006-06-19T13:41:00.000-07:00

Another mayoral election and the Norris bandwagon chugs into gear. Yet twice before Shagger couldn't get it up and campaigned so poorly its amazing that he's not on the A list. Steve had few policies and made no effort to attack Livingstone for either his long record of extremism or for the paucity of his administration.

What policies should a right-wing mayoral candidate have? Here's a few suggestions:

1. "Broken windows" policy on crime
2. Campaign to reduce the corporate tax rate for London business and increase the income tax basic rate and higher rate thresholds for Londoners. Reduce the income tax rates for Londoners, especially the 40% rate
3. Replace the Greater London, and preferably the Borough, proportion of Council tax with a local sales tax
4. Sensible licencing hours - ie no 11 pm or midnight closure. Do what the great party cities do and let bars open as long as there's a party to be had.
5. Cancel the 2012 Olympics, failing that make only the Boroughs with Olympic infrastructure pay for it
6. The Firemans strike showed that the Brigade had considerable inefficiencies, so privatisation should be on the agenda
7. Sell-off the tube - the whole shebang and not the way the Major administration boot-faired the railways
8. Reform London's marriage laws, make pre-nuptial contracts legally binding, and full gay marriage for those who choose in London - none of this "civil partnership" nonsense
9. Decriminalise prostitution
10. Welcome immigration, immigrants are so vital to London's economic health

11. Decriminalise drug-taking and drug-supply - it should reduce crime (see earlier post) and end the monopoly of criminals over narcotics
12. Ban Coldplay, liberatianism should only go so far

13. Just to annoy the lefties - bring back fox-hunting especially on Primrose Hill and Upper Street

But most importantly never waste an opportunity to expose Livingstone for what he really is

Open all hours?

2006-06-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

The TaxCutter has recently experienced stag evenings in both Hamburg and the UK. And you have to conclude that the continent can party better than the UK because its allowed too - especially past the daftly early 11pm closing time! The Reeperbahn was full of small clubs and bars with a great, friendly atmosphere. Denmark and Spain are also great to venture out in.

What's the consequence of this absence of government-imposed boundaries on partying. I reckon that they include:

More power to the consumer. Each week thousands in the UK get ripped off by nightclubs charging an entrance fee to listen to 2nd rate music and get overpriced for drinks. Overseas there's few if any entrance charges, often there's not even a basic meathead on the door because the supply of venues is greater and more varied
less drink-related crime, punch-ups vandalism - everyone can go out having had a good feed first + drink at leisure. Plus people trickle home which is easier to police
Greater variety and more small venues - less compliance normally means reducing the entrance threshold into the market, and hence bolstering competition
A better time!

Strangely enough but when you treat responsibile adults as responsible adults they tend to act like responsible adults. The current licensing laws are a joke, being a relic of WW1 albeit with slight improvements in the 80s. The ability to turn UK cities into better party places would alsobring in more tourists ..... and their cash.

Seen it before?

2006-06-13T15:17:00.000-07:00

One of the leading right-wing bloggers has redesigned their blog. And very good it looks too.
However, I think you might have seen the pose before

The death of Charles Haughey

2006-06-13T14:00:00.000-07:00

Maybe it was me, but this obviously crooked man, always seemed a bit smug after any IRA atrocity

New Labour White Elephants I: Stakeholder Pensions

2006-06-11T08:38:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of fuss recently about the Pensions Package agreed between Brown and Blair. But has the Tory party let the Chancellor off one of his great errors - the Stakeholder Pension fiasco - the Millenium Dome of the financial world?

Labour have been in power 9 years, and their best effort on Pension Savings is to introduce measures that will take effect in 2012, 15 years after they abolished the dividend Tax Credit for pension funds. Not only that, the additional cost of postponing long-needed changes won't increase Gordon's budget deficit - already 3.4% of GDP - but will be picked up by future governments.*

Why the delay? Well the Turner Report and current reforms are effectively admitting that just like Family Tax Credits, one of Brown's flagship policies, Stakeholder Pensions, totally bombed. These were introduced in 2001 Gordon Brown as the solution to the Pensions crisis.

Did Gordon decide that the market would best determine the optimal way for workers and providers to create long-term savings. Of course not, instead Stakeholder Pensions were to be very standardised, and to have such low charges that no-one reckoned they could make money out of providing them. So, they didn't. Now 5 years on, stakeholder pensions still don't even get £1bn of employer contributions per year, less than 20% of the damage done, per year, by the abolition of the dividend tax credit. Bog-standard ordinary personal pension plans still get over 3 timest the amount of employer contributions. (Source: HMRC website) The link to the DWP Stakeholder Pensions website doesn't even work, it just takes you to the DWP homepage instead. And who are the stakeholder pensioners? Good question - its not the low to medium earners they were aimed at but spouses of rich businesspeople happy to use an unintended taxbreak.

The result of Stakeholder Pensions has been more complexity, more changes, more confusion, less long-term savings- and a vital delay in curing a structural flaw in the UK economy. Stakeholder Pensions are classic Gordon Brown - concerned that pension providers might profit from selling pensions he designed a system so they wouldn't - and cut-off pension savings to spite UK business in consequence.

*(By contrast, the tax-cutting but fiscally stable and budget-surplus rich Australian government is already putting money aside.)

Useful idea in The Economist shock

2006-06-08T23:36:00.000-07:00

I got a big surprise last weekend when I read The New Labour Apologist, I meant The Economist. In a rare return to classical liberal thinking , it suggested the decriminalisation of cocaine in the USA, as a way of enabling Columbia to deal better with its drug barons by denying them the monopoly money the current illegal status guarantees them (ie making cocaine illegal in the US forces the price up and hence means more money for those criminal gangs who supply the product).

And why not decriminalise drugs. My concern is that the current criminal status is responsible for increasing crime. Decriminalisation would actually reduce crime. Why? Police and Crown Prosecution friends reliably inform me that 90% of crime is drug related, ie criminals commit crimes to fund their addictions, classically in the UK heroin, in the US its more likely to be crack-cocaine.

Typically addicts commit crimes because of their need for a hit and not an enjoyment of law-breaking per se. Hence they steal, rob etc to fund that hit. Criminalisation increases the price of drugs, as you would expect when you limit competition between suppliers by banning everyone reputable. Hence, junkies have to commit more £ of crime to get their fix from the cartel of supplires. Increasing supply avenues, by decrimalising drugs should increase competition, meaning lower priced drugs and hence meaning less £ of crime are needed for that fix.

It should also mean cleaner, better drugs and most importantly of all, it might remove some of the restrictions and stigma that currently deter junkies from seeking the help they need.

Ever feel you've been cheated?

2006-06-06T13:31:00.000-07:00

Just a selection of those who supported David Cameron for Tory party leader, enticed by his promise to leave the EPP.

The Top 100 - what an A list should look like

2006-06-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

The Top 100 of PPCs who did not become MPs is shown below. Please scroll down to see the important caveats on these admittedly crude stats. Scroll further down the blog if you wish to win a bottle of champagne in my A list competition.

Headlines:

Only 15 A listers feature in the Top 100.
The Top 100 contains 23 females. 17 of these did not make the A list. This indicates that David Cameron's protestation that the current A list is needed to ensure that there are more women Tory MP's is spin. There are plenty of good female candidates who were ignored when the A list was compiled.
The average performance for a losing PPC was a loss of Conservative votes of -1.86%. For A listers it was -4.01%, and for all Conservative Candidates it was 2.21%.
158 losing PPCs beat the national average, less than 1/6th of whom made the A list.
Only 2 PPCs with an Asian name got into the Top 100. 19 PPCs with Asian names were in the bottom 100 of PPCs. Many of these candidates did stand in inner-cities where the party performed poorly but the clear indication is that enlisting able Asians into the party should be made an urgent priority.
When compiling this list it became clear that regional swings meant little, many of the better results are from areas outside the South East.
Some of those below have already been selected for the next election, rightly so based on their performance

RESULTS ( A listers in red) . Top 100 as measured by increase in the Tory vote as a percentage of votes cast. As compiled by the TaxCutter

Dr Norma Lloyd-Nesling 86.67%
David Branch 64.47%
Stuart Cottis 59.68%
Mark Garnier 50.26%
Duncan McLellan 46.21%
Adrian Phillips 44.21%
Phillip Howells 34.65%
Annunziata Rees-Mogg 34.21%
Michael White 33.97%

David Potts 32.00%
Stephen Watson 28.07%
John Lamont 26.87%
Mark Jones 26.78%

Rob Halfon 25.02%
Mark Coote 24.75%
Roger Berry 23.61%
Harri Lloyd Davies 22.11%
Paul Stuart-Smith 21.74%
Mark Bowen 21.07%
Sean Moore 20.34%
Rishi Saha 19.84%
Henry Smith 19.31%
Stella Kyriazis 18.61%
Amanda Vigar 18.56%
Carolyn Abbot 18.55%
Mark Nicholson 18.03%
Sandy Bushby 18.00%
Dr William Morgan 17.98%
Guto Bebb 17.72%
Ginny Scrope 17.19%
Kevin Davis 17.02%
Owen Inskip 16.55%
Caroline Dinenage 16.49%
Andrew Griffith 16.43%
Brandon Lewis 16.31%
Piers Wauchope 15.85%
Sian Dawson 15.81%
Jonathan Morgan 15.51%
James Bethell 14.39%
David Ashton 14.29%
Gordon Henderson 13.97%
Myles Hogg 13.40%
Virginia Taylor 13.38%
Keith Chapman 13.04%
James McGrigor 12.98%
Justin Tomlinson 12.76%
Peter Duncan 12.74%
Julien Foster 12.69%
Bob Blackman 12.63%
Mark Pawsey 12.39%
Anne McIntosh MP 12.33%
Damian Hinds 12.18%
George Freeman 11.99%
Robert Oliver 11.94%
Margot James 11.83%
Michael McIntyre 11.34%
Philip Allott 11.31%
Paul Offer 11.18%
Marco Longhi 10.93%
Jonathan Gough 10.71%
Stephen Daughton 10.61%
Jeremy Bradshaw 10.41%
Nicola Talbot 10.19%
Howard Morton 10.18%
Tim Archer 10.10%
Tim Butcher 10.04%
Mark Formosa 9.76%
Mark Reckless 9.68%
Dominic Schofield 9.59%
Ken Andrew 9.51%
Garry Hague 9.40%
Andrew Griffiths 8.82%
David Morris 8.53%
Gabrielle Howatson 8.33%
Syed Kamall MEP 8.28%
Jonathan Mackie 8.24%
Edward Heckels 8.21%
Robert Buckland 8.14%
Colin Cromarty Bloom 8.06%
Melanie McLean 8.03%
Graham Evans 7.98%
Conor Burns 7.95%
Tom Biggins 7.93%
Judith Pattinson 7.77%
Maggie Throup 7.54%
Esther McVey 7.26%
Mike Mitchelson 7.02%
Eveleigh Moore-Dutton 6.89%
Spencer Drury 6.85%
Aaron Powell 6.80%
Leah Fraser 6.79%
Alun Cairns 6.57%
David Chambers 6.56%
Les Jones 6.40%
Diana Coad 6.38%
Alf Doran 6.25%
Suzy Davies 6.20%
Nicola Le Page 6.19%

Any questions, queries etc then please eMail me at taxcutter@tiscali.co.uk

Notes

The performance of 428 PPCs was examined.

There is a 3.33% reduction when comparing those who stood in 2001 as well as 2005 to cope with the fact that the Tory share of the vote increased more in 2001 than in 2005.

Caveats

These statistics are produced by comparing 2005 performance to 2001. For those who stood in 2001 and 2005 the comparison is to 1997 but with adjustments made for the national swing.

These are only meant to be a crude guide and I fully admit that they are imperfect numbers. On the otherhand I do not know of any better ones produced, but would be delighted to know about them. I do not know whether CCHQ produced similar statistics when compiling the A list. I suspect they did not, despite the obvious wisdom of doing so.

These statistics have not been adjusted so do not add or subtract for other factors such as Funds, party members in the constituency, work done in neighbouring marginals, time selected before the election, whether this was one of the 100 or so seats the LibDem bothered showing up in, whether there was a UKIP/Veritas candidate etc

Usual caveats to these statistics apply, please see below. 26 PPCs in Scotland could not be taken into account as they stood in seats that had had boundary changes, hence measuring their performance by comparison to results in previous General Elections was not possible without examining the results on a ward by ward basis; which I have not done.

Complaints Commission for the Independent Police Complaints Commission

2006-06-04T07:05:00.000-07:00

No such body exists. But the TaxCutter would like to know who I complain to about the fact that the IPCC wasted a valuable 6 hours of police time following Friday's raid on a potential bomb development site in East London. If there's potentially an UXChemicalB out there then frankly the IPCC can wait until the incident has been dealt with by the professionals.

But then competence is the last thing you expect from the Home Office

A List - you're having a laugh

2006-06-02T15:10:00.000-07:00

On Sunday evening I'll publish who my research says should have been on the A list. Without giving the game away too much, it shows the following:

There's many women, not on the A list, who did better than female A listers - so the "we need more women MPs" excuse for the A list's final composition is about as accurate as tax cuts being contrary to fiscal stability
Regional swings are overstated. Many northern candidates put in strong performances
Inner-cities tended to produce the worst results. Bradford for example was especially poor
No great difference between male and female candidates. However, candidates with Asian names generally performed poorly, but possibly because they were more likely to be fighting inner-city seats. Does this say more about the candidates or the electorate?

Due to boundary changes, I have not been able to produce reliable figures for many Scottish seats.

The TaxCutter looks forward to CCHQ telling him the basis they used to analyse 2001 and 2005 General Election results when picking the A list candidates. Surely they must have had some objective measurement for the key target seats.......

A list interlude - Tax cuts and economic stability

2006-06-01T13:55:00.000-07:00

Whilst being very sensible on tax simplification, Boy George got tangled up again on the economic stability versus tax cuts myth.

Ireland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and soon Canada will all take less of their citizen's dosh than the UK. Ireland, Australia and Canada have all cut taxes in recent years. The result in each case was actually an increase in economic stability as they record budget surplus after budget surplus. Following the Bush tax cuts the US would have achieved the same if only it had not gorged itself on a belly full of pork.

Compare this to the UK, a deficit of 3.4% this year, or indeed Italy, France and Germany - who are meant to be in a Fiscal Stability pact following EU membership, but have struggled to make the numbers add up for years.

Just like his comments about there being no tax cuts in the 1979 winning manifesto, George should check his facts better. And remind his big mate Dave about that EPP promise

What's your favourite A list interview story?

2006-06-01T11:55:00.000-07:00

I have decided to award a prize for the person who tells the best tale from an A list interview, their's or someone else's. The prize will be a bottle of fine champagne, or similar luxury good for teetotallers, bought of course from my favourite UK business, Tescos.

Here's an example of what you have to beat.

A story has come to light of a potential A lister (who scores well in ratings I've yet to publish) who was interviewed by Anne Milton MP and a volunteer.

In an interview, devoid of any question on the candidates experience as a PPC or of how they would seek to campaign in a key marginal, the question of pension policy arose. The candidate gave the perfectly reasonable answer that the deal with the public sector where they can all officially give up work at 60 would have to be renegotiated to restore fairness between the private and public sectors. And its not a million miles from what the very able Shadow Pensions Secretary Philip Hammond has been saying.

Nursie Milton apparently went into one, about how that was a ridiculous idea. The candidate was rejected.

Comments on the TaxCutter's A list stats

2006-05-31T15:24:00.000-07:00

I have received a number of eMails on the stats I produced. Here are the best two contributions, both of which I have anonymised and edited, but hopefully not so much that the author's message has been altered.

I will produce more statistics when I get time ... I do have a totally non-political job to do during the day. Please note that I've not suggested that there is any difference between the male and female A listers from the stats I've produced - the results to me appear to be near-enough equal

From an A lister high up on my list

Extract below ..... some useful comments here maybe for the rest of the A list

I attribute my result to:
(a) Bloody hard work - still the determining factor to my mind
(b) Strong local campaigning, particulary on crime and a myriad of local issues
(c) Michael Ashcroft's support in 2005; and
(d) my 'normal' (comprehensive school, worked in business, young family) background which has helped me to reach out to far more people in my life than any gender, sexual preference, race or religon ever would.

From an A lister lower down my list

..... can you produce an adjusted index, or possibly two, adjusting for number of Conservative Party members in the Constituency – I had 3 – and time spent in the post before the election – I had 3.5 months.

Also, an adjustment for time spent working in nearby target seats might be appropriate – I worked half my time for [major Conservative MP in key marginal], in the spirit of teamwork and wishing to add value to the Conservative Party, rather than squeeze every last decimal point in [constituency edited for anonymity]. Perhaps this was not the best strategy, in retrospect.

and from the same source in a later eMail

Incidentally, Andrew Percy effectively ran David Davis’s campaign at Haltemprice and Howden as well as nominally fighting Normanton. He worked probably 12 hours a day, on average, for DD throughout the entire campaign. At the time,H&H was at risk and he achieved a very good swing. There must be a number more like that on the list. I do understand your point, but there are so many factors. There is also the fact that women were very significantly more represented in the unwinnables and Northern seats than in the country overall and, how about this one, being such team players, women no doubt worked a lot in their neighbouring marginals, as instructed...

Candidates already selected thump The A list

2006-05-31T00:52:00.000-07:00

This is the corresponding performance, using precisely the same methodology, for seats where the candidate for the next General election has already been selected. All the same caveats about the usefulness of these statistics apply as before.

Mark Garnier 50.26%
Rob Halfon 28.35%
Justin Tomlinson 12.76%
Paul Offer 11.18%
Nick de Bois 9.09%
Robert Buckland 8.14%
Caroline Nokes 5.46%
Karen Lumley 5.26%
Nicky Morgan 5.10%
Iain Stewart 3.28%
Penny Mordaunt 3.00%
Andrew Bingham 2.41%
Lorraine Fullbrook 0.79%
Marcus Wood 0.55%
Christopher Pincher -1.33%

Looks like these constituencies got this right. On average they increased the Tory vote as a proportion of the voters by 9.62% and outperformed the national performance of 2.21% when comparing 2005 General Election to 2001.

The A list candidates who stood reduced the Tory vote on the same basis by 4.01%.

Responses to comments on Conservative Home

2006-05-29T11:31:00.000-07:00

There has been some reaction to this post on ConservativeHome. Here's my view on the comments:

1. Tim Montgomery made a number of very sensible remarks about the usefulness of the statistics. Please note them but bear in mind that the pool is large enough to represent a trend, and the trend is not good.

2. This is not an anti-A list statistical analysis. The data is compiled in a purely objective manner despite my own belief that local constituencies, that those who donate their spare time to fighting the elections are perfectly capable of selecting their candidate by democratic vote. If you wish to see the data, then let me know and I will forward it.

3. The analysis cannot say whether having an A list is good or bad. That will not be possible until an A-list of candidates stand and I have some electoral data to analyse. What these statistics aim to discover is whether the composition of the A list looks right. It doesn't.

On the other hand, as Tim alludes to, the accusation that the male A-listers are superior to the female A-listers is not borne out by the analysis which suggests relatively equal performance.

4. There are a few comments about individual candidates and circumstances. Kit Malthouse has written to me to inform me that he did stand in 1997 and heavily outperformed the national performance. Tim Collins fares well as his performance takes in account his result in 2001 as well as 2005, suggesting Labs voting Lib Dem cost him his seat. Karen Bradley was as someone rightly says, parachuted in at the last moment. Unlike that commentator, I do know Karen and she would make an excellent candidate and MP - given suitable time to campaign.

5. When I get the time, I will be happy to do more analyses, as a number of commentators suggest, eg

- benefits of Ashcroft money
-taking regional swings into account
- those not on the A list
- impact of selecting candidates shortly before the general election versus selecting 2 years ahead

- comparison to elected MPs

The A list - the VoteWinning Index Results

2006-05-28T03:46:00.000-07:00

So which A lister should you choose to win your key marginal. The purpose of this study is based on past performance at Parliamentary Elections, to deduce who are the biggest votewinners among the A List.

I have compiled a survey of all those on the A list, (with thanks for Tim Montgomery and Sam Coate's sterling work on Conservative Home), and per Guido Fawkes disclosure of the candidates for South Northamptonshire, have added a few other potentials. The index factor is determined by comparing Conservative Votes at the 2005 General Election and compares them to the 2001 Election as a percentage of total votes and hence aims to be wholly objective. For A listers who stood in both 2001 and 2005, or in 2001 only, the schedule has been adjusted by the National Swing between elections to try and make a 2001 performance comparable to a 2005 one. Obviously this ignores certain factors, eg local swings, strength of incumbent, independent candidates etc. However it does give some indication as to which A listers are more likely to win those key marginals!

Anything below 2.21 is a performance below the national average. 22 A listers are above the national average. 48 A listers are below the national average, a worrying factor given the fact these will stand in key seats.

Results in order.

1. Mark Coote 24.75%
2. Carolyn Abbot 18.55%
3. Caroline Dinenage 16.49%
4. Andrew Griffith 16.43%
5. Cllr Brandon Lewis 16.31%
6. James Bethell 14.39%
7. Mark Pawsey 12.39%
8. Anne McIntosh MP 12.33%
9. George Freeman 11.99%
10. Margot James 11.83%
11. Andrew Griffiths 8.82%
12. Syed Kamall MEP 8.28%
13. Melanie McLean 8.03%
14. Conor Burns 7.95%
15. Esther McVey 7.26%
16. Andrea Leadsom 6.03%
17. Amanda McLean 5.67%
18. Alexandra Robson 3.85%
19. Mark Menzies 3.43%
20. Steve Barclay 2.89%
21. Hannah Hall 2.88%
22. Tim Collins 2.82%
NATIONAL AVERAGE 2.21%
23. Heather Wheeler 1.84%
24. Damian Collins 1.32%
25. Antonia Dunn 1.32%
26. Matthew Collings 0.86%
27. Clive Allen 0.47%
28. Fiona Kemp 0.31%
29. Fiona Bruce 0.00%
30. Dr Richard Evans -0.63%
31. Laetitia Gunn -0.65%
32. Peter Cox -0.73%
33. Elizabeth Truss -1.38%
34. Anna Soubry -2.09%
35. Vicky Ford -2.36%
36. Pauline Latham -2.92%
37. Paul Maynard -2.99%
38. Julia Manning -3.21%
39. Sharon Buckle -3.28%
40. Kim Humphreys -3.52%
41. Sayeeda Warsi -3.97%
42. Nicholas Boles -4.70%
43. Tariq Ahmad -5.15%
44. Harriett Baldwin -5.88%
45. Jane Ellison -6.19%
46. Philippa Stroud -6.19%
47. Katy Lindsay -6.47%
48. Judith Symes -6.52%
49. Ashley Gray -6.68%
50. Amar Ahmed -6.94%
51. Pamela Singleton -7.02%
52. Maggie Punyer -7.80%
53. Lucy Shersby -8.41%
54. Andrew Percy -9.26%
55. David Gold -10.44%
56. Ali Miraj -11.11%
57. Pam Chesters -13.24%
58 Caroline Flynn-MacLeod -14.14%
59. Chris Heaton-Harris MEP -14.72%
60. Cordelia McCartney -16.70%
61. Suella Fernandes -19.59%
62. Priti Patel -21.43%
63. Dorothy Luckhurst -29.82%
64. Kulveer Ranger -30.68%
65. Alan Lockwood -31.10%
66. Jason Steen -31.25%
67 Karen Bradley -31.37%
68. Amber Rudd -36.77%
69. Jeremy Middleton -53.59%
70. Phillip Lee -69.33%

No rating awarded

A number of A listers have never stood for Parliament and are not included, or have not stood since the 1997 General Election. This raises the issue for some A listers as to the alternative experience they have that justifies their A list place, although a significant number are councillors.

Howard Flight is of course an oddity in this respect. If his vote in 2001 is compared to the 2005 General Election result he would have one of the highest ratings.

Louise Bagshawe
Gavin Barwell
Steve Brine
Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones
Howard Flight
Jackie Foster
Zac Goldsmith
Sam Gyimah
Rebecca Harris
Kay Hemmings
Pippa Hill
Kevin Hollinrake
Maria Hutchings
Jack LoPresti
Emma Moffett
Julie Moody
Wendy Morton
Beverley Nielsen
Hannah Parker
Adam Rickitt
Caroline Righton
Julie Rook
Laura Sandys
Jane Scott
Andrew Stephenson
Mel Stride
Simon Walker
Susan Williams
Kit Malthouse
Dr David Bull
Martin Callanan MEP
Timothy Coleridge
Angie Bray

If anyone would like to comment on the methodology then please let me know. Also, I'd quite like to do a second paper, on those denied A list membership despite great performance, so please let me know any suitable names. If you would like the data then please eMail me at taxcutter@tiscali.co.uk - it will be released provided you agree to give me some credit

and in the papers today....

2006-05-28T01:16:00.000-07:00

I can't be bothered to watch Andrew Marr on Sunday 9am. Despite his best attempts, Steve Coogan does Alan Partridge so much better. So I reviewed the papers myself.

Minette Martin has an excellent article reminding us that the 80s are a period in our history to be celebrated, not avarice soaked as some wish us to believe.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2189965,00.html

Sounds like Frank Lampard Junior is onside.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/ncam28.xml

Surely its no surprise that a well-paid sportsman living in the south-east, the son and nephew of 2 of the more business like characters in football, votes Tory. Maybe he's thinking of the A list - you can't fault the bloke for hard work and if Chelsea are anything to go by, he should have a liberal approach to immigration.

No-one seems to have asked how Cameron got invited to the Beckhams in the 1st place. Becks is a known patriot and the southern Spice girls declared themselves as Thatch supporters years ago. Add in that arch-enemy Sir Alec is a long time Labour supporter, and it appears that DC supports DB, and vice-versa.

D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

2006-05-25T15:02:00.000-07:00

Being out of the office and the Canary Wharf area for most of yesterday and today was most disappointing. Certain big shot partners and city bruisers must have trembled with the news that stay-at-home wives are entitled to large parts of their fortune.

A victory for women? I've been lectured, ad tedium, by females for the last 15 years on how precious their independence is........

Guest Blog: Scousers Special Annoucement

2006-05-24T14:15:00.000-07:00

We, the Scousers, formally declare that Cherie Booth-Blair QC is no longer one of our number. Us Scousers have a long and proud tradition involving our close knit community, love of footie, petty-thieving, our brand of humour, The Beatles, not having proper jobs and voting for useless lefties.

We therefore consider that having a job that means taking substantial sums of taxpayers for no useful efforts aka legal fees, signing a Report concerning a man's suicide, purchasing dodgy flats and taking large fees for speeches when only morsels end up with the charity concerned and nicking £2,000 of goods from an Australian store which was giving you gifts, are beyond a little bit of scouse cheekiness. Even Paul MacCartney gets stitched up by his wife less than the PM does.

We consider that the PM's wife should relocate to somewhere more suited for her personality. Given her love of suicide bombers, the borderlands of Palestine should be ideal, and given the desolation maybe slightly remind her of home.

Flat Tax - improving Heath

2006-05-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

Many would benefit from a perusal of Allister Heath's Flat Tax. Especially the parts covering the benefit of lowering marginal tax rates and the morality of high taxes on the successful.

Two quibbles on an otherwise fine work

1. Heath claims as his own statistic the number of pages of UK tax legislation in 2005 compared to 1997. This statistic was fed to him last summer by Conservative Research Department, I know as I counted the pages for the press release I thought of that got into The Times. Naughty

2. He advocates relief for capital expenditure in the year it is incurred. This is what happened in the UK for corporates until the mid-80s when Lawson stopped such nonsense. Why, because it distorted the economy to make capital more attractive than labour and helped contribute to the 3 million unemployed at the time.

Capital is paid for over time, hence corporates borrow and pay interest. Profits taxes should be based as far as possible on accounting profits, the best non-distortionry measure available and the simplest to use.

Little Red Book of Labour Sleaze

2006-05-19T00:45:00.000-07:00

When this appears on Monday it should contain entries by my goodself, although none of the headlines on the cover

Found at Waterstones, Politicos http://www.politicos.co.uk/item.jsp?ID=5678 or the cheaper Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904734162/qid%3D1147939686/026-0296447-4681230

The mystery of Gordon Brown

2006-05-18T14:19:00.000-07:00

A good question from an apolitical type I know. Why did Gordon Brown make the Bank of England independent?

Pre-1997 it was a policy of the Tory right. Blair apparently knew next to nothing about it. Brown gives the impression that he has never thought that there is one person who could do the job anything like as well as he could, let alone seven. His micromanagement attitude to both government and individuals' lives does not point towards a man who believes in independence.

Why? I don't buy the Brown is anti-EU argument. Its merely Brown posturing himself to make the most of Blair's defeat, had Blair ever been daft or democratic enough to put the Euro or the EU Constitution to a referendum. So why? The thinking behind Brown's only success remains unknown.

A list: Based on past performance ... get worried

2006-05-15T14:41:00.000-07:00

The membership of the A list does not point towards a Tory victory next time around.

Let's look at their 2005 General Election performance. The better candidates, eg Andrew Griffith and Conor Burns increased their share of the vote. But others based on 2005 are very lucky to get on the A list. Many got a lower share of the vote than the Conservative candidate in 2001, including Tim Collins, Liz Truss, Nicholas Boles, Philippa Stroud, Katy Lindsay, Phillip Lee, Paul Maynard, Jason Steen, Amber Rudd, Maggie Punyer, Suella Fernandes, Sharon Buckle and Sayeeda Warsi. Hardly a record that suggests you want them fighting the key marginals next time.

Nouveau droit

2006-05-15T13:25:00.000-07:00

Give our Brian's kid some credit - at least he's been Tory for a few years.

Liz Truss, now only 30 I believe amazingly claims to have held senior positions in both the Oil and Telecoms industry. And in the LibDems? Googling Mel Stride doesn't produce a lot of Tory activism. Zach Goldsmith is an ecologist. Maria Hutchings hasn't exactly got a long history of party membership. Louise Bagshawe must be the only person who ever joined the Labour Party because she didn't like ERM and Back to Basics - like New Labour isn't pro-EU and moralistic. And what did she blame it on - the Catholic Church! This is reality not chick-lit darling.

It would be good if the above conversions are genuine corrections of error by genuine people. Please note wannabe celebs -being a Tory PPC in a key marginal is serious business - its not for the light-hearted, the workshy or the fickle.

Why? Why? Why?

2006-05-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

oh why...do new members of the EU, notably Lithuania, Slovenia and Estonia want to join the Euro?

Here's a test they should try first!

1. What was your countries growth rate in the following periods (1) since 1 January 2002, the date the Euro coins were introduced, (2) 1 January 1999, when the Euro currencies were pegged together. Is this higher or lower than the Euro area?

2. How successful have other attempts to fix the price of currencies been? Please examine the French and UK economies after they rejoined the Gold Standard in the 1920s + check out the UK experience of ERM as well.

3. Why did the Danes and Swedes reject the Euro in post 1999 referenda?

4. Has convergence been achieved in your economies with the Euro area? If the answer is no - so do why do you think that convergence is not required?

5. Do you think your economies can converge with the Euro zone given the success of your Flat Tax systems compared to the complex, high rate systems commonly found in the Euro zone. Please consider other differences between the role of the state in your economies compared to the Euro area.

6. Should you trust the existing Euro members - given the general bending of certain rules to fit within the Euro criteria and the fact that they are to blame for the EU being such an inefficient, and at times, corrupt body?

7. Why risk a system that could end up overpricing your goods and services, when floating your currency ensures a suitable price. Has it hurt similar size countries like New Zealand when they have floated their currencies?

If only they'd have got him to do the purge

2006-05-11T15:07:00.000-07:00

Rumours circulated today that CCHQ was being purged. We now have Olly Letwin as chairperson of CRD, Bridges heads up political unit, John Glen in charge of CRD. And a few people have moved desks. Ever heard of a purge which meant the same people ended up in the same jobs!

Noises and inside info from Labour HQ tell of highly motivated individuals with long-term party activism being employed. My inside experience of CCHQ was many weren't party members, + in 1 case had never voted Tory, the then lead Treasury guy played computer games and indoor cricket all day + they campaigned against Nick Herbert getting selected in Flight's seat. Whilst there were some good guys + the occasional girl actually had talent - the simple truth was they weren't recruiting people with enough passion and ability. Going to a posh uni is 1 thing, actually having a perceptive brain and some initiative is another.

CCHQ is meant to be the top political campaigning body - not a gentleman's club. Never mind Prezza's antics and Blair and Brown's latest round of handbags - Labour is a high quality and hard-working political machine and the Tories must stretch every sinew to match it.

We shoot to kill and we always will

2006-05-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

Highly unlikely that it is, The TaxCutter desperately hopes that the rumour about an A-list woman and Lemmy, warts and all apparently, is true. She'd get my vote in Finchley and Golders Green PPC selection for her services to rock.

Lemmy's lyrics don't make great soundbites though - can't see her using "She's jailbait and I just can't wait".

Cameron's deft political touches

2006-05-10T12:58:00.000-07:00

DC is all for 'change'. Traditional political wisdom says that when your enemy is struggling, go in for the kill. Dave's attitude to Labour's malaise is to start a civil war in his own party. No change there then.

The wrongs and wrongs of having an A list and who is on it are covered elsewhere. But the master manifesto writer should not use that furore to escape censure for his tactic. Promoting the nouveau droit, release the list at a time when you should be focussing on the enemy's failings, not bothering to properly interviews candidates you were never going to pick in the first place, upsetting long-term activists, pretend the list won't get publicly known, effectively telling the enemy that those not on the list are 2nd rate PPCs in your eyes, annoying non-DC voters when the party most needs unity.

The A list shows the arrogance of Dave and his set. Cameron lectures Labour on its failures but he should focus on his mismanagement of his own party first.

Less Balls please

2006-05-09T13:38:00.000-07:00

Gordon Brown's imagination has now extended to appointing his spare brawn as Economic Secretary. Brown has now spent nearly 14 years in the Treasury or Shadow Treasury. Balls has been there for most of the time. Primarolo has been aTreasury minister since 1997, long enough that even she should have realised she doesn't know what she's doing.

Gordon's lot = Same job, same people. My reckoning is that Blair is sharp enough to know that like the economy, Brown's ship is starting to sink, so no harm in chucking another rat onboard. And it all plays into Blair's hands, once Labour MPs and the public realise that Gordon can't think outside of an all too familiar box, they'll realise that a diplomat + team manager he ain't so let's not rush to be rid of wide Tony. Brown's obstinacy in staying as Chancellor means that he's too one-dimensional to be PM. And its hard to tell whether Cameron or Blair are most pleased.

Cutting Council taxes wins local elections

2006-05-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

Hammersmith and Fulham turned in top results last Thursday, having gone large on Council Tax cuts. Council tax cuts aren't mentioned on Enfield Tories' website.

The TaxCutter is concerned about the strange silence from DC and CCHQ acknowledging the electoral success of a clearcut lower tax message.....

Make way for the big boys

2006-05-05T15:22:00.000-07:00

Nevermind Blair, DC needs to think about his team. Too many aren't punching Alan Duncan's, let alone their own weight.

Anyone new to the UK would think the Opposition spokesman for Health was called Reform. Lansley's MIA when the knife in Hewitt should be twisted. Willets might have 2 brains but what has he thought up on education. Letwin is Head of Policy but opposes having policies. Theresa May couldn't lead a Wendy House, let alone the Commons. Ainsworth is in no danger of any emissions at the environment and Heald stays silent as Labour increasingly bypass Parliament. Maude has castrated the candidates list and our chances in key marginals. Osborne needs to take time to read up on electoral history and see how tax cuts win votes. Some are excited about David Davis vs John Reid. Sod that for a game of territorial soldiers - the arch-assassin should be Shadow Chancellor + target the next PM. Fox is wasted at Defence but did DC intend that?

The Big Men need to be in the Big jobs.

Dawn raids and Project Dave

2006-05-04T13:56:00.000-07:00

The perils of election day. Following a local party member thinking it was ok to slag off the Tory council whilst at the polling station, I subbed her in the telling process. This subjected me to 1.5 hours from the sitting Labour councillor about how Iraq war - bad, Polly Toynbee - good.

The TaxCutter was most impressed with the 4am Dawn Raid he soldiered in. But he still stresses that the Tory Party as a whole has got to move away from working safe seats (take a random example - er ... Hampstead Garden Suburb) when key marginals need help.

On the doorstep, I noted no enthusiasm for Project Dave, the few comments on DC were negative. Maybe the public are ahead of Dave, its the economy that counts most, and Dave's not yet got any ideas, let alone big ones, on it.

ECJ - the anti-tax competition agenda

2006-05-02T11:57:00.000-07:00

The Advocate General's opinion in the Cadbury Schweppes case was published today. This latest dent in the UK's rights to set its own tax laws concerned the choccie and soft drink makers moving activities to Ireland to benefit from the lower tax rate, and whether the UK rules that seek to subject income arising in tax-havens to UK tax are against the EU Treaty Freedom of Establishment. The European Commission was on the opposite side to the UK government in this case. Guess what, the AG held in the Commission's favour!

AG Leger, pictured here, showed a typical Brussels statist attitude as he sought a way to attack tax competition. To quote -

"It may be regrettable that [tax] competition operates between Member States in this field without restriction"
"The fact that that tax system may also be classified as State aid incompatible with the common market...."
"However, the harmful effects of a total absence of harmonisation of the rates of taxation of company profits call, as we have seen for a political solution..."

The TaxCutter suspects his views are all too prevalent among Brussels judiciary. The most harmful tax measures in the EU are the stonking tax rates applied to income and corporate income by Old Europe, causing the EU to have the lowest economic growth in the OECD. Indeed, just what is the UK doing having a tax system that treats Ireland like it was some Cayman style offshore-tax haven.

Should a foreigner be England's Financial Manager?

2006-05-01T03:41:00.000-07:00

The fuss about whether the England football manager should be English, raises an interesting question - should the British Chancellor of the Exchequer actually be British.

There are a number of Eastern European, Irish, Australian and American politicians who have had great success in increasing economic growth, improving inbound investment and cutting and simplifying their tax system and would be ideally qualified to improve the UK's financial systems.

Maybe we could learn from them, eg that economic stablility and tax cuts are not mutually exclusive.

Abortionomics - a rogue taxcutter explores the hidden side of every PC argument

2006-04-30T10:03:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately the TaxCutter was conned into purchasing this standard analysis of US government statistics. Why is it so lauded? My hunch is its due to the claim that abortion reduced the US crime rate but funny how that's not mentioned on the cover or the tubewide marketing blitz .

Levitt's main claim is that the reduction in US crime, especially in New York, in the mid-90s came off the Roe vs Wade case in 1973 as fewer persons likely to commit crime were born. Levitt gives some credit to the increased use of prison and greater policing. No credit however is given to Guiliani's Broken Window theory of policing, credit that Levitt says was due to legalised abortion.

Error 1 The TaxCutter reckons that crims start activities from 12 and go on to about 30 - based roughly on his former classmates. Several states had legalised abortion before 1970. States had legalised abortion post 1973, so hence crime using Levitt's own theory should have started falling between 1982 and 1985, not the mid 1990s, when the aborted future criminals would have become active.

Error 2 Levitt's claims that the number of future murderers aborted has actually saved lives when you net fewer murder victims versus aborted foetuses. This is on the assumption that 1 newborn baby = 100 foetuses (page 144 of Penguin paperback). Hang on - by my reckoning 4 out of 5 foetuses become newborn babies. If we take a foetus that is 20 weeks old, then the chances of it becoming a child are even higher than 80%. Us accountants might in cold terms discount the foetuses a bit for the fact they are on average 4.5 months further away from a productive living. But that leaves us with a far more realistic stat that 1 newborn baby = approximately 1.25 foetuses.

Contradiction - Levitt assumes that those who have abortions are more likely to have criminally inclined children because an unwanted child is neglected to it is more likely to become criminal, basically the "every child must be a wanted child" argument the TaxCutter used to hear belted out at NUS conferences. There is no evidence produced of which sort of people have abortions. When writing on education, Levitt claims that parenting is overrated - who your parents are is more important than what your parents do.

Missing analysis - Crime fell more quickly in states that legalised abortion earlier. Curiously enough, this includes states with more crime and greater urban areas in the first place.

Levitt does not examine what drives crime. The TaxCutter's police and prosecutor friends point out that about 90% of UK crime is heroin-related. For the US replace heroin with crack and its probably about the same. The early to mid-90s saw a dramatic reduction in the price of crack-cocaine in the US. The addicted criminal commits crime to get their fix. If we assume that each burglary / mugging etc has a relatively standard financial reward then what we find is that the addicted need to commit fewer crimes to find the funds to fuel their habit + hence cheaper drugs mean fewer crimes.

Don't buy this book - it will be readily available in charity shops for 50p in a couple of years time!

Will Clarke admit his errors and resign?

2006-04-28T11:22:00.000-07:00

Its about time that Rushcliffe got a new MP

Tesco finest

2006-04-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

From media, and CCHQ reaction, you would think that the British public is kidnapped and transferred en masse to Tesco stores every weekend. There can be few better signs of the media's dreadful grasp of business than the criticism Tesco receives for making profits.

Tesco, and its US counterpart, Walmart, are capitalism at their finest. By delivering what the public wants at a competitive price, they have improved life for ordinary souls, and tackled inflation, far better than any family tax credit.

Long may they live without Office of Fair Trade intervention!

Local Income Tax - its still Minging

2006-04-25T14:02:00.000-07:00

It takes a certain type of political mind to create a local government policy that would screw up the National economy. And not realise despite a mountain of evidence, and 20 years, that its fundamentally flawed.

The best estimate for the Local Income Tax is an 8.5% rate. So it would increase marginal tax rates in the UK from 22% and 41% to 30.5% and 49.5%. Yet study after study shows that higher marginal tax rates reduce economic growth, even Lib Dems should have the sense to know that less reward means less effort. The inevitable consequence - less growth, hence less tax revenues - a local income tax would make the National government short of cash, let alone local authorities.

The LibDems are in the middle of a review of tax policy. If the review wants credibility, it will conclude as the OECD and IMF do that taxes should have a broad base and a low rate. Which cancels out the rate hike their local income tax would effect ......... the Clause 4 of the Orange bookers?

Q- When is £4bn worth more than £7.8bn?

2006-04-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

The Fossil Fuel Chancellor should work out that either or both of his tax system or his forecasters are wrong. Brown has Ballsed-up his corporate tax forecasts for the last 7 years, even with 2005's oil and equity price spikes. Yet he predicts £49bn of corporate tax will be paid in 2006, an amazing £14bn more than in 2004 and £7.8bn more than in 2005. But business doesn't want to be here anymore - life's too short for the UK's tax mazes.

The unjustfiable £7.8bn rise, in a tax that is less than 10% of total government revenues, is nearly double the £4bn of total tax cuts that Letwin + co reckon cost the Tories last May. So guys, how come no digs at Brown's sums?

The manifesto tax incisions, "cuts" would be hyperbole, didn't cost us the election. Voters will vote for tax cuts when they get offered cuts substantial enough to bother thinking about, in terms they understand. Which is exactly what combined 6 times winners Dubya and Howard did

This Tory House believes in Immigration - The proposer is?

2006-04-23T01:16:00.000-07:00

Why do so many on the Tory right, see today's example http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1759484,00.html , insist on statist controls on people, whilst advocating minimal government intervention elsewhere.

Can you think of a major UK politician, of any hue, who has recently shouted the benefits of letting more foreigners into the UK? The BNP's poll ratings increase for the simple reason that no-one is making a convincing case for immigration. Yet many of the public want that argument to be made -ask any educated bird under 40 why she didn't even think of voting Tory last year - immigration is normally the 1st thing mentioned.

As the ITEM club shows today, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-2147467,00.html immigration brings economic benefits to the UK. Anyone prepared to leave their own country and come to a new land is far more likely to be an entrepreneurial, risk-taking type that achieve than the stay-at-home merchants. Skills are imported that fill the gap caused by the leftist education policies that all UK governments have followed since the 60s. The cultural benefits are harder to measure but substantial, just look how cuisines distant 40 years ago are now firm favourites. And please cut the crap about immigrants being scroungers - many do jobs the natives consider themselves above.

In the US, George W Bush, former governor of a border-state, often makes the case for immigration. Note, Dubya wins elections.

Catch that on film...

2006-04-22T12:11:00.000-07:00

Like any good socialist, Gordon Brown rarely wastes a chance to patronise. Like lecturing the IMF on the perils of protectionism.

Yet Gordon has a giant anti-free trade measure in his own 2006 Finance Bill. Despite getting £66m of lottery money, Gordon will throw the film industry tax subsidies of more than £0.5 billion a year, but only for films that have "British" content. Wouldn't knocking 0.5p off the corporate tax rate have been far more sensible?

Film is frequently listed as one of Gordon Brown's favourite interests.