Evan's Thoughts

Ed the unread

2011-09-28T11:53:00.000+01:00

So, one of the big ideas of this Labour leadership is to use regulation and the tax regime to distinguish between the good and bad businesses. It may initially sound good but the obvious question is, 'How?'

Private Equity companies do not go into their business to take out the capital and then sell off an ailing business - that would be suicidal. They would make no money ... and so the business model would not work. To think that the people involved would intend to act in that manner is absurd ... that businesses make wrong decisions is a feature of business. The management of Southern Cross made foolish and mistaken decisions - they were lauded and praised - but with hindsight proved disastrous for them and their customers. How to you choose which is good and bad in advance ... if I knew, I would be very rich indeed. Politicians who think that they can use the regulatory or tax regime to choose in advance are delusional ...

This morning, I listened to Ed Miliband defending his ideas on Today (Radio 4) ... to be honest, he failed completely to answer the question, 'How?' His idea appeared to be, simplistically, that busineses that invest are good, businesses that merely take money out are bad - but his essential problem is that it sounds like an ignorant argument made by a rather ill informed and inexperienced teenager rather than the proposal of a serious politician.

I suspect that it was cynical too - made to appeal to prejudice and ignorance rather than based on a coherent idea or ideology. The truth is that the use of capital is what enables people to be employed in businesses and industries around the UK - it also enables investment in ideas out of which the employment of the future will arise.

We now have the most complex tax system that we have had in my adult life - possibly the most complex system anywhere in the world. Much of that complexity arose from the Labour's obsession with rules and the idea that rules and regulations could improve the lives of people. They created the complexity and we now live with it and its consequences. The problem for Labour is that it is the very complexity that is used by the very rich to reduce their tax liability - avoidance. They are the principal beneficiaries of the complexity brought in by Labour in government over the last 13 years. It is no coincidence that, while Labour supported those ideas, they received considerable support from the very businesses that Ed Miliband now appears to decry.

I believe this part of Ed Miliband's speech to be nonsense - almost laughable nonsense. As a consequence, the speech was absurd. Cute, populist, but absurd.

Finding the right (or is it the correct) centre?

2011-09-16T16:37:00.000+01:00

I have just read 2 interesting articles - one on Labour Uncut by Peter Watt (see here) and another in the Times by Philip Collins (see here, although you will need to pay to see this one).

These are interesting in that they attempt to describe what makes potential Government's electable. Peter Watt refers to the need to talk about electorate's needs, Philip Collins refers to the need to talk to the electorate's ambitions.

The problem for politicians, it seems to me, is that they are often framed by what others say about them. For the Conservatives, after Theresa May's famous speech, this was partly in the term 'the nasty party'. The party had spent so much of its time being described by its opponents as nasty that it had even come to accept that epithet itself.

Next we come to Polly Toynbee's assertion (apparently supported by research), that more intelligent people tend to be more socialist in their outlook. But at the same time, many simply see the Socialist agenda as one that tends to be corrupted by the needs and ambitions of those that command it - and thus both rapidly corruptable and corrupted.

Despite a healthy poll lead before the election was called, Neil Kinnock did not win the election in 1992 - John Major did. Personally, taking into account what others have said about that election as well as my own experiences, I believe that it was the perceived essential decency of John Major and, by comparison, the suspicions of Labour's intent and Neil Kinnock's abilities (whether true or not) that changed the position by the time of the election itself.

When 1997 came along, the perceptions had changed. The Conservatives had become divided and uncontrolled, it had had a torrid time with corruption allegations against individuals and charges that it was both incompetent and nasty as well - while Labour had undergone what was perceived as the 'revolution' to 'New Labour'. Tony Blair appeared to represent the aspirations of the electorate and appeared to have a vision of what he wanted to do to make things 'better'.

After David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservatives, perceptions began to swing again; but not by enough to overcome the electoral mountain that was required. While Gordon Brown and his Government had clearly lost their way, suspicions remained about the motives and intentions of Conservatives.

As a party we tried, almost to oblivion, the theory that we were not clear enough or right-wing enough in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. That simply did not work ... and neither should we expect it to. It is by appealing to people's sense that we can change things 'for the better' that we can succeed. If we merely read the music rather than interpret it in the most appealing manner for the electorate we shall not break through in 2015 (or earlier, if the Coalition falls apart) ... and we will again be dependent on coaltion or, worse, we shall not be in Government at all.

Moving forward will require a constant effort to demonstrate that we are the decent people that I believe that we are and that we have an idea of where we want to go, and more importantly, how we are going to get there. That means that we will have to confront and confound our opponent's portrayals of us - and that includes our Coalition Partners. We are, I believe, decent people, whose intentions are to improve the lot of the electorate through pragmatic rather than fixed ideological means. The essential pragmatism is a strength, but unless we can persude people that there are policies as well as pragmatism, it can also be a weakness.

David Starkey - Newsnight - 'Ratner moment'?

2011-08-15T11:24:00.009+01:00

How sad. It's not just that I disagree with David Starkey, it's that he has exposed himself to ridicule - which began whilst he was on air. He was wrong. So uncomfortable was I, I turned it off.

If we treat criminal behaviour as if it is a feature of a particular racial group, we ignore the progress that we have made in terms of treating people as individuals - a failure of which tends to be the result of what I believe to be an overly restrictive view of 'others' and 'difference'.

What is clear is that the recent riots in London (and elsewhere) were different - they did not appear to come from political needs; rather they appeared to come from criminal conduct and fed upon a sense of invincibility that comes from what has been described as the 'madness of crowds'. It was the senseless violence, the looting of goods that no one 'needs' (even if we aspire to have them or something like them), and the anarchic highs that depresses me most. The reason is that I don't think that there is any simple answer - and equating this to irresponsible bankers or MPs seeking to claim more in expenses than they are entitled to (leaving to one side the criminal conduct of some MPs for a moment) is simply daft.

That there are criminal elements in our society is not a revelation. We only have to read our papers and news feeds to know this occurs here and elsewhere. The failure of the Police to respond adequately and soon enough resulted in large numbers of people appearing to act out of base instinct. Moral direction, distinguishing between right and wrong and a sense of belonging to a community all but disappeared for those that took part. Some instantly regretted their actions - and they should be commended for that - but it is clear that we all have some thinking to do.

Silly season - mark 2

2011-08-02T11:19:00.000+01:00

George Monbiot writes an article that starts with some wonderful polemic nonsense.

"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich."

If you can bother to read the rest of the Monbiot's article, you can find it here.

The problems with that first paragraph include: -

That there are many more ways to cut a deficit and the extremes he proposes are at opposite ends of the spectrum - most sensible commentators would advocate a mix of both; but no, Monbiot chooses the extremes.

Raising taxes does not, on the whole, mean taking money from the Rich; however you may define the 'Rich' which, of course, is a debate in itself. On the whole, if you wish to raise significant sums of money, you will need to tax everyone who can afford it - and that means many people who are not rich. As I have repeatedly explained, the amount you could raise by confiscating the assets and income over a certain threshhold would not raise very large amounts of capital. This inescapable fact seems to escape many, particularly those whose agendas differ from my own.

Cutting taxes does not mean taking money from the poor, either. It can mean you reduce benefits, which would reduce such incomes, but it can also be acheived by rising economic growth (something that sadly appears to be lacking at the moment), but it can also be achieved by increasing efficiencies and reducing unnecessary expenditure that costs more than the benefits that are produced.

The absurdity of speakimg about bankers, arms companies, oil barons and farmers in the same derogatory manner merely exposes Monboit's own prejudices. Anyone who meets the average small holder and farmer from the hills and mountains of mid Wales will tell you that these are people who have, on the whole, struggled to make ends meet and who cannot be, in any sensble world, lumped in with the excesses of some parts of other worlds and industries. In addition, not all who work for the Banks have been at fault - do you really imagine that the vast majority of the RBS employees were in some way invovled in the excesses that led to the collapse of that bank?

As to the last sentence; state spending includes public goods - which involve no transfer of money from the rich to the poor, merely expenditure on things, such as Defence, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure, from which we all benefit. That the benefits bill in the UK has become too high appears to be something that both the main political parties agree - that it needs reform is common ground.

Polemic is a wonderful tool; but in this article, Monboit merely exposes his own prejudices and priorities rather than providing an illuminating and thoughtful commentary on the deal done by the US political parties.

The silly season in spades!

2011-08-01T09:49:00.001+01:00

In what must be the most stupid idea yet to come from a 'serious' politicial thinktank, Compass are proposing that there be a 'Jury' to police other bodies from MPs to Banks to the press 'in the public interest' - see here.

Notwithstanding that the Citizens' Jury has echoes of some of the worst excesses of the French Revolution, what on earth do these people think Parliament is for? The fact they believe that many of our MPs are not working adequately, does not mean that these MPs are not part of the Council of the Country; effectively a representative jury elected for the purpose. Why on earth do they believe that an appointed body of 1,000 would be or do any better? At least Parliament is democratic - and that is, to quote another, 'the least worst system of Govenment'.

Of course, what this elite really wants is a body that they dominate - to remove and reduce the opposition to their statist and interevenionist instincts. There does not appear to be, in my view, some individual and single cosy elite; rather there are numerous cosy elites that have different and differing agendas, perspectives and motives. The fact that this idea has surfaced, as opposed to being squashed as being the anti-democratic nonsense that it truly is, is indicative of the fact that this elite is rather small, self-satisfied and too cosy by half!

Calls for fiscal and politicial union in the EU

2011-06-28T09:17:00.000+01:00

Peter Mandelson wants closer fiscal and political union in the EU - see here. (The link is to the FT website - you will need to subscribe, and some limited access is free)

MEPs (with notable exceptions from the UK - both Labour and the Conservatives voting against) seek the introduction EU financial transaction tax - see here.

The European Commission is seeking to extend its remit into direct taxation in order to 'fund its commitments' - see here.

These are some of the continuing siren calls for political and fiscal union that we were warned about when the EU was created by the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht) and again with the Nice Treaty a few years' later. The problem for those that call for this is that it is pretty clear that the Germans have no appetite for funding further Greek bailouts, let alone for funding massive international transfers that would accompany the creation of full -blown EU superstate with political power and fiscal autonomy.

The problems with the Euro have been laid bare - the weakness of the controls were not considered really important in a time of boom in spite of the fact that they were important and we could all see the effects of that boom when Irish investors were using their homes as collateral for spending every increasing sums on property abroad - so feeding a property price bubble at home and abroad at the same time. When the crash came, the absence of real fiscal discipline on the part of some Governments and the failure of the ECB and other Euro member states to do anything about that absence has meant that the markets now require a large correction and probably a restructuring of the debt of those countries whose fiscal discipline was lacking.

I am sure that I have read somewhere that when the markets require a correction to policy, the problem is that the correction will be larger than the one objectively required to correct the policy as the markets are mean - and that in essence is part of the problem. Greek living standards are falling now - the fiscal contractions anticipated and required by the markets are going to increase that pressure on living standards. My instinct is that the pressure will continue until 'the valve blows'.

The reality is that there is no EU people - demos. There is no sense of identity with the EU - even those who are fervently in favour of the misuse of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome ('ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe) fail to believe in their hearts that they are EU citizens as opposed to nationals of their own country - they look at the project with political eyes and that is, I believe dangerous. It has led to the current parlous state of civic society in Greece and elsewhere.

Parliamentary privilege and court orders

2011-05-24T17:58:00.000+01:00

Parliamentary privilege is the privilege that members enjoy to protect them from the courts for the things that they say in the House. It is subject to rules and conventions so that members are not free to simply say anything they wish, but the place where they are held to account for the things that they say is in Parliament, not the courts.

Now we get to the interesting point - what about the MP that decides to expose the story anyway? Who polices that? The answer is pretty simple, it is policed by the Speaker of the House of Commons for MPs. He may look at the breach of the order as a breach of what MPs would call the Sub Judicie rule - or the convention that requires comity between Parliament and the Courts. The former would apply where proceedings in court are afoot, but the latter where there are, as yet, no proceedings.

Because of Parliamentary Privilege, the courts have no power to do anything about the MP's behaviour. It is for the ultimate court, Parliament, to act. Ultimately, the Speaker could name an MP, remove him from the sitting and members of the House could censure the MP.

John Hemming MP's first mistake, it seems to me, is to assume that he can simply ignore the rules and conventions of the House and deliberately breach a court order that he knows exists thus precipitating a constitutional argument between Parliament and the Courts.

His second mistake is that he appears to assume that the law that he is concerned with is 'Judge made'; it is not. For the reasons set out at the start of this, the law was made in Parliament, a Parliament that he is a member of although he was not a member when the HRA was passed in 2002.

Potentially the most damaging mistake that he makes - is that he does not appear to have a clue of where he is going. He appears not to consider that there may be very good reasons for there to be a requirement for 'super-injunctions'. He appears not to know that there are benefits for people to obtain 'freezing orders' in secret - so that a debtor cannot dissipate his assets to avoid creditors, for example - or that the best person to decide whether or not to grant such secrecy must be the Judge who hears the argument.

At the same time, there is no doubt that members of the Judiciary have been, in my view, insufficiently critical in their examination of some of the applications that we are hearing about in the news and they have granted injunctions in circumstances where I would have thought they wouldn't have - although it has to be said that I am not privy to any privileged information in reaching that conclusion and have only the various newspaper and other reports to guide me.

What next? The press wants revenge ... and the freedom to do and say what it wants, when it wants. That would be an absolutely disastrous outcome. Other privileges, such as legal professional privilege would suddenly become impossible to maintain against leaks - as it appears happened in the Trafigura case.

All this for the trivial tales about the sexual exploits of a few ... sensible reforms would include ensuring that the temporary nature of the orders is strictly enforced. Guidance should be given to tighten up the circumstances in which such orders are made and to ensure that they are only granted in cases where there are real risks, rather than the perceived risks of being shouted at on a football field.

The right to privacy and injunctions

2011-05-24T17:55:00.001+01:00

What the press refers to as 'the right to privacy' is contained in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights - but in fact it is merely a right 'to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence'. It is a qualified right. It can be interfered with so long as the interference can be justified and the interference is in accordance with legal principle. In addition it is a competing right, in that it competes with the rights of others to do and say things.

Before the Human Rights Act, Parliament had been resisting the creation of a 'privacy law'. There had been many calls for an introduction of such a law; and when the HRA was introduced, it was said that a privacy law was now being introduced, but there was no guidance, or detail provided as to how the courts should interpret the new law.

When considering an application for an interim injunction (which the so-called 'super injunction' is one species of), the courts will consider first whether there is a cause of action, second whether the damage can be adequately compensated for in monetary compensation and third where 'the balance of convenience' lies.

If someone does something that is of its very nature 'confidential', there is prime facie a cause of action for breach of confidence if they decide, unilaterally, to expose the confidential material to others. Can that breach of confidence be compensated for in damages? Often, the answer to this is simply, 'No'; as assessing the damage will be very difficult and monetary compensation cannot provide an adequate remedy for the exposure of many confidential things. Where is the balance of convenience? Does it favour the person who seeks to expose, or the person who seeks to maintain the confidence? The answer is pretty obvious ...

Now add the Article 8 right to the mix; the right to protection of the privacy will for the temporary injunction trump the right to publish.

So for a temporary order, pending trial of an action for breach of confidence, the judges will almost always go for the status quo and order the confidence to be protected. But it is temporary ...

Having written that, often what happens is that having obtained the temporary order, the claimant has no incentive to proceed with his litigation and the defendant loses interest in the story that he or she wishes to expose ... and so we end up in the rather bizarre position of a temporary court order having the effect of ending the dispute.

Rape

2011-05-18T15:35:00.000+01:00

'Rape' is in the news - first is the accusation against the Managing Director of the IMF and second is the furore surrounding Kenneth Clarke's comments on Radio 5 Live.

No-one studying law would consider rape to be anything other than an offence of violence. If there is no honest belief that consent has been given, the violation of another is, of itself, violent. The problem that appears to arise is the confusion between the offence and sentencing of the offender.

The press reporting of the offence is so often tied up with the sentencing - and Victoria Derbyshire's comments in the Kenneth Clarke interview typify the confusion.

When it comes to the trial and conviction of an offender, the absence of an honest belief in consent is what matters. In some cases, consent cannot be given - for example, where the victim is underage - but the fact that consent cannot be given does not reduce the gravity of the offence itslef.

When it comes to sentencing, the fact that the victim was just underage and the offender just over it (for example) and the victim has given consent (in a non legal sense) would be relevant to sentencing - but not to conviction.

We need to remember that the circumstances surrounding offencers will be infinite and that each offence depends on its own facts ... and we should distinguish between the offence and the appropriate sentence.

The results are in and the post-mortems will begin ...

2011-05-06T18:38:00.001+01:00

Interestingly, the mainstream media is concentrating on the apparent collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote at local level and the startling victory of the SNP in Scotland ... but while the 'media narrative' is always fun to watch, what is really happening?

I cannot claim to be any more informed than anyone else, but it seems to me that during the last 30 years or so there has been a build up of 'tactical' voting. Not merely people who consciously decide that they will vote for someone because their preferred candidate cannot win, but quite large numbers of people of have persuaded themselves (often on the basis of a perception that a particular candidate is closer to their outlook than the other leading candidate) to alter their vote and stick with that alternative as voting for another candidate whose views and outlook may be more closely aligned with their own has no chance of being elected ...

Much of that 'tactical' voting has been added to (not necessarily directly) by the simplicity of some of the messages that have built up over the last 30 years - the claims that Conservatives (usually referred to as 'Tories') are not merely nasty but they are fascist and evil too. On the other hand, there are many who will simply assert that their opponents are naive and foolish to expect something different and or are stupid too.

Of course I would say that the characterisations are simply wrong ... and that no-one I know personally (of any party) is actually nasty, displays any fascist tendencies or is evil (to any extent at all). They often agree as to what is wrong but disagree as to how to change things; and the prescriptions can be startlingly different.

What I wonder is this ... to what extent is the apparent collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote a feature of an unwinding of the tactical vote that has been building up over my adult lifetime? It is interesting that the vote in Brecon and Radnor for the Labour party has grown a lot (up over 8%) while Kirsty Williams' vote has fallen by something slightly more than that. I haven't had time to look at the results elsewhere, but I wonder ...

Why I will vote against AV

2011-04-12T18:28:00.000+01:00

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Western Mail about AV. It was published earlier this month ... you can find it by going to the letters page of the Western Mail website for 1 April 2011.

What really troubles me about the debate between those advocating that we change the voting system to AV and those (including me) who say we shouldn't adopt AV, is that the some of the debate appears to be dominated by the sort of 'you are a liar', 'you are disreputable' and 'your funders are awful' accusations that I had hoped would not be used.

The reality is that whether you choose to vote for AV or not, the idea that it is a 'fairer' system than that we currently used is, in my view, simply silly. The problem for me is why should my second, third, fourth, fifth or even lower preference be decisive over your first preference? That's not fair. It isn't just.

What the proponents of AV appear to say is that if you can express a preference, you can vote for the people you like in order and avoid tactical voting - but isn't the reality of Australia (one of the few countries to use AV) that there is even more tactical voting as supporters of individual parties are told by psephologists employed by the parties how to use their preferences tactically so as to benefit an individual party ...

We are told that the vote in 1992 (and at other times when the result is closer) would probably have resulted in a hung Parliament (had AV been used). The result of hung Parliaments is the haggling behind closed doors becomes the important part of the formation of Government rather than the election itself. This means that rather than having manifestos to choose from, we will end up with the senior politicians (numbering very few indeed) deciding behind closed doors what the program for Government will be. This isn't going to enhance engagement or democracy ... it is going to increase the power of the parties at the expense of backbenchers and of voters.

Even the claim that MPs will have to win the support of over 50% of the vote is wrong - because there is no requirement to cast preference votes for all, the claim is mathematically wrong.

It is inevitable, I suppose, that it is the sensational claims that will hit the headlines. It is also inevitable that the claims made will be, in some respects, exaggerated and wrong. Finally, I suppose it is inevitable that when a technical change is proposed that it is difficult for use to find methods to get people enthused about the vote - but I am sad that parts of the debate has centered on contested claims about the cost and rather silly claims about the alleged fairness of AV over the current system.

Many of those that are claiming to want AV, want nothing of the sort - they want a proportional system of voting. But that is simply not on offer, and so they claim to want something they don't really want, simply because they see it as a stepping stone to something else. It is true that this is a debate that people outside Westminster really aren't interested that interested in ... as a result, I suspect that we shall see record low turnout and it will be those who get their vote out that will win. For the reasons that I have set out, I sincerely hope it will be rejected ...

Things to mourn ...

2011-04-05T18:42:00.000+01:00

Oliver Letwin was doorstepped today about things that he is supposed to have said ...

You can watch the video here: -

Oliver Letwin hasn't denied that he made the statement he is claimed to have made .... which is rather odd ... what he has said is that he doesn't comment on private conversations. From my knowledge of him (which is limited to meeting him on a few occasions), I suspect that he did not ... but what would I know?

One of the great sadnesses of modern politics is that our politicians have to become more and more lawyerly in their responses to questions even in private conversations. Recordings are made - witness Gordon Brown's offensive error in the election campaign last year. In this case, the comment appears to have been written up by someone who should know better ... he being a politician too!

We need to find a happier medium - where context is admitted, where errors are made and apologies accepted, where private conversations are capable of remaining silent. Sadly, I suspect that in the increasingly fast world that we inhabit this will be impossible ... and the result is that colour is lost, the characters will merge ...

Talking of sad things, Brynle Williams died this week.

He was a warm and open man who looked for the good in others. He was accepting of difference both in opinion and experience and he valued friendship from everywhere.

One of the things that I will remember is that he had a tendency to start a conversation from the place that you had left it last time - regardless of when that last time was!

He was fun to work with and I, along with many others, will miss him.

What is the alternative?

2011-03-29T13:28:00.000+01:00

I don't know about you, but I am confused. Very confused. I hear the TUC and what appears increasingly to be merely it's political wing, the Labour Party, calling and even 'Marching' for what they describe as 'the Alternative', but I fail to understand what it is that they want.

Ed Miliband appears to liken this campaign against the reductions in expenditure to the campaign by women suffragettes, the campaign for civil rights in the US and the campaign against apartheid in South Africa ... patently absurd hyperbole; but then what else is he to do? He's the leader of HM Loyal Opposition, he has to say something ... it may as well be patent nonsense and trying to explain what his alternative is clearly beyond him.

Ed Balls appears to have reversed his position on the deficit and now appears to believe that there is no structural deficit and that the answer to the problem of Government spending exceeding Government revenue is to increase Government spending ... so the Government spent more than it received when the good times were here and the answer is to spend even more now that we are in difficulty; not sure I understand that at all.

The TUC, looking at the website they set up for the so-called 'March for the Alternative', appear to believe that the answer lies in taxing the rich and getting big companies to pay more tax, in the creation of a Robin Hood tax and where 'we strain every sinew to create jobs and boost the sustainable economic growth that will generate the prosperity which is the only long term way to close the deficit and reduce the nation's debt'.

The last of these makes some sense - and in reality it is what all Governments are hoping for; and this Government is, in its own way, formulating policy towards what it sees as that goal. Blandishments are fine in so far as they go ... but they don't answer the question; what is the alternative?

A financial transaction tax has been doing the rounds since the 70's. The only place where it has been tried, Sweden, was pretty much an unmitigated failure. The US attempted something similar with a withholding tax on currency transactions that led to the massive boom in the currency market in London and the creation of what has been described as the 'Eurodollar' market ... so that went well!

As to getting the rich to pay more tax - whether companies or individuals - sadly for the proponents of higher marginal tax rates, the most interesting data concerns the massive increase in the amount of tax paid by the richest in the UK when the top rate of tax was reduced first from 83% (and a 15% surcharge for so-called 'unearned income') to 60% (in 1979) and then to 40% (in 1988). This is both as a proportion of the total tax taken and in terms of the sums raised. Interestingly, this was reflected by the experience of other countries who reduced top marginal rates of tax and saw revenues rise as a result ...

As to tax avoidance, nothing is as simple as those who would like to portray it. If you set a law, people at the margins will be treated unfairly - ask the person who earns just over the thresh-hold of the higher rate or the new 'Additional rate' (50%) about how fair the incidence of tax is on them as a result of how the rate is set and in particular how the removal of allowances/tax credits affects them?

The truth is that it is in simpler and probably lower tax rates that higher compliance and less incentive to avoid will be achieved. There will be some harshness at the margins, but if you want to prevent situations where a bank can set off the capital gains it makes on the sale of a subsidiary when it increases the capital it holds, then it would probably make sense not to make specific rules allowing companies to do precisely that ... and there is no point in blaming the current Government for that one - that was done by Gordon Brown with Ed Balls egging him on ... to quote Michael Heseltine; 'it may be Browns, but it is all Balls!'

I'm back ... and will try to write a blog entry every Tuesday

2011-03-29T09:44:00.000+01:00

I've been away - work has been busy and time has run without a blog from me. This is not because there is nothing to write about; nor because I have lost interest; it is simply that I lost the habit for a while ...

For now, I propose to write an entry about something that happened in last week - once a week. Today's blog entry will be posted this afternoon. If you're still reading, see you then!

Tax and money

2011-02-01T11:11:00.000Z

In all the commentary on tax, what appears to be missing is some essential reality. If you increase the threshhold at which tax starts to be paid, the sums lost to the revenue in terms of income are relatively large for relatively small changes in the threshhold rate. So, the increase announced last year will cost the revenue a relatively large sum of money.

If you reduce the threshhold at which the top rate of tax starts to be paid, then the sums gained by the revenue are relatively small for relatively large changes in the threshhold rate. So the reduction announced last year will raise a relatively small sum of money for the revenue.

The problem is that there are very large numbers of people who pay the lower rate of tax and considerably fewer people pay the higher rates of tax - remember that you are in the top 10% of earners if you are paying the top rate of tax - over about £40,000 per annum.

So when someone says to you, that we could reduce the impact by raising tax for the richest - the simple answer is to ask which richest? By how much? And, how much can you and will you raise by your proposal? The problem for most of us is that we think anyone who earns more than us is rich and that we are average - and that applies to the banker and the lawyer who works in the City as much as the doctor or the headteacher, many of whom will fall into the top 3 or 4% of earners in the country.

Blogs losing the plot ...

2011-01-19T14:27:00.000Z

Labour Uncut - "This is the most destructive administration since Pol Pot. It isn’t killing professionals and the middle classes, but it is so damaging their lives and the chances of their children that it’s the British equivalent to wholesale slaughter."

So the real terms reductions (and actual increases) in Government expenditure over the next 4 years is apparently equivalent in its damaging effects to the wholesale slaughter of millions of people in the infamous killing fields in Camodia ... really? This isn't polemic, it's absurd.

Liberal Conpsiracy - "Israeli activists have written to telecoms company BT about their complicity in breaches of international law and human rights abuses today.

The letter comes on the anniversary of BT partnering with an Israeli company that provides services to illegal settlements in Israel."

So some in the UK think that we should boycott BT because it has links to an Israeli company that supplies telecomms services in Israel and to the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. As if it were the supply of telecomms services that makes those settlements possible ...

Preaching to the converted?

2011-01-13T11:00:00.000Z

Yesterday, I went to a meeting of Conservative and conservative minded bloggers and twitterers and listened to some of the developments that are taking place in online political campaigns.

One of the things that I am beginning to notice about the online political comments that I read is that if you go to Liberal Conspiracy you will see very few comments disagreeing with the concerns or standpoint expressed in the article. The same appears at ConservativeHome, Paul Staines's Guido Fawkes and increasingly in the comments written in the Comment is Free section of the Guardian.

I have to say that having spent rather too much time reading what others write on the Internet, I am beginning to see an increasingly polarisation of debate and discussion - and any attempt at engagement is often responded to with abuse, ridicule and accusations of the worst sort. Is that what we want from the Political Internet?

I know, I have said similar things before, but it does worry me ... because I believe that it is through real engagement and debate that we get to know what others actually think and believe and if we lose that engagement and debate all we will be left with are the prejudices and prejudgments - and at worst this is limited to those on the right being 'stupid' or 'evil'; those of the left, 'stupid' (again) or 'fascist'.

In the rather absurd discussion about the perceived abuse of particular words - the use of military or hunting language in the debate is the current bugbear of some of the more absurd commentators in the MSM following the appalling events in Tucson - are we missing something really interesting? That if the users and readers of the more popular blogs and other Internet based political comments are only listening to those that they agree with and if the producers of those blogs and comments are only talking to those who agree with them; then the engagement and debate disappears altogether.

Is this honest?

2011-01-05T10:27:00.000Z

Sometimes we look at poilitical advertisements and assume that what they say is correct - in the current campaign by 38 Degrees, they have published an advertisement that seeks to draw attention to what they see as 'tax dodging' and the contentious claims made by Richard Murphy and others (often on Richard Murphy's assumptions) that it costs the Revenue some tens of billions in lost taxes - now that may be a political aim that you support or it may not, but that is not what I complain about today ...

Here is the advertisement that I consider to be misleading (at best) -

Now most of the advertisement is fine - but then there is the assertion that George Osborne is 'also dodging £1.6 million of tax himself.'

Now this allegation appears to be based on the assertions (not denied, I hasten to add) that George Osborne is the beneficiary of trusts set up by his father and into which his father has transferred shares in the company that father set up and ran/runs. If that is the basis on which the allegation in the advertisement is made, then to assert that George Osborne has done anything to 'dodge' tax is to confuse father with son - as a result, the allegation that George Osborns is 'also dodging tax himself' is both misleading and, in my view, dishonest.

George Osborne has, on the basis of those bare facts, done nothing personally - he may well be the beneficiary of a measure taken by his father to reduce tax on father's death, but there is simply no basis from those facts which can be reasonably taken to show that George Osborne has done anything at all, let alone 'dodged tax'. This is not mere semantics - as the allegation in the advertisement is that George Osborne has done something to reduce his tax liability - and unless the facts underlying this allegation are very different to those in the public domain, this allegation is untrue.

I have telephoned 38 Degrees from the link in their website, to ask for their comment. They took my name and number and I will post their response when I receive it - I suspect that I will live in hope, but we'll see.

Secretly recordings MPs' surgeries

2010-12-22T10:25:00.001Z

The thing that immediately struck me about the Telegraph's latest scoops is that the recordings taken by its journalists were taken at a meeting at a Constituency surgery - and I am worried about this development.

Surgeries are used by MPs to allow constituents to discuss issues with them. In many cases, constituents will come with private information and be entitled to expect their information, even that they have been to see their MP, in confidence. It is true that privilege does not attach to such meetings, but a court will be very reluctant to require an MP or constituent to disclose details of what has gone on in such a meeting.

Here, the journalists appear to have posed as constituents and gone to the surgery and then flattered to MPs into saying things that do not appear to have been strictly relevant to the issues being raised by them as alleged constituents - recording the discussion secretly.

How that fits with the entitlement to privacy protected by the Editors' Code of Conduct, I am uncertain, but as Jonathan Isaby notes, it does raise questions about other aspects of the Code - and in particular the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge.

As an MP's links with his constituents is of significant and, in the modern world, constitutional importance; a further thought arises. What effect will this intrusion have upon the ability of MPs more generally to conduct their private discussions with constituents? If there is such an impact, could this amount to a contempt of Parliament itself? I don't believe that this is merely a question of Editorial propriety or political indiscretion; the manner in which the Telegraph and its journalists have behaved could have a profound impact on the manner in which MPs and their constituents communicate - and not in a positive way!

A response to claims of 'astroturphing'?

2010-12-14T10:55:00.000Z

George Monbiot has written an article in which he has set out an argument about how he believes that some people use forums and comments on the Internet to advance a particular agenda that he disapproves of and that 'like minded' people should think of ways to deal with that - see the article here.

Basically, he appears to want to open up the debate with people that he agrees with - rather than with people who disagree with him. He accuses this he opposes of 'being organised'; as if organisation for a particular viewpoint itself was a 'wrong' - but at the same time he then seeks to organise resistence to the views that he opposes.

Experience tells us that there are some who will use the Internet to abuse others - even to lie and libel others. Such abuse will need to be dealt with properly and proportionately, but to respond to argument, even organised argument, by refusing to engage is both divisive and potentially dangerous.

Divisive because if we don't engage with those we disgaree with, then we will never learn about their views and motiviations - we will never develop ideas and thoughts through engagement and we will never grow to understand that others disagree with us for perfectly reasonable reasons and with thoughts and ideas that are as valid as our own, even if we disagree when them.

Dangerous because the more and greater the division, the refusal to recognise that others disagree with us leads to a potential for misunderstanding and suspicion that helps no-one.

It is not for nothing that the extremes of political views (on all sides) are very often punctuated by a belief that those that disagree with you are in some way less able, less intelligent, less informed or even less human.

George Monbiot needs to remember that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

The absurd in response to the difficult

2010-12-09T16:50:00.000Z

Matthew Pitt writes in the blog that advertises itself as being 'evidence-based' Left Foot Forward about the proposals for tuition fees.

In his article, he claims that the Conservative website 'Tuition Fees - The Facts' is 'distorting' the position - yet in his article he claims that it will take 510 years to repay the £27,000 that he claims will be incurred as a result of the proposals for reforming the tuition payments.

It appears that he has completely forgotten/ignored that (1) there is a proposed cap of £6,000 unless the individual university demonstrates sufficient merit in terms of providing additional funding and widening access for poorer students.

It appears that he has completely forgotten/ignored that (2) any debt remaining outstanding after 30 years will be written off - in other words the student who doesn't earn enough to repay the debt over 30 years will be forgiven what remains (even if it is the entire sum) after 30 years.

Now I don't know about you, but complaining about repaying debt over half a millennia or even over a lifetime and referring to life expectancy, when if you look at the policy and see that the repayments will only ever occur over 30 years (which is in itself a very long period - longer than the standard mortgage term of 25 years) rather undermines the claim to base your view on evidence.

Labour introduced variable tuition fees in England in 2004 - they only got their way with the support of Scottish Labour MPs (whose own constituents were unaffected by the proposals - so highlighting one of the anomalies created by Labour in our constitutional settlement). Now they appear to oppose them in their entirety - see Sadiq Khan's letter on the subject this month. What the critics of the Browne report and what Labour appear to have forgotten is that with the increase in the number of students attending university, the ability of the public purse to bear the cost of that attendance is limited.

I know, they claim that closing the tax loopholes will solve the ills and fund it all - but the reality is that even if you confiscated all income over, say, £100,000, the amounts you would actually raise would be very limited - and in doing so you would be forgetting one of the lessons of tax history that when the rates were reduced to 60% and then to 40%, the top 10% of earners actually increased the amount they paid to the Revenue in direct taxes with each reduction.

The difficult question that Labour needs to answer, with credible proposals (rather than the fanciful ones dreamed up by Richard Murphy and the TUC), is how do we get Government expenditure under control and how do we fund an ever increasing number of students attending university? When in Government, Labour did the opposite of what they appear to now propose - if indeed Ed Miliband (on yesterday's PMQs) and Sadiq Khan's letter do reflect what they actually believe.

On tuition fees, the position adopted by Labour now is absurd; the position of the Liberal Democrats in opposition was also absurd; the position adopted by the Coaltion is that which Labour would have adopted had they been in Government - and sometimes the difficult position is the one to adopt; even in the teeth of vocal and sometimes violent demonstrations.

Simon Heffer's view of the Constitution

2010-12-01T17:07:00.000Z

Simon Heffer has written an interesting article in today's Telegraph in which he says that the idea of collective responsibility is being abandoned by the Coalition and as a result the Coalition is abandoning the constitution.

The difficulty with his argument is that, it seems to me, the Government of the day continues for so long as it has a support of a majority in Parliament (for which read, the House of Commons). Ultimately, if the Government can still command that support when Ministers don't abide by the convention of collective responsibility in relation to one issue, then the Government continues, in our Parliamentary constitution.

Conventions are not binding; Parliament cannot bind its successors; Governments survive as long as they command the support of Parliament; these are 3 of the axiomatic rules of our constitutional settlement. That a Government decides that in relation to a number of issues (currently they appear to include the following: the bill that permits a referendum on the voting system; and reform of our constituencies and the bill to change the way in which students at our universities are funded) that the convention will not apply is not, in my view, 'ripping up our constitution'.

There are precedents in the votes of conscience that were permitted in relation to, for example, the abortion debates, that can be cited in defence of that charge. The strength (and weakness) of our constitutional settlement is that there are very few 'rules' that cannot be changed by a Parliament ... that is the essence of what is often called the Supremacy of Parliament.

Wikileaks ...

2010-11-30T17:40:00.000Z

Julian Assange wants you to believe that he is some sort of guardian and so he can choose what to publish and how to publish it and he is doing so in the best interests of everyone ... everywhere.

That people seem to agree with him and provide his organisation with documents on what appears to be an industrial scale is rather interesting ... but what does he want to achieve?

The reality is that his past is filled with the leaking of documents that are either Government documents or documents to which some sort of privilege attaches. Yet the Governments whose documents have been chosen are largely Western, democratic and, on the whole, free ... and the companies whose documents have been chosen are those who in the opinion of Mr Assange have 'committed a wrong or wrongs'.

You can read a biography of Mr Assange here.

If the biography on Wikipedia is true, then I would suggest that rather than being a guardian of any sort, Mr Assange has an anarchistic tendency that is, potentially, very dangerous.

The latest revelations may well set back diplomacy with the US for years. That Governments need to be able to talk frankly with each other is obvious. What may be less obvious is that, on occasion, they will also want to be able to talk secretly to each other - and that can enhance the security of us all. At the same time, if a Government is to be able to assess its counterparts properly, it needs to be able to have discrete and complete information from its envoys - and some of that information and the assessments will be unflattering at best. Is it really in the interests of the world that this information is published for all to see?

Looking at one example of the latest leaks, the publishing of discussions between the Chinese and America about the future of open wound that is the unfinished business in the Korean peninsula almost certainly puts lives at risk. What steps will China have to take to reassure the current regime in North Korea? Will that enhance the prospects for peace or put them back? What steps will North Korea take now that it will potentially understand that it no longer has the constant and unwavering support of China? We have just had the attacks on South Korean civilians ... what next?

Actions are said to have consequences ... I suspect that Mr Assange and his co-conspirators have not through the consequences of what they have done - or that they have and they don't care ... perhaps this is a case of 'publish and be damned' ...

Kettling ...

2010-11-29T17:12:00.002Z

During the latest round of student protests in London, the Metropolitan Police decided to restrain the movement of the protestors for fear of further damage to property and risk to people, whether involved in the protest and not - this form of riot control can be very uncomfortable and it has been called 'kettling'.

Some of the protestors call the technique 'absolutely outrageous' - but some commentators disagree, concluding that it is 'just boring, even for the police'.

The sadness of the criminal and violent acts that were committed by a not insubstantial number of people at Millbank two weeks ago is that the Metropolitan Police found themselves in the difficult position of having failed in their sometimes impossibly conflicting tasks of facilitating the legitimate (protest) while preventing the illegal (mostly criminal damage, but it does, on occasion, go further).

I am intensely uncomfortable at the thought that thousands of young people, including teenagers, can be held against their will without access to basic facilities for several hours, especially when the protests are taking place in the coldest period of the year ... it offends my sense that people should be permitted to protest as freely as possible.

But, and it is a big 'but', two weeks ago, the Police were faced by a protest where the organisers either lost control of their protest, or where they intended some in the protest to break the law ... and having experienced that, the Police have a obligation to see what they can do to prevent repetition.

I should add that where individual policemen (it tends to be men) indulge in violence themselves, then they need to be held to account for their actions; with swift criminal action being taken against them if necessary.

Students (indeed anyone) who protest(s) do not have the right to damage property belonging to anyone else. That some of the student leaders appear not to understand this basic proposition rather reduces the impact, both of the protest and of the student leaders themselves. The real cause of the change in tactics by the Metropolitan Police are the past actions of the protestors themselves and the failure of the leaders of the protests to control the message that they want to send and the manner in which that message is sent ... if they get their control structures right, then I suspect that the Police will not resort to 'kettling' the protestors who participate.

Ludicrous times 3 ...

2010-11-25T18:34:00.002Z

1. Silly UKIP MEP gets slung out for shouting Nazi slogans at silly Socialist MEP who regularly shouts, "Nazi!" at anyone who opposes him ...

And yes, it's also silly for the European Parliament to apparently permit the silly Socialist to insult others but refues to allow UKIP to do the same ...

2. Silly Tory Lord (to be) makes foolish comment about "breeding" ... and has to apologise ...

What was it about the upper classes producing heirs; the middle classes, families; and the lower orders breed? Stupid nonsense that deserves to be relegated to the realms of history ...

3. David Osler at the Liberal Conspiracy blog produces a daft entry about 'Eugenics and the Tory right' ...

while Paul Goodman produces an equally daft entry on the Conservativehome website entitled "Eugenics is the dirty little secret of the British left".

What on earth has happened?

North Korea has started shelling South Korea ...

potentially reopening the last of the live cold war conflicts, and our politicians and commentators are behaving like spolit children shouting about how the other side are the font of all evil! Ludicrous.

Interesting ... and funny

2010-11-24T17:49:00.000Z

Interesting

This article in Labour Uncut, by Anthony Painter, I found interesting ...

What do you think?

Funny

They don't pull their punches in Ireland, do they?

Hat-tip, vexnews.com

2 myths ...

2010-11-23T12:13:00.000Z

Yesterday, I watched an appalling television program that bore no reality to the army that I knew nearly 17 years' ago, let alone the army that I understand and believe exists today. The story was unreal, the plot absurd. The polemic disguised as a play about an 'accused' contained untrammeled violence and uncontrolled bullying that I simply don't accept existed in the infantry that I was a member of for 7 years.

The myth that this so-called drama perpetrates on the British Army is immensely damaging. When I came across bullying (which was the exceptional and rare) in my Regiment, I had the support of those more more senior to me to deal with it and remove it - and that was as a newly arrived 18 year-old subaltern.

The program led the watcher to believe that bullying is endemic and that war allows it to occur without redress or control from the chain of command. My experience tells me that the British Army cannot work like that: we depend on volunteers to join and teamwork to succeed. Effective leadership and teamwork cannot be built on brute force - it is built on respect and understanding, on 'service' and support.

That bullying and unacceptable conduct exists within a large organisation such as the Army is, sadly, inevitable. That it can take hold in such a way as depicted in this so-called drama is myth building of the worst kind. The BBC should hang its collective head in shame.

There are those in politics who disapprove of the Euro, and I am one of them, who are breathing a collective sigh of relief as we watch events in Ireland over the last week. But we should never confuse that feeling with something else ... and we do not celebrate the current crisis.

The reason we oppose the UK's membership of and submission to the Euro is because we do not believe that it is anything other than a political project ... the myth that it was purely economic is borne out by the current crisis - and many of those who supported the project tried to sell it as a purely economic project were either wilfully blind to the reality or were too keen to spin their way out of the truth.

But further myths are being pedalled. By far the worst is that the economic difficulties being faced in Ireland are in some way completely unrelated to Ireland's membership of the Eurozone. The asset price bubble in Ireland is entirely related to the fact that its interest rates and inflation were outside the control of the Irish central bank - one of the principle criticisms of the creation of the single currency was and remains that without the creation of a single economic Government with the sorts of powers to tax and put effective transfer payments in place, then some parts of the single currency areas will be in perpetual bubble while others in perpetual slump.

The asset price bubble in Ireland may well have occurred anyway; but its effect was increased by the fact that its currency could not appreciate against other currencies and its local inflation rate was too high and it could not use monetary tools to hold down the boom. The result was that when the bust came, it was bound to be bad ... and it is. The disaster may well affect us, so assisting in any way that we can is sensible ... but we should ignore the myths and accept that this is a political rather than an economic project and stay out.

"We borrowed to invest ... "

2010-11-15T18:31:00.000Z

Really? Will someone ask the next politician who says this how they define 'invest' please?

When I wrote this article about Gordon Brown's record in December 2007, I said that I was unhappy with the use of 'investment' when what is really being described is 'expenditure'.

The reality is that after 2001, Labour spent and spent even more money that it never raised in tax - and the rate increased in 2007, before the recession hit, and increased exponentially after the recession hit ... it is correcting that excess of expenditure over income that requires the fiscal retrenchment that is going to take place over the rest of this Parliament.

That politicians want to use language to sell their ideas and policies to people is unsurprising - but the reality is that they often simplify their language to a point where they stretch the words to a breaking point.

All politicians will do it ... and we need to point out when it happens - so here is a misused and abused word that irritates me a lot at the moment!

Voting prisoners - oh dear ...

2010-11-03T19:05:00.000Z

John Hirst comes across as a thoroughly unpleasant individual - and then you discover what he did to end up in prison and you are, frankly appalled.

But then we have to deal with the substance of the decision that Labour put off in 2005 and left to a later Government to pick up the pieces. Personally, I agree with the idea that people who breach the contract with the rest of us should have some of their rights removed - the obvious example is that they lose their liberty - and without more, I am content with the idea that they should have their rights to vote removed for the time they are in prison - but it is the blanket ban that has been deemed to be disproportionate in the Hirst case.

So what happens next? Hirst appears to claim that all prisoners should have the vote - but I don't think that is required. I understand that in other European jurisdictions, the Judge decides in each case whether the convict should have his right to vote removed - and that would certainly be compliant - although the guidance to the Judiciary may be susceptible to legal challenge - all the way to the European Court in Strasbourg.

It is true to say that in the 1960's the law that felons lost their right to vote was abandoned for a period - and it was in 1969 that the law was updated to take into account the fact that we no longer distinguished between felonies and petty crimes or misdemeanours and restated in the form that so offended the ECHR.

In the second consultation that was undertaken by Labour in office, the conclusion reached was that the preferred option of that Government was to remove the right to vote on the basis of length of sentence. You can read the report here.

The problem with that solution is that that may not comply either, although the author of the report appears to believe that it would comply - and that the only answer that would comply with the current understanding of the Strasbourg Court would be for the Judge to decide in each case whether the crime was sufficiently serious to justify the removal of voting rights.

I don't envy Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve in their task to find a way through this particular minefield. We already have the rather silly brigade jumping up and down and confusing, whether deliberately or simply in blissful ignorance, the EU and the Council of Europe (that body that is not to be confused with that other Council of Europe that is a part of the EU, of course) ... and that helps no-one.

Labour's argument on the cause of the deficit

2010-10-22T17:21:00.000+01:00

John Denham MP was on Question Time yesterday - you can watch the program here.

In the program he appeared to explain that the deficit was incurred as a result of the banking crisis - but if that is what he was implying, then that is essentially dishonest.

The reason that I say that this is dishonest is because the deficit is a result of Government expenditure exceeding Government receipts - and some of this is the result of the loss of receipts from Banking and a result of reducing receipts as a result of the recession in general - but the problem that the Government has to deal with is not the whole of the deficit, but the structural deficit.

The structural deficit is estimated at be between £60 billion and £100 billion a year - that is less than the deficit which is almost 2 times that. The problem with the structural deficit is that it is the sum that the Government would be spending in excess of receipts even if the economy was going well ... and that amount is extraordinary.

Interestingly, Caroline Lucas MP was also on Question Time decrying the actions being taken - but isn't this the same Caroline Lucas who was telling us until very recently that we should consume less and whose supporters were claiming that a recession would be 'good for us' as it would reduce our impact on the world!

A real difficulty with these arguments is that it will always end up being a 'what if' argument. There are real risks associated with the action being taken to reduce the structural deficit - but there are also real risks associated with doing nothing.

It is clear that people are confused about the difference between the national debt and the deficit. This is clear from a number of the questions asked on the program.

Polly Toynbee does what she always does and sets up straw men to put down. The Conservatives do not believe that a reduction in the number of people employed by the state magically increases employment in the private sector - that is an extremely false caricature (and I know that is tautologous).

Consequences of the CSR ...

2010-10-20T16:52:00.000+01:00

Well, now we know ... well, sort of know ... what is going to happen to Government expenditure over the next few years: how the hole in the public finances is to be filled.

And, to be honest, I don't believe that there is anything in particular to be very cheerful about. This is going to be difficult, but I hope that it will be less difficult that we were told to expect.

The Labour party and its supporters are going off at the deep end - and supporters of the Government appear nervous. There are definitely risks of adopting the approach that has been adopted, but what of the risks of not doing so?

George Osborne has been very clever in his presentation - in particular his explanation that the proposals are almost identical in extent to those proposed by Alastair Darling will make it very difficult for Labour, who appear to have no ideas at all, save to criticise almost every individual decision.

Alan Johnson was, I thought, rather weak; although the Government needs to be rather careful not to appear to be too bullish and he will, I suspect, grow into his role as Shadow Chancellor.

That absence of any real alternative proposals and it appearing that Labour is blamed by the electorate for its failings in Government that led to, at least in part, the need for fiscal restraint, will make for difficult times for HM Opposition. They need to evolve a narrative - quickly - or else they will be left behind.

Channel 4's Dispatches on tax avoidance

2010-10-19T10:40:00.000+01:00

I watched Dispatches last night on Channel 4. You can watch it here.

There are real reasons to constantly monitor the use made of policy to check that, in terms of the benefits, the costs incurred are worth paying - in tax terms, we should constantly review the use made of all measures that accrue tax benefits to ensure that the costs are worth paying. For this reason, my instinct is that the time for the distinction between residence and domicile for tax purposes is no longer fit for purpose and ought to be reviewed.

However, I have a real problem with the reporting by Anthony Barnett. The reasons for my concern fall into 3 parts.

First, no attempt was made to explain the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The simple description of efforts to mitigate tax liability was, without that explanation, a polemic whose intent was clear - to ascribe miserable and dishonest intent to those whose actions were criticised. That is not dispassionate journalism, it is cant.

Second, the people interviewed were mostly members of a left-wing persuasion - Richard Murphy, who is an advisor to the TUC and avowed Socialisit campigner, was interviewed without balance and without any effort made to explain who he was and who he advised and represented. The so-called 'Tax Justice Network' were also interviewed - and again, there was no description of their motives and motivation. The reality is that they are an organisation whose principle aim is to effectively ban tax mitigation and they treat tax mitigation as if it were both immoral and illegal - deliberately confusing the legal with the illegal.

Third, no explanation was made as to the tax consequences arising from the criticised decisions. So, for example, if I put money into trust for my children, the tax consequences of doing so, in terms of CGT paid now, was completely missing from the picture painted by Mr Barnett. The painting of one side - the avoidance in future - without explaining the cost now - for example, CGT - is, in my view, startling; and essentially paints a picture of the advantages without consideration of the costs.

Finally, I would add one point. On entering ministerial office, ministers are required to put their assets out of their control; and no credit was given to Mr Hammond, for example, for doing this - even if a brief explanation of this was given in the course of Mr Barnett's polemic!

Conference - thoughts on two themes

2010-10-05T18:00:00.000+01:00

I was in Birmingham on Sunday, but had to leave that evening ...

It was great to see friends and colleagues from all over the country again and it was interesting to see how some have changed ... both physically (I am thinking of the party worker who appears to be a fraction of his former self - he looks great) and in their approach.

Since then, I have watched and listened to what has gone on with interest. There are 2 themes that seem to recur in the discussion and debat in the press.

The first relates to the coming 'armageddon' in public services. I suspect that we shall all be rather surprised and that it will not be the 'armageddon' that our opponents hope it will be - after all, the expenditure as a proportion of GDP and in terms of money will be vastly greater than it was when the Conservatives were last in power, and it should be remembered that we will be returning to expenditure at a level that was last seen ... well, a few years' ago.

Related to that is the reorganisation of some of the public bodies that currently exist and the abolition of numerous quangos. The resignation of someone who appears to be accepted as an expert in the field of child protection is interesting and regrettable - but the argument that 'everyone who knows about child protection says that it is essential that the Child Expoitation and Online Protection Agency (CEOP) is independent of every other body' is neither informative nor persuasive. It is for those who wish this body to remain semi-independent (currently it is affiliated to SOCA) to explain why it would be better for it to remain semi-independent or become independent - and shouting that the proposal to take it into the new National Crime Agency 'endangers children' or is 'disgraceful' lacks that essential element. For those of us who visit this issue occasionally, it would be helpful for this to be explained ...

The second theme is the speculation about why the Conservative Party was not even more successful in the general election. Essentially there are three reasons trotted out - (1) the lack of coherenece in the campaign, (2) the failure of the Conservatives to adequately detoxify their brand and (3) the failure of the Conservatives to make any significant progress in Scotland and in areas of the UK where there are significant numbers of poorer people and people from ethnic minorities.

My own view is that the third is probably part of the first and second. The campaign did, on occasion, appear rather disjointed - but that as much the result of innovations in the campaign (the so-called 'Leaders' Debates') that were not really the fault of the Conservative Party as the result of anything done in and by the Conservative campaign itself.

The reaction of people to the expenses scandal and the appearance that politicians were in it for themselves made pushing a partisan message extremely difficult ... and possibly even more difficult than it was in the European campaign in 2009.

The economic situation was (and remains) dire, partly as a result of things done and things not done by the last Government - and although it is clear that the Labour party was and is (rightly in my view) blamed by the electorate for its part in the creation of the mess, it is also, I think, correct to say that the message being sold by us was too nuanced.

In addition, it is clear that there are significant numbers of voters, especially in areas where the Conservatives have not been competitive for many years, who have bought the message that the Conservatives are in it for themselves and their friends ... that the message is false doesn't matter. If we, as Conservatives, are not there to show that it is false, we leave the field to our opponents to define us and what we stand for. To that end we need to find ways to ensure that we start to sell our distinctive political message everywhere (again).

Finally, we should not forget that the campaign we fought was also extraordinarily successful - we achieved the biggest number of gains, in terms of seats won, that we have achieved in generations - and David Cameron is our Prime Minister.

An interesting week ...

2010-10-01T12:16:00.000+01:00

I've been in a trial this week and so have not devoted any time to blogging ... but I have kept my eyes and ears open.

Ed Miliband does not appear to have struck a convincing tack to the left of his party, however much his opponents may want him to be painted as having tacked that way. The 'red Ed' epithet is entertaining and potentially dangerous for him, but I am not sure that it will convince voters on the basis of what has happened so far ...

The fact that he appears to have been elected on the back of votes from the trade unions will increase suspicion among some - and the accusations that he and the Labour Party are 'in the pockets of the Unions' are merely a statement of the obvious. The Labour Party was born out of the trade unions and it is no surprise to me that as they find their attraction and usefulness to others reduces their ability to raise funds from others, their reliance on finding from the trade unions affiliated to the Party is not surprising.

He will have time, in the minds of the electorate, to make his mark. In that time, the reductions in expenditure will be proposed and start to be implemented by the Government. Labour and Ed Miliband will have the space to criticise what is done ... and in that space they will be alone. So, if he comes over well in that context and if people are receptive to the message against the 'cuts' that he sells and if he can overcome the difficulties that he will face in apparently refusing to explain what the alternatives are in a credible way, he will probably grow into place ...

But he does, in this image conscious time, have an 'image problem'. His history and experience are limited ... he sometimes reverts and talks in a language that is difficult to understand and lacks both clarity and credibility. His personality and persona is not known outside narrow circles ... and that gives him advantages and difficulties.

I don't know about you, but I shall continue to watch and see how things develop before I draw any conclusions about where the Labour Party's choice for leader take them. It is just too early to compare him with Hague or IDS ... he is a risk for Labour, but will it pay off? We shall see.

Labour's leadership election - a lost opportunity or something else?

2010-09-24T10:13:00.000+01:00

George Eustace MP for Camborne, Redruth and Hale and former 'Head of Media' for the Conservative Party has written an interesting article about the things that Labour has missed as a result of not having a leadership election that learned lessons from the Conservative leadership election in 2005 - see here.

I am not a spin doctor and have not been involved in communications for a political party, but I rather think that the Labour party may well have avoided some of the difficulties that the Conservatives faced as a result of their leadership election in 2005.

For example, the new Labour leader will be put straight into a party conference where, risky it may be, he (and I have little doubt that it will be a 'he') will spend the week in the spotlight with virtual wall-to-wall coverage on television, in the newspapers and on radio. When he is not being interviewed, he will be talked about - and that, if nothing else, will increase his standing in the public image. This is especially the case when a party conference is taking place, where opposing voices tend to be rather quiet if not silenced.

We shall see where it takes us, but do not be surprised if Labour receives a considerable boost in the polls after its conference, assuming it goes well - of course, the risk is that Labour's shadow Cabinet elections and disagreements between losing candidates for the leadership and the new leader may overcome the opportunity ... and so it rather depends on how hungry the Labour party and its members (especially its MP's) are.

Just watching ...

2010-09-23T17:19:00.000+01:00

I'm sorry if anyone has been visiting the blog, but I thought that I would take a short time out and watch and listen and read for a while.

I've been watching the Labour leadership contest with wry amusement ... the contest between two Milibands and two Eds and a couple of others has turned into a contest between two brothers with all the others striking increasingly demented poses to appeal to the core. That David has resisted the temptation to join in the march to the left is to his credit. Sadly, he still doesn't strike me as a 'Prime Minister'. As for Ed ... he's joined the march to the left, but has left himself quite a lot of wriggle room ... and his principle advantage in terms of the general public is that he has not had the high profile that his brother has had. As a consequence, I think the brother that has the potential to be most dangerous to the Government politically is the younger ... we shall find out on Saturday what the Labour party has decided.

I've been watching the Government evolve and argue. I've been alarmed at the use of hyperbole to attack the financial services industry and even capitalism ... I've been dismayed by the lack of bite in the attack on the Labour Party's dogma on the proposed 'cuts' ... and I've been disappointed by pace of change in the some of the ways in which our Government interacts with us.

Having said that, I understand that much of the hyperbole is just that ... 'all bark and no trousers' is the apposite expression, I think. No-one who has looked at the UK's economic history will disagree that there are aspects of markets that need to be regulated and controlled - and it should not come as a surprise that controlling the excesses of markets has been part of the legislative program of governments since ... well, you can almost pick a date. So, the idea of market regulation is not new ...

What is required is regulation that is effective and, at the same time, causes the minimum of disruption and cost to achieve its aim. So we should look at cost effectiveness when considering a regulation or regulatory proposal ... and only if the benefits outweigh the costs should the proposal be adopted.

A friend tells me that Vince Cable ought to have been Chancellor in the Coalition - but then he's a Liberal Democrat Councillor and it will not come as a surprise to him or to any readers to understand that I think that proposal is just daft ... we cannot afford our Chancellors to indulge their hyperbole in the way in which old Vince tends to; it frightens the markets in a manner that it not dissimilar to a wolf amongst the horses - and instability is not what is required now!

Blair's generosity ...

2010-08-17T10:25:00.000+01:00

Whatever the motives, whatever the spin, whatever the cynics may say, I have to say that I am really pleased that Tony Blair has decided to give the advance and proceeds from his memoirs to the British Legion.

I don't think that the donation is a cunning stunt or that is is a complicated tax avoidance scheme or that it is motivated by his wish to get into heaven and atone for his sins or that i is 'blood money' that seeks to remove or reduce criticism of his decisions past.

It is clear that the donation will cost him much less than the highlighted figure because of the tax relief that he will be able to claim - but that is a consequence of our tax system, not a consequence of his gift and he should not be criticised for that.

It is clear that his PR people have done their best to ensure that this story gains the preeminence that they wish - to maximise sales at the very least. Again, although I am exceedingly cynical about his motives most of the time, the beneficiary of this PR, if successful, will be the British Legion.

If you want to show your appreciation for what our servicemen and women do for us and on our behalf, and if you can afford to, please give something to this wonderful charity - the more the merrier!

Giving evidence before Congress ...

2010-07-23T12:24:00.000+01:00

Whatever the US sensibilities may be, the manner in which Congress conducts its 'enquiries' is completely alien to any sense of justice - one only has to consider the examination of Mr Toyoda or Mr Heywood to see that the questions are dominated by the needs of the mid term elections in the US and the political posturing of US senators and congressmen and women. Very few of the questions are directed at enquiring into the events that are being examined and most are closed questions that suggest that the aims are political rather than inquisitorial ...

Further, the decision to release a certain convict on compassionate grounds is entirely a decision for the UK - and in this case for the Scottish Minister of Justice. I have little doubt in my mind that the decision was taken on dubious evidence and the longer that the Al-Megrahi lives, the worse the evidence appears.

But we should not forget that the decision is accountable here and not in the US ... the representatives are accountable here and not in the US ... the conviction was by a peculiar Scottish Court and not an American court. The US could have sought to try Al-Megrahi ... the UK extradited him and he was tried pursuant to a special agreement between the UK and Libya. Whilst I understand and sympathise with the families of the deceased victims of this particular atrocity, their remedies are here, not in the US. We should not forget that some of families even doubt the conviction's basis in any event ...

And before the US starts to cry about US sensibilities and sentiments, one only has to consider for a moment the manner in which the US has behaved and continues to behave in its own interests to understand that the US is being somewhat hypocritical at best ...

Effective taxation ....

2010-07-16T11:51:00.000+01:00

I am persuaded that the UK Government cannot continue spending £4 for every £3 it receives by way of income - it is simply not sustainable. The irresponsible nature of the last Government in achieving this level of deficit has only served to increase our national debt to a level at which it will begin to affect our ability to grow - I remember reading that when a nation's debt exceeds a certain proportion of its GDP (some economists fix this at about 90%), then there is a corresponding reduction in the trend growth rates which has been estimated by some at 1%.

There are economic arguments to be made - but they are not enhanced by, for example, Danny Blanchflower asserting his own views as the 'correct' vision and anyone who disagrees with him as being a 'mad' or 'dangerous' 'zealout' or 'idealogue'. Equally, there are those on the other side of the economic argument who cry out in a similar fashion. Am I alone in finding the name calling irritating to the point that I simply refuse to listen to the argument made in that manner?

The problem in the UK is that we need to maximise income for the Government at a time when that income is reducing and we need to get a grip on Government exenditure at the same time - because the last Government irresponsibly and foolishly thought that it could maximise its political benefit by increasng expenditure at a time when its income was dramatically reducing.

Some will say, 'just tax the rich more' ... the problem for this argument is that there aren't enough 'rich' people who we can tax with effect. If you want to save raise really large sums of money, you cannot target the richest 1%, as they are so few in number that even if you confiscated their income above, say, £100,000, you would not increase Government income very substantially. Further, you need to define who you mean by the 'rich' - for someone on benefit, the 'rich' are people who pay tax on income - for those in the middle, the 'rich' are people who earn more than them - for those who are in the top 10% and who earn over about £40,000, the 'rich' are those who earn more than £100,000 - and so on ...

Some will say, 'close the loopholes' ... the problem here is that without specific proposals as to which 'loophole' it is impossible to know what the effect would be. If you decided to tax people on their worldwide income on the basis of 'habitual residence' and simply abolished the distinction between residence and domicile, how much would actually be raised and what would the cost be? I happen to believe that the benefit of having billionaires resident in the UK but domiciled abroad is marginal and so I would support a tax simplification measure that abolished the distinction - it would have the added advantage that it would place us in the same position as most other developed and developing tax jurisdictions.

Having written that, we have a system of taxation that allows for tax avoidance - tax mitigation - tax minimisation. Whatever we do, rich people (and many not so rich people) will use the services of accountants and lawyers and others to keep their tax liabilities as low as they possibly can - the higher the marginal rates of tax, the more use will be made of these services. Is there something morally wrong with people saying that they wish to pay no more than they are required to? I happen to think not - others will disagree. We have rules that limit and eliminate the power of schemes that are designed solely to reduce tax liabilities and I support those rules. The fact is that taxation is a legislated system of confiscation that is required to pay for public goods - and we can argue about the extent of the need for those public goods til the cows come home - and it is my view that it is simply not good enough for people to talk about evasion and avoidance in the same terms - there is a substantial difference between people honestly trying to ensure that they pay no more than they have to and people dishonestly evading their obligations to pay tax.

The problem arises that, at the margins, there will be argument: and people will want to test those margins, in court if necessary. If they are found to be wrong, then they will pay; both in terms of penalties and interest that the tax authorities are entitled to charge, and in terms of the costs of the litigation. That people want to test the margins is understandable - especially where the impact is substantial for them. I cannot see how their wishing to do so is wrong. They take on a risk and pay out if they are unsuccessful.

What we need as a country is not simply a 'fair taxation' system, but an effective one. Simplification is part of the process by which it will become more effective - but at the margins, particularly where there is a 'progressive' system (in the sense that marginal rates are increased as the sums involved increase), there will be elements of unfairness. That is an unfortunate consequence of all laws - and we need to remember that it was to meet the 'unfairness' of the common law that the laws of equity evolved.

Banks ... are exasperating!

2010-07-14T10:18:00.001+01:00

Sometimes people are frustratingly silly and sometimes they completely surprise you with their stupidity. Yesterday was a case in point ...

As some readers will know, I assist my Inn (one of the professional associations for barristers that I am a member of) and yesterday I was asked to speak to a student member of the Inn about her financial position.

In essence, having completed her courses, she found that she was unable to obtain a training position as a barrister and she has been finding it difficult to obtain a training position in the legal profession at all - and given the straightened times that we live in, that should not surprise people.

She had borrowed the money to pay for her courses from one of our biggest banks as a professional development loan and over the last 8 months or so she has been finding it impossible to discuss the matter with the bank because she simply finds that no one will talk to her or renegotiate the loan in anything like a sensible manner. During that time she has made over 200 applications for positions that she is qualified for - or for which she is more than qualified for - without success ... or sufficient luck.

Earlier this month, she received a 'final demand' before the matter was to be 'handed over' to debt collectors or solicitors. Her income is what she receives by way of Job Seekers' Allowance and her rent is paid by way of Housing Benefit. She told me that she had no assets or savings of substance (about £100). The demand from her bank was to repay the £23,000 that she had paid in full within 18 days 'or else'.

Now, I suspect that there are many people in this sort of position, so I thought that we would talk to someone at the bank and see what could be done. We explained to the person that we spoke to that she had no assets and that her income was limited to JSA and that she would afford to pay £15 per month until such time as her financial position changed - and I listened in astonishment as I was told that there was 'nothing that the Bank would do'.

I explained that the consequence of taking proceedings against her may well be to reduce or even eliminate her prospects of becoming a lawyer (as a result of professional rules of conduct) and I was told that while the person we were speaking to was aware that she was trying everything that she could there was nothing that could be done.

In the end I asked whether the Bank's position was that unless she repaid the entire loan sum (£23,000 odd) - then the bank was unwilling to discuss or negotiate any deal or repayment plan of any sort. I was surprised to be told that it was. I asked the Bank's employee to tell me where someone in my colleague's position would raise that money - to be told that the Bank wasn't in a position to advise! I asked whether there was anyone at the Bank that I could speak to in any department about the matter - to be told that there wasn't, and that, in any event, the answer wouldn't change! I explained that refusing to negotiate was on the face of it unreasonable - to be told that that was the position the Bank would adopt having sent out a 'final demand'.

I then asked for confirmation of the Bank's position - and was told something slightly different - that unless the arrears (which I was told was a little over £2,000) were paid by the deadline - then the Bank's position was unchanged. I explained that I as prepared to give my colleague a witness statement to explain what had been told to me and that I understood that it may have legal consequences - to be told that the Bank's position was unchanged and unyielding!

I simply don't understand it - let's assume that the worst happens: from what I know, the Bank will incur charges (legal and procedural) which will be added to the debt - and never recovered. The debt will never be recovered. The interest never recovered. Sadly, by student colleague may find her ability to continue her development as a lawyer barred or severely impeded - with no benefit to the Bank or its shareholders. Were the Bank to accept her offer to pay what she can, then the Bank may well eventually (and assuming that there is an economic recovery, probably will) recover its loan in full as her circumstances change. Why is this Bank so blind? Why so unyielding? I shall write to its Chairman and complain!

An Economist Royal?

2010-06-16T15:16:00.000+01:00

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian asks whether there should be a 'economist royal'? See here. I suspect he meant to write 'Economist Royal'...

Richard Murphy, whose writings have taken an increasingly partisan and silly tone in recent months, assures us that the difference between the deficit hawks and doves is political sympathy rather than economic theory - see here. In that I agree with him - although he has outdone himself in unreasoned and unreasonable rhetoric.

The problem is that our last Government spent more than it should have - it spent more than we can afford - it spent more than our children can be expected to afford - and often without thought for the consequences. It saw expenditure as the answer to headlines and criticism regardless of the cost and regardless of any benefit that could be achieved by that expenditure.

Benefits are paid to people who earn considerably more than national average earnings - to people who pay the top rate of tax! The absurdity of creating such tax and credit systems is not considered by Richard Murphy - no, he believes that making more sense out of our tax and benefits system to remove such obvious anomalies is 'ugly class politics'. Methinks he betrays his own political sympathies ...

The problem with economics is that very often it is about politics (if not always). It is no surprise to find someone who supported the last Government and who advises an organisation that calls itself the 'tax justice network' that mainly comprises trade unions and socialists is opposed to getting Government expenditure under control and reversing the splurge of spending that the last Government indulged in in an doomed attempt to avoid defeat at the last election - equally it will be not surprising to find me, a former candidate for the Conservatives, keen to see Government spending reigned in.

One thing that we should all agree on is that any changes to the tax and benefits systems should be effective and achieve benefits that exceed the costs. So increases in taxes that cost a lot and achieve little in terms of revenue raised should not be accepted. Equally, reductions in benefits that target the poorest and cost them a lot at relatively little benefit in reduced expenditure should not be accepted. All of these things are a balance - and the decisions about what you will support or oppose are essentially political.

To answer Simon Jenkins, I don't believe that there can be an Economist Royal (capitalised or otherwise) - although it would be perfectly possible to appoint one, the problem will be that the person who appoints will chose the person who most closely fits their political viewpoint.

Northern Ireland ...

2010-06-15T10:59:00.003+01:00

As a soldier, I was served on a number of what we called 'tours' in Derry/Londonderry, Enniskillen, Omagh and finally Belfast. My first tour was in 1989 and my last tour in 1993.

One of the things that needs to be understood is that when I was in Northern Ireland, the Army operated under the control of the civil powers - and that it was before what we call the 'peace process'. Bullets were fired and bombs were detonated. I don't need to describe the aftermath, but I can tell you that I have seen it.

What was clear to me was that the politics of it all were complicated - the history even more so. For a naive 20-year-old junior officer, my prinicple concern was to ensure that my soldiers (those who I was responsible for) were at the minimum risk while carrying out their tasks. I was given operational responsibility for carrying out tasks that often, with hindsight, appeared to be based on gathering information or observation but which had, for our masters, the advantage of placing me and my soldiers in between communities that may otherwise have ended up at each others' throats. Paticularly in the tours in Derry/Londonderry and Belfast, much time appeared to be spent concerned with the vile gangs who the press liked to call the 'Loyalists' or 'Unionists'.

With hindsight, what is also clear is that militarily we were closing down the operations of the violent thugs - and some of their number were realising that there was no realistic prospect of their succeeding in their 'political aims' by continuing the 'armed struggle'. All of these euphemisms irritated me at the time - but now I look on them as simply a method of attempting to describe in as neutral as fashion as possible what was in reality vile violence that could easily have descended into the hell that we later saw in the Balkans.

Lord Saville's enquiry is about to report - is has taken far too long and cost far too much. Whatever the outcome of the report, there is little doubt that Northern Ireland is a different place to the place that I became familiar with between 1988 and 1993 and that that Northern Ireland was a different place to the place that my predecessors became familiar with in the early 70's. If we are to consolidate the progress that has been made, we must resist the temptation to allow the report to raise the temperature again.

Every death is a tragedy and real and lasting peace can only be built on foundations that accept the past for what it is, forgiveness for trespasses that are past and a clear intention that we move forwards rather than attempt to re-fight battles past.

The Gulf of Mexico and BP

2010-06-11T11:39:00.000+01:00

President Obama is making the mistake of assuming that he can overcome his political difficulties in relation to the environmental disaster that has occurred in the Gulf by making statements expressly critical of BP. Some in the British media are playing this up as a spat between the UK and US - see here.

What is pretty clear is that the evidence suggests that BP can afford to clear up the environmental mess and compensate those whose interests have been damaged by the disaster ... but what BP cannot do is overcome a political spat caused by President Obama's own political difficulties. As to the finances, the sheer size of this company and its businesses (whose origins are global) is extraordinary - see here.

Interestingly, although BP used to be called British Petroleum, it has not had that name for some years - see here. Indeed, the 'BP' name was only adopted after the after the merger with AMOCO, an American company that itself did not have the best environmental record!

More worrying for the US is that, while BP is a UK registered company, BP is not an foreign company in the sense of ownership - American investors (individuals and institutions) own almost as many shares as UK institutional and individual investors - see here.

There is no doubt that the events in the Gulf of Mexico are an environmental disaster - and that BP's record is not as good as we would want of one of our largest companies - but when one looks at its competitors and their activities in, for example, the Niger delta in Nigeria, and you see that BP is not alone ...

We need to find methods to reduce our impact on the environment - and that will include increasing the standards and codes by which our largest companies conduct themselves. If the political message from the US overtakes the primary objectives in this case - that BP clear up and compensate for the damage caused - then there is a risk that the US will appear to have been little better than Russia in its conduct ... remember the shenanigans over Gas and the joint venture there, TNK-BP?

Stupidity dressed up as humour ...

2010-06-08T10:09:00.000+01:00

The Conservative party has been through considerable soul searching and has described itself as appeargin to be 'the nasty party' ... none of this has been in jest, yet the epithet has struck something in the national consciousness perhaps leaving the Conservatives with even greater difficulty in the recent election ... but that is a post for another time.

The day before yesterday, John McDonnell, a candidate for leadership of the Labour party, 'joked' that he would have liked to have gone back to the 80's to kill Margaret Thatcher. To put this into perspective, there was a real conflict going on in the 80's when people were trying to kill the Prime Minister - and this is thought to be a suitable topic for a 'joke'? The reality is that it isn't funny ... and it rather displays the hatred that some of our politicians feel for their opponents; although I have to say that I have never actually heard a British politician even joking about killing his politicial opponents before.

Today, we have reports about a fox going into a house and attaking children asleep in their cots - for parents of young children who live in areas where urban foxes are a pest, this is not news that makes us calm! Yet we now read a report in Liberal Conspiracy that treats the affair with inappropriate humour- see here. I particularly object to the links to immigration and to the unpleasant videoing of violence for posting on websites ...

It is true that the reports only suggest that the animal that attacked the children was a fox; there is no certainty (save for the parents, who were probably rather more concerned for their daughters than for identifying the animal to satisfy the prurient humour of bloggers). Anyone who has any knowledge of foxes will tell you that this was not typical behaviour of foxes - and I have to say that when I first heard of the story I was very doubtful. But the story is what it is and the children remain in hospital as a result of the attack and our prayers and thoughts should be with them and their family in the hope that they recover quickly.

But is it appropriate now to treat this topic with humour? The reality, I suspect, lies in the prejudices of the bloggers themselves - to contrast their approach, have a look their reaction to the completely inappropriate video that attempts to treat the incident between the IDF and those that wanted to run the blokade of Gaza with what the authors presumably thought was humour - see here.

What these events reveal to me, yet again, is that there are those in the Labour party and those that support the 'left' who fail to understand that people can disagree with them without rancour and that the debates that we will have will be onsiderably improved if the personal animus is left at the door - 'joking' about killing your opponents is not funny; given the history of organisations of the left with dictatorships and the number of opponents that these dictatorships killed, it could be considered rather threatening!

The Lamb ...

2010-06-04T12:23:00.004+01:00

by Tavener.

What is an MP? And a thought about the blockade of Gaza.

2010-06-02T13:47:00.002+01:00

We live in interesting times, with representatives writing letters to the Guardian in which they declare their allegiance to their party rather than to their constituents - see here. Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion not the green MP for Brighton Pavilion. This is the latest example of an MP's ignorance of the essence of their position: the MP is the representative of the constituency and all its constituents rather than by representative of the party which supported them and under whose banner they stood.

We need our MP's to understand the true position if they are to represent us properly and if we are ever to overcome the apparent dominance of the political parties.

Turning to the content of the letter: it is not clear, as the authors believe, there has been a breach of International law. A country involved in a conflict is entitled to seek to protect itself by action in international waters. Here, we had a convoy of ships which had stated its intention to break through Israel's blockade of Gaza claiming that it would use exclusively peaceful means and met by Israel's intention to maintain that blockade in order to protect its own citizens. One thinks of an immovable object and an unstoppable force…

There is little doubt that Israel's blockade is causing considerable suffering in Gaza, but that Hamas continues its action against Israeli citizens. Israel is in an almost impossible position where it is damned by its own citizens if it fails to act and damned by others when it acts.

The stupidity of those who thought that they would avoid a conflict by attacking the individual soldiers as they landed on the ship with sticks and bars is palpable from the video images we have seen. It is also pretty clear that the Israelis completely failed to anticipate that there would be some on board the ships who would prefer a violent confrontation where the Israelis could be portrayed as aggressors who were acting with unnecessary and unreasonable force.

Sadly, this does not advance the cause of those people suffering in Gaza or the cause of the Israelis who seek to prevent terrorist activity affected their people. The loss of life is tragic but those who campaign against the blockade in Gaza should understand that this action will not have advance their cause at all.

Deportation and Human Rights

2010-05-20T09:56:00.002+01:00

There is real tension between the need to protect the country and the need to ensure that people who have never been convicted of offences are not subject to inhuman treatment as a result of actions by our executive branches - the police, the border agencies and others.

International law prohibits the use of inhuman and degrading treatment or torture - both at the European (Council of Europe) and at UN levels - and it also protects people (and not just citizens) from being deported to places where there is a substantial risk that they will be subject inhuamn or degrading treatment or tortured. The prohibition is, contrary to some perceptions, absolute - in other words it is not possible to derogate from it or to compromise it a bit.

The argument about whether it would be OK to torture someone if you believed that they knew where the bomb was and you had minutes to stop the explosion from killing many people is really a 'straw man' - how do you know that the person knows? What makes you believe that they will tell you, if they do? How certain are you that they have the information at all? In any event, most of the research on the question of the efficacy of torture suggests that it doesn't work - the person being tortured tends to answer the questions in a way that the questioner wants. Finally, I think we'ver moved on from the rack and torture as a tool of Government - we're better than that! We're more civilised than that!

So what do we do about terrorist suspects who are not British nationals? The simple answer is that they are suspects, not convicts and we should treat them according to legal principle - and the one that applies to suspects is that they are innocent until proven guilty, isn't it? The problem is that we are sometimes told that the person suspected is so dangerous that we cannot allow them the freedom that we all enjoy ... surely if the evidence exists, then a trial can follow, can't it?

The problem here is that we cannot see into people's hearts and convict them on the blackness that therein exists. We can only convict them for things that they do or say ... and if they haven't done or said things that amount to an offence we can only watch and see if we can intervene to prevent them from doing things when there is something to suggest that they have done something or are about to do something unlawful.

I would rather live in a free society where risks exist - even very serious risks - than live in one where gulags exist. Where do you draw the line?

Dissolution not confidence ...

2010-05-14T10:56:00.000+01:00

When I was reading the deal that was agreed between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, I appear to have misunderstood what was being proposed in relation to what is becoming known as 'the 55% rule' - and I don't appear to be alone in that misunderstanding.

What is being suggested is that it is only a Government proposal to dissolve Parliament that would be subject to the 55% rule, so requiring the Government to obtain assent from at least one other party in order to dissolve Parliament and precipitate an election - the deal was silent on 'votes of no confidence' which I understand will continue to be subject to the old rule; if the Government loses such a vote by 1 vote, then the Government ought to resign and an election would be called.

I continue to have concerns about the 55% rule, but I understand why parts of the coalition would want to seek protection from the larger party deciding to seek a dissolution vote alone in circumstances where it would effectively end the deal at a time when the larger party thinks that it can take advantage of such a dissolution immediately and so reduce the scope of the Prime Minister and his party to continue to have the choice to end a Parliament early - something that is intended to be removed by the introduction of fixed terms.

An additional concern arises out of the furore over this issue - that when people write things down, they ought to be very clear what it is that they are proposing.

The deal ...

2010-05-13T10:02:00.001+01:00

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have done a deal - you can find a copy here.

Looking at the deal, I have to say that I am surprised by bits, but content with almost all of it. I say 'almost' as some will need much more explanation to persuade me that it is sensible.

The section on 'Deficit Reduction' recognises that the authorship of the deal comes from 2 parties with different views of priorities. I am glad that we are seeing immediate steps being taken to tackle the deficit and it appears that the Governor agrees with it. What a pity that so much effort in the election went into arguing about what appears sensible in the cold light of day ...

I am glad that reduced spending appears to be being prioritised over tax rises - although it has to be said that we shall wait and see what the details are in both the budget in 49 days' time and the comprehensive spending review in the autumn. Having said that, the situation left to the new administration is so dire that the economists are predicting that tax rises are ineviotable (in particular VAT). I hope not ... but as will all of this, it depends on the figures.

The funding for the NHS and schools are things that I support anyway. The need for a strategic defence review is obvious - and yes, the effect and effectiveness of Trident should always be included in such a review, although I anticipate no change.

Restoring the link between the state pension and earnings was a manifesto commitment that I supported - and the Liberal Democrats' 'triple lock' appears to be simply a different way of expressing the same commitment (as it has to be doubted that in the current environment inflation will exceed the rise in earnings) - although 2.5% may be a marginal increase ahead of prices if the economy continues to be sluggish.

On tax, I am pleased that there is a commitment to raise the threshhold - it is something that most conservatives and Conservatives would and do support (provided that it can be afforded) - and I am glad that realism is maintained in respect of it.

To seek a detailed agreement on fixing CGT rates at rates similar or close to those applied to income is difficult to swallow - it appears to be a near doubling of CGT for many people and although there are to be 'generous exemptions' for particular entrepeneurs, I shall await the detail with interest. Having said that it removes the incentive to capitalise income for higher rate taxpayers which is a fairly simple and effective tax avoidance measure that arises from the fact that CGT rates are less than half of those on income.

The proposals on Banking reform are not nearly detailed enough to be discussed in detail. We shall wait and see ...

On immigration, I suspect that most voters that I met will be content.

On political reform, the proposal for a fixed term is interesing and in essence appears to remove the Prime Ministers power to decide alone and surprise others; although I have real difficulty with the attempt to entrench Government. I am pleased with the proposal to adjust and redcue the number of constituencies and to reform the size of them to equalise them. As to the vote on AV: I will oppose the change, although I can see no real problem with there being a referendum on the issue.

The power of recall is another interesting idea - and I can see there being complaints that it doesn't go far enough. The power can be exercised only where there has been 'serious wrongdoing' and a petition of 10% of the constituents.

Completing the reform of the House of Lords is sensible; although I am sad at the loss of expertise and specialist knowledge, the continuation of the half reformed oddity that is the current House of Lords is not sustainable and I would rather that we influenced the change than it being done by others - my main concerns are that the reform should strengthen the Unions (not the Trade Unions!) and create a body that cannot usurp the power of the Commons.

The Wright proposals are sensible and dealing with electoral fraud is an urgent problem. Dealing with the 'West Lothian' question is increasingly urgent - and a referendum on further devolution to Wales is something that cannot be avoided. Increasing local autonomy and devolving power is something that I agree with - indeed it may be part of the answer to the West Lothian question - although it will have significant effect on the provision of local services with noticeable differences appearing as a consequence, and people will need to be aware and understand that before it is implemented.

On Pensions and welfare, the proposals are sensible and those on Education are radical, interesting and we shall need to observe and adjust the proposals as they are implemented to remove difficulties that arise.

On the EU, it is remarkable that any agreement has been reached at all - that it appears to follow sensible scepticism is pleasing.

The agreement on freedom is good news - and while I am still unconvinced about parts of the 'green agenda' which I suspect is being pursued for reasons unconnected with concern for the environment, the proposals in the agreement are sensible and proportionate given the concerns that any parent will have for the future.

Developments and a resignation

2010-05-11T11:38:00.000+01:00

It is interesting to watch politics from the outside - and an interested outside at that. Gordon Brown has announced that he will step down before the party conference season in September ... and it does not look as if the negotiations between the parties will reach a conclusion very soon - so it will not be 'Gordon Brown is going today' or possibly any day very soon ...

It appears that the Liberal Democrats' own divisions are being exposed by the negotiations - Nick Clegg is reported to have got on very well with David Cameron - while Vince Cable will not, it appears, countenance a deal with the Conservatives.

The difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is that they can properly be described as a party of opposition - and that explains why they have been able to adopt and espouse different (and sometimes completely opposing) views at the same time - depending on the audience and the constituency. Some will describe themselves as 'centre left', others as a 'party of the left', but many will describe themselves as being of the 'centre'; indeed, some of them espouse 'liberal' views that would and could fall within the same philosophy as that of the Conservative party. In policy terms, the contradictions only really matter when a choice has to be made ... and that time has come.

The problem for the Conservatives is that they feel that they 'won' the election; and whilst they did succeed in winning many more seats and a greater proportion of the vote, they did not win the majority. The way in which people like John Redwood are behaving is, in my view, exemplary. He is effectively accepting that an unappealing compromise will need to be reached and is not adopting the approach of Lord Tebbit - who appears to want to scream from the sidelines (which, to be honest, is both unappealing and unlikely to win friends outside a narrow sphere).

Labour's difficulties are potentially more severe - even if they do a deal with the Liberal Democrats, the combined resource will not have enough votes to be a majority and so reliance will have to be made on others as well; the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Northern Irish MPs. Scottish Labour abhors the SNP with a passion and vice versa; and in Wales an uneasy truce between Plaid Cymru and Labour exists to enable the parties to work together in Cardiff Bay. That is before one considers the rifts that exist in Labour itself in respect of electoral reform and other such matters.

Given the problems that the country faces, Labour's shenanigans look shabby to me. The arguments about a 'progressive majority' are mere cover for what is in reality a naked political gamble that does not deserve respect let alone to succeed. We shall see what today holds ... and I will watch from the outside with interest and not inconsiderable concern.

Where are we?

2010-05-10T10:32:00.001+01:00

Lord Ashdown is reported to have said that 'the Country has spoken - but we don't know what they've said'. That's rather clever, but is it right and does it matter?

Yes, we are seeing the sort of negotiations that occur elsewhere, but in terms of the results, we do have all but one of the constituencies represented and the last one will vote fairly soon (and whatever its result, it will not have a significant impact on the result).

Yes, we continue to have Prime Minister Brown; so my hope that Brown would be gone last week has been dashed; but the reprieve will be, I hope, short-lived.

What appears to be interesting is that the variations in the regions and in individual constituencies appear to be substantial - and I wonder whether that is down to the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates.

Glyn Davies famously won Montgomeryshire from Lembit Opik and my instinctive response is that it was down to his perceived strengths as a candidate and to Lembit's perceived weaknesses. Similarly, Joanne Cash appeared to find it difficult in Westminster North and is reported to have reacted against what she perceived as an unfair press (I make no judgement about that as I simply don't know enough) - she certainly had a relatively unkind press and it may well be that the Labour Party was able to get their vote out more successfully as a result of that ... but ...

Having said that, there does appear to have been a significant unravelling of what I will call 'the anti-Iraq war' vote; Toby Boutle increased the Conservative vote in Ilford South - both in terms of proportion of the vote and in terms of votes, yet Mike Gapes has seen his majority increase and his vote increase both in terms of proportion of the vote and in terms of votes - see here. Similarly, David Schmitz was unable to overcome the Labour party in Tottenham and again his support increased both in terms of share and number of votes - but David Lammy increased his share and number of votes too.

I should say that Toby and David are colleagues of mine in chambers and so I have an obvious interest beyond the mere political affiliation that I share with Toby.

So it is possible that rather than seeing a trend towards what I would prefer - that people look at their individual candidates and decide where to place their vote on the basis of the individual race - we continue to see the influence of party loyalty. It is that party loyalty that I fear has had an extremely detrimental impact in Wales - in terms of economic performance and outlook - and in Haringey and other councils where one party is around for so long that the whole process or providing services becomes stale and unresponsive.

We shall see where the current negotiations between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats lead us - and I hope that they will lead to something constructive that is genuinely in the national interest. The problem of course is that what is in the 'national interest' is subjective - and so it will be interesting!

Brown is going out today!

2010-05-06T09:36:00.000+01:00

I hope!

I was in Cardiff yesterday, campaigning for Angela Jones-Evans and she has achieved something unusual - name recognition in Cardiff West - and that is, in itself, very positive. To win, she will need to overcome a majority of over 8,000 and a swing of about 11%. Kevin Brennan is currently the MP; Rhodri Morgan was the MP in the 1990's; the only time this seat has been held by a Conservative was after 1983, and the MP was Stefan Terlezki. If work alone is the key, Angela deserves to win. I shall be keeping my fingers crossed for her.

While there, there was a note on a blackboard in the office in the Fairwater Conservative Club -
"Brown
Is
Going
On
Thursday"

It brought a smile - so I have adopted it as my title today - with appropriate thanks to Richard John and the team in Cardiff West (and those who support them) whose hard work will be part of the reason that Angela wins (if indeed she does) and one of whom is the author of the note!

What next?

2010-04-29T11:19:00.000+01:00

The surreal nature of this election continues - the impression is that the last 'big' story of the election was yesterday with Gordon Brown's comment and apology and that the next 'big' story is tonight's BBC debate. It is as if nothing else in the election matters ...

Not the IFS report into the parties' proposals for dealing with the deficit - which itself ignores the reality that when the Conservatives did try to set out the difficulties facing the next Government with the 'age of austerity' last year their poll ratings almost immediately started to fall ...

Not the crisis in the Eurozone and its potential impact on the UK - and in particular in relation to political aspirations of individual parties in respect of the Euro ...

Not the entirely legitimate concerns that people have over their jobs, over immigration, over the services that they can obtain, over education or the other things over which the next Government will have influence ...

Not even the extraordinary idea that we should have even more CCTVs than we currently have ...

The sad reality of this election is that it is emotive issues that seem to dominate - who 'won' the first or last televised debate between the leaders - who has the most empathetic approach to the electorate - and the MSM feed that dominance. They cry out about the lack of substance in the manifesto but then concentrate on the superficial ...

That, combined with the inability of the MSM to report detail or argument without simplification and the political need for tempering the message to meet the demand for simplification, means that I fear the public enters the last week of this election with the merest impression of the real differences that exist between the parties ... only the hacks, the nerds, and those with a real interest will know of those differences. What a way to go!

An inexcusable lapse but ...

2010-04-28T13:43:00.003+01:00

UPDATE: - In a meeting that took place in her home, Gordon Brown has apologised to the lady he insulted. He has then expressed his apology to the waiting press outside her home.

The story will continue in the press until the next story comes along, but for those who think that this means it's 'game over' for Gordon Brown and Labour, I fear that they will be hoping in vain - Gordon Brown is a survivor who has survived problem after problem and fought back at every stage. We will need to carry on our campaign with vigour to defeat him and the Labour Party.

ORIGINAL POST: - I actually feel rather sorry for our politicians.

They have eggs thrown at them and then react to being hit!

They get confronted by people who appear to be members of the public but who then turn out to be experienced political operatives with particular axes to grind - see here for Mr Bartley's 'explanation' of what happened when he 'confronted' David Cameron.

But then there's the off-mic comment ... that reveals much more than they want.

It is right that Gordon Brown apologise for this - but the explanation offered so far (that he apologises if he's 'said anything like that' and that he apologises if he's 'said anything hurtful') is not an apology at all. You can hear his 'apology' here.

I do feel rather sorry for Gordon Brown - but for the different reason that he is proving completely unsuited to the office and role that he occupies as Prime Minister. The stories of his conduct in office have always been dismissed as tittle tattle and rumour.

Entertainingly, a 'bigot' is often defined as someone who so opinionated or intolerantly devoted to his or her own views or opinions that they refuse to listen to or even recognise that others can have a valid alternative view - does than remind you of anyone?

Replacing Trident

2010-04-26T11:36:00.000+01:00

The cornerstone of Liberal Democrat defence policy and the base for the extravagant claims to be able to spend money are almost entirely based on their proposal not to replace Trident on a like for like basis, but to replace it with something other delivery system. The figure bandied about by Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats is £100 billion; the problem with that figure is that although it appears substantial, that is a figure chosen by Greenpeace and other 'peace' campaigners as the lifetime cost of a potential Trident replacement - and given that the cost is spread over maybe as many as 30 to 40 years, and given the proposed alternative replacement is simply un-costed, it has to be said that I have real doubts about the figure.

The UK's Trident is a ballistic missile that can be launched from 1 of 4 submarines - basically it is a very complicated development of the V2 rockets used in WW2. It is extremely difficult to defend against and because it is launched from a submarine that hides somewhere on the oceans and seas of the world, it is difficult to find.

Basically, alternatives to an ICBM would include systems that are launched from ships or submarines, aircraft or from the ground or from bunkers in the ground. During the course of my time in the Army (1987 to 1993), there was considerable debate and discussion in political circles about the Trident program; the Chevaline program had extended the life of Polaris but Trident came online in 1996. Since the UK abandoned its independent missile program in the 1960's the cost of our nuclear deterrent has been reduced by being able to 'piggy-back' the American missile systems - although we continue to manage the warheads independently.

The problem with cruise missile systems is that they are vulnerable to ground and air attack; and we are told by RUSI and others that we would need to develop an entirely new cruise missile system if we were to adopt a cruise missile based nuclear deterrent. In that event, I can foresee that far from being cheaper than Trident and its update, a cruise missile based system would be as expensive if not more expensive.

The problem with airborne systems (basically returning to bombs) is that the aircraft are vulnerable to ground and air attack and we abandoned this option in the 60's and 70's as a result of massive improvements in such defensive systems. Potentially, to make an airborne system effective, we would have to purchase or develop stealth systems and try to outrun the development of defences to those systems - and given the US example, I again foresee this as being very expensive.

The problem with ground based systems is again they are vulnerable to attack - from the air and from the ground. But in the UK, the costs of building the bunkers would be enormous and it was for this reason that we adopted Polaris in the first place.

An alternative would be to abandon nuclear defence altogether - but our place in the Security Council of the UN, our position in innumerable world organisations, including those relating to trade, is, at lease in part, due to our position as a nuclear power. In any event, that is not what appears to be proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

The principal reason that successive defence reviews and costs studies of our defences (in 1990, 1994, 1997 and 2003) have concluded that the retention and eventual like-for-like replacement of our submarine based nuclear deterrence was needed was that it was the minimum effective deterrent and that alternative effective deterrents would more expensive and many alternatives would have the additional disadvantage of requiring us to incease the capacity to overcome potential defensive weaknesses inherent in those systems.

For those who advocate an alternative, my questions are these: (1) what alternative? (2) what cost? (3) what saving? The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that they don't know the answers to (1) and (2) and so their answer to (3) is meaningless nonsense!

What is 'fair'?

2010-04-23T11:06:00.000+01:00

Nick Clegg uses the word 'fair' a lot ... 'fair' taxes; 'fair' votes ... the question for us is whether anyone would want anything else? Can you really see a politician campaigning on the basis that they want 'unfair' taxes or 'unfair' votes? The reality is that what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do is to utilise a word so often that it becomes synonymous with their campaigning stance ... so on 'fair' taxes, it means that anyone who disagrees with them is being in some way 'unfair' and on votes it means a system that the Liberal Democrats would benefit from - but they are not prepared to explain who they would support in this hung Parliament and so they want the benefit but want to keep secret what they would do with it!

Let's look at 'fair' votes for a moment. We live in a 'representative democracy' - we elect a representative locally who sits in and votes in Parliament. That person is the person who wins the vote in the constituency - and where there are more than 2 contestants it is likely that the person will often receive less than 50% of the vote. With the proliferation of small, sometimes limited or even single issue, campaign groups and parties who are prepared to try without any real prospect of winning the seat, it is likely that the trend towards increasing numbers of candidates will increase over the next political period.

It is not possible to manage a company or a club without someone or some group having executive power to make decisions, and so I would argue that it is also impossible to manage a country on the basis of everyone having the chance to participate in every decision or even many decisions that are taken by the Government of the day.

Should we change the system so that, whatever the number of candidates, we find a way to try to ensure that each successful candidate has the support, however distant, of a majority of the electorate? This is, in essence, what is involved in getting people to rank candidates - and I have yet to have anyone explain why it would be 'fair' for someone to be forced to choose more than one candidate (and preventing them giving all of their preferences to that candidate, if that is what they want to do) or why someone else's second or even subsequent choice should trump another's first choice.

In our Parliamentary and representative democracy, we are not voting for a President with executive power. We are voting for a local representative. Fewer than 150,000 will actually vote for Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. In voting for our local representative we should be voting for the person who we believe will represent us and our community - and that person should, if we follow Edmund Burke's philosophy, use his or her conscience, understanding and conviction to participate in the debate in the 'council of the Country' that is Parliament.

Is it fair that in these 646 individual races, someone who votes for one of the smaller parties in that seat (which in some cases includes the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats) does not get their wish? My answer is, 'Yes'. Is it fair that when one looks at the overall results, a party with potentially less than 30% of the total votes cast could end up with many more seats than another party with potentially more than 30% of the total votes cast? To that question, my answer is, 'No, but ...' The 'but' is related to the fact that it ignores the facts of the 646 individual races and the discussion that I have set out above.

Is it fair that last year in Wales UKIP (c.87,500) had just 60% of the vote that the Conservatives (c.145,000) had, yet they have the same number of MEPs (1 each)? Every system of election that we can choose from will result in anomalies and unfairness. The current system reflects our constitutional settlement - it is imperfect as are many other aspects of our constitutional settlement - and it works.

As will all things of this nature, I am cautious about change - particularly change that could result in instability or that could result in a smaller party having disproportionate influence - but I am not ideologically opposed to it. It may be that we are in the process of seeing a situation in which one of the bigger parties is reaching the end of its 'age' - but then some thought we had reached that point in 1983 and 1997. Is what we see a reflection of 'electoral frustration' (and so mirrors the situation in 1983) or is it something more substantial (mirroring 1923 - when the Liberals faded and Labour came to the fore)? We shall see very shortly ...

Canvassing and polling

2010-04-22T10:52:00.001+01:00

Over the last couple of days, I have been out an about with Suzy Davies in Brecon & Radnor. For those not familiar with this part of Wales, it is a seat where Conservatives and Liberals have been the MP for the last 30 years or so, and before that it was a 3-way marginal with Labour vying for the seat as well. The Liberal-SDP alliance won the seat (Richard now Lord Livsey) in a by-election in 1985 (that was called when Conservative Tom Hooson died) and while Jonathan Evans won the seat back in 1992, Richard Livsey was again the MP after 1997.

Apart from some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain, B and R laso has a bit of industrial and post industrial Britain within it as well as areas of real deprivation and decline. The consituency covers a huge geographical area that includes the Brecon Beacons national park in the South and stretches up almost to (but not including) Newtown in the North. There is a large military presence (and many soldiers, particularly the infantry will be quite familiar with Sennybridge), but the population is spread out.

The sitting MP is Roger Williams, the Liberal Democrat. He has been the MP since 2001 and in 2005, he was almost 4,000 votes ahead of the Conservative candidate, Andrew Davies (who is now an AM). Interestingly, the Labour vote shrank by about 3,000 votes between 2001 and 2005.

Potted history over - over the last couple of days I have been chatting to people in Rhayader and in villages in the area north of Builth Wells and in villages around Ystradgynlais in the South Easy. I have to say that I did not find overwhelming support for Roger Williams and the Liberal Democrats - which given the national polling and press reports recently I found a little surprising; and I have come away from my time supporting Suzy and campaigning for her encouraged and hopeful.

Those I spoke to were largely critical of politics and politicians (one even suggested that after the election all the MPs should be taken to Tyburn and ...), they were not very impressed with Roger Williams who they told me was not sufficiently effective in Westminster (in spite of his apparent effectiveness in B and R as a reasonable constituency MP) or with Kirsty Williams (the Liberal Democrat AM for B and R) and they were keen to listen and to speak to Suzy and to her team from the Conservative Party. Many were undecided - and that could be code for them being against us, but their manner did not suggest that at all.

Now I know, canvassing in villages and towns, talking to farmers at markets and people in pubs is not a scientific method for guaging an election - but after the last couple of days, I have to say that I am simply baffled by the polls reported in the press and the contrast to them that I found in B and R.

Canvassing in North London and that debate

2010-04-16T09:51:00.002+01:00

Over the course of this week I have been doing some canvassing in North London and it appears to me that our responses are better than the responses we were receiving last time I canvassed in North London - people are listening and talking to us in areas and ways that I would not have expected.

The disapproval of politicians in general is still raw ... many people very disillusioned with what they perceive as the self-interested nature of political ambition. I have to say that, regardless of the very real debate and disagreements between politicians on all sides, I have not met anyone embarking on a political career whose aspirations for self exceed their aspirations for their communities - whether they are standing as a parish councillor, a county councillor or MP.

Last night we had the first TV debate between the 3 main parties - my hesitation and caution remains. The only people who can vote for the 3 politicians are those voters who live in the Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Kirkcaldy constituencies. A problem with the TV debate is that it appears to reduce the influence and impact of individual races in other constituencies and emphasises the importance of party at the expense of community and constituency representation. Having said that, having a political debate in prime time television may increase interest in and, with luck, participation in, politics and the election. As with many things, there are sides to the argument and we shall see whether this was a 'good' thing relatively soon.

The MSM and polls suggest that Nick Clegg 'won' the debate. I suspect that if you are a committed supported of any of the parties, you will have concluded that your 'man' won ... but the polls are interesting in that they appear to suggest that Nick Clegg was successful in his strategy of claiming that for the last century or so, the other 2 parties have been largely indistinguishable, have made the mess we're in and that if change is what you're after, then think about the Lib Dems. My view is that this is both simplistic and silly but it is also disingenuous - but then I have fought Liberal Democrats before and it confirms my worst impressions of a 'Liberal Democrat election strategy' - not that I think that it will assist me greatly in the next couple of weeks!

My instinct is that Nick Clegg's real 'wins' were that he was there and that he was on an 'equal billing' with David Cameron and Gordon Brown - before this debate my view and understanding from talking to people on the streets of the UK is that he was largely unknown. He principle advantage being that people will want to listen to him and believe what he has to say at the beginning ... only because he was new to them; and his apparent sincerity combined with what was a simple message is what the polls have reflected.

Liberal Democrats tax plans

2010-04-15T11:25:00.001+01:00

I would love to be able to promise to raise the thresh-hold for paying income tax will be raised substantially - the problem with the proposals that have come from the Liberal Democrats concerns their proposals for raising other taxes.

These include effectively increasing taxes on capital gains very substantially indeed. They say that all that will happen is that you will pay it at your marginal rate - but for people earning more than £34,800, such capital gains will be taxed at 40% (where currently they would pay 18%). In addition, the current capital allowance will be reduced from £10,100 to £1,000 ... so CGT is effectively being more than doubled.

This is on top of the local income tax and the so-called mansion tax ... and the removal of people earning more than £34,800 to claim back the tax on contributions they make to their pensions.

This is an extraordinary increase in taxes on what I would have thought were people who were not really very 'rich' and who are almost certainly finding things very difficult at the moment.

What were 'mistakes' in regulating financial services?

2010-04-14T10:38:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown is reported to be acknowledging mistakes in 'not regulating the Banks enough' - see here.

His explanation is that he listened to the Bankers too much who were, he says, telling him that they didn't want to be regulated and that he should not have listened to them when they said that 'this would be good for them'.

The silliness of all of this is that he was, as Shadow Chancellor and then as Chancellor, closely advised by a small group of former and then current bankers including Gavyn Davies, a partner at Goldman Sachs. He appeared contemptuous of the existing regulatory framework and appeared determined to have his own UK equivalent of the SEC in the US. He was, as the whole of the Labour Party were, so suspicious of the Civil Service, and in particular of the Treasury, that he did not feel comfortable listening to anyone other than those he brought with him. The result was a whole new regulatory framework of financial services and the abandonment of the existing systems and methods, replacing what had effectively worked since Big Bang in 1986 (with a number of individual regulators controlling specific areas of the markets and the Bank of England in charge of the banks) with a purposive system run by a single regulator (the FSA).

The deceit of Labour is to say that the Conservatives started the deregulation of the banks and that they followed the lead given by the Conservatives and that now, having been 'duped' (apparently) by their then advisors, they proceeded to allow the banks greater freedom from regulation. This is deceitful because that is not what was happening. Before the Fincancial Services and Markets Act, the banks had continued to be regulated by the Bank - and it should be said that there were failures - for example, those that led to the BCCI enquiry, and before that other difficulties. What Gordon Brown (and his advisors) and the Labour Party wanted to do was, for political purposes, to change the whole system to leave his and their mark on it - it was going to be part and parcel of their 'legacy'.

The Big Bang in 1986 was an 'evolutionary revolution' in that it involved permitting certain changes (in particular establishing electronic exchanges) while leaving the expert regulators largely in place. It led to new regulators being set up to control and regulate new markets - derivatives and commodities markets in particular - but it was evolutionary in the sense that it tried to permit the markets to change and grow but left the essential controls in place.

Gordon Brown's FSMA was simply a 'revolution'. It created the split regulatory model of the banks that has been the subject of much discussion; it created a super regulator that replaced the existing disparate and expert individual market regulators; and it replaced regulation based on black letter law with a so-called 'purposive regulatory model'. The last of these was explicitly and coherently criticised by a number of barristers at a meeting that I attended in 1999 - before the FSMA came into force.

No one can possibly claim that the problems that we faced over the last fewof years would not have occurred if the FSMA and its new regulatory model had not been implemented. However, I do believe that Gordon Brown's and Labour's new systems have made things worse.

As to the future, we need to carry out another 'evolutionary revolution' in the regulation of our financial markets. The Conservatives are proposing to return regulation of the banks to the Bank and I believe that that is a great start - as to other changes, these are necessarily technical in nature and depend on a real understanding of what the failures were, rather than what politicians would like them to have been; as a result, my view is that we need to consider this more carefully and outside the confines of election debates which are simply not capable of careful consideration.

The EU's proposals are simply another 'revolution' and will, in my view, result in no additional effective regulation and may result in some future difficulty in a whole new set of problems - and the UK's difficulties is that political priorities are the primary objective of these proposals rather than pragmatic ones. The so-called Tobin tax or misnamed Robin Hood tax are simply daft for reasons that I have explained before.

What he said was ... not quite what I say he said!

2010-04-08T19:00:00.000+01:00

Sunny Hundal has written 'Tesco rejects Tory National Insurance plans' - see here.

When you read the Times article referred to, it transpires that Tesco's spokesman refused to be drawn into what has become an election issue and have merely said that the company would not oppose whatever measures 'were considered right' to get the public finances back into order.

That, I have to say, is not what Sunny Hundal has written. That Tesco has not endorsed the Conservative position is interesting and properly the subject of comment, but Sunny's claim that the Conservative's proposals have been 'rejected' by Tesco is simply wrong - the Times's headline is probably correct - and Tesco's spokesman explains why - they 'support the Government of the day' and don't want to get involved in 'party politics'. It also fails to recognise that I understand that the businessmen and women who have written to support the Conservative position have done so in their personal capacity - not as representatives of their companies - and so it is unsurprising that Tesco don't want as a company to be drawn into the debate.

What is £6 billion?

2010-04-08T10:44:00.002+01:00

The Labour Party are claiming that the Conservative plan not to implement the National Insurance tax rise that Labour is planning to bring in next year will cost £6 billion and that it will take out such a significant sum from Government expenditure that it will make a significant difference to economic recovery. Indeed, they go further and say that it is money being 'taken out of the economy'.

In one sense and assuming for a moment that the Conservatives were planning to do what Labour claims that they are proposing to do, reducing Government expenditure by £6 billion where that £6 billion is entirely borrowed can be described as 'taking money out of the economy'; but it depends on the Government being able to borrow that money at a cost that is worth the benefit. Having written that, because it is borrowed money, it is not money that comes without a cost, and the cost of this Government's borrowings are enormous and unprecedented - and make me very cross! Further, it appears to me that reducing borrowing and expenditure by the Government is not 'taking money out of the economy' at all, it is simply reducing the burden that we all have to pay eventually.

Another interesting thing relates to the figures. This year, the Government plans to spend £661 billion - see here. When I was studying economics as a module at University, some time ago, I remember being surprised to learn that the margin of error in actual expenditure by the Government was then more than 1% of that expenditure - and lo and behold, what you will notice is that the £6 billion figure picked on by Darling, Mandelson and Brown this morning, is that it is less than 1% of Labour's planned Government expenditure for this year.

So do you think that this, as Labour claims, 'irresponsible'? 'Built on a myth'? 'Not credible'? My view is that it is not. Further I note that we have a real problem caused by Gordon Brown's irresponsibility and imprudence in spending more than he had coming in when Chancellor in every year after 2001.

On the other hand, if we take the position of an employer and we increase the costs of his or her employees by 1% at a time when his margins are being squeezed on all sides and he or she is trying to keep the business alive just as the economy starts to recover from the recession, that may well have a significant impact on his or her decisions about taking risks in expanding or employing more people. Remember that small businesses often don't work on significant margins and that their employment costs are a significant part of their total costs.

Finally, in considering these issues, it is worth remembering that all those people employed by the state will mean that, if NI is increased by 1%, the cost of their employment will rise too! In other words, just by raising NI by 1%, we increase the costs to us of the activities that we all depend on by something not very significantly lower than that 1% just at a time when we have a Government borrowing more than we can sensibly afford ...

None of these issues are simple. A problem with the current debate is that in this election frenzy, there is no room to discuss the issues dispassionately or to acknowledge the arguments that can be made against you ... with distance, that is something that those not intimately involved with the election could do, but I suspect that I will wait in vain for anyone to properly engage.

At last - the phoney election is done and the real thing has begun

2010-04-07T10:06:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown went to the Palace yesterday and asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament so the election could take place on May 6th. He then returned to Downing Street where, surrounded by his cabinet, he announced that the election was going to take place on May 6th - as if we didn't already know that.

The pictures of him standing alone with his cabinet standing in serried ranks behind him was interesting. He talked about 'me' and 'the team', he was part of a team yet standing alone. They support him, because they have no option not to. Rather sad really.

The message he tried to sell was negative - simply put, it was 'don't let the other lot spoil things'. That is even sadder and demonstrates for me the principle reason for the need for change.

David Cameron's 'response' was timed to get in first - to try to outshine the announcement itself. He was reported to be surrounded by PPCs and activists, but his cabinet was not there - probably because they were all over the country making similar announcements in many of the battle ground seats.

He appeared anxious to enter the fray, yet a little nervous. Confident that he can win, yet anxious that he might not. The images make him appear as if he was 'railing against the machine' (the 'establishment'), and that is interesting.

The message was optimistic about what is to come, but realistic about the mess we're in. Positive and workmanlike.

Nick Clegg decided that he would start with his own office. This is an odd choice of venue to start from as it made him look like a sixth former talking to the fifth form! It doesn't make me want to take him seriously ...

The message he wanted to sell was that the main parties are awful and he is different. He wants a 'fair' Britain, but who doesn't want that? Perhaps he wants green eggs and ham - sorry Dr Seuss.

Silliness - the revenge of the dark lord!

2010-04-01T12:35:00.000+01:00

The Mendacious one returns - with silly accusations that the Tories have deceived people who wrote a letter to say that they supported the Conservative policy of not raising National Insurance by as much as Labour propose to do so - see here.

Time to turn away from the dark side methinks! Time for change!

The silliness of 'not an election' 2

2010-03-31T11:31:00.000+01:00

Labour put out this ad ...

I like it ... but then the Conservatives responded with this ...

and I am sorry to say that I laughed!

The silliness of 'not an election'

2010-03-30T19:22:00.000+01:00

Yesterday we had the entertainment of 'Ask the Chancellors' on Channel 4 - and you can read Faisal Islam's views about what happened next here.

The Labour blogs are calling the 'debate' that occurred as a 'win' for Alastair Darling, the Conservative blogs as a 'win' for George Osborne and most of the impartial observers appear to say that Vince Cable had the best quips and best soundbites, although they are critical of the format and the lack of any real evidence that he was tested.

I have to say, I don't really understand why Vince Cable was there at all - and I have the same reservations about Nick Clegg's appearance at the so-called 'Leaders' debates' that apparently are planned for the election whenever that happens.

I have reservations about the whole process too - when less than about 130,000 people actually vote for these three MPs, why do we need a debate between them? It personalises the election even more into a contest about the individual leaders of the parties to an even greater extent than last time; and then we are expected to go and choose who will represent us in our own constituencies on the basis of that debate rather than on the basis of the person we believe will best represent us in the council of the country and hold the Government, whoever forms it, to account for its decisions, actions and legislative agenda?

Having written that and going back to 'Ask the Chancellors' and notwithstanding the silly title of the programme itself, it appears that more than 2 million may have watched part of the event - and that will probably be a good thing. There is a fundamental problem in our politics at the moment which is best described as apathy combined with anger - and the more we get to hear our politicians, local and national, debate and discuss things and , with luck, demonstrating their essential willingness to serve for what they believe is the common good, the better.

Apologies for no posts and a thought

2010-03-19T12:29:00.000Z

I am sorry that I haven't posted anything for a week, I had a rather complicated case ...

Turning for a moment to Lord Ashcroft.

Sanctimonious drivel from the Guardian here. Absurd concentration on the issue by the BBC - not very surprised - and lots of 'defences' by pointing the finger at Lord Paul and other non-doms who fund other parties.

Someone suggested to me yesterday that there may be as many as 100 peers who are currently non-doms - and they come in all colours (for those of a partisan bent) - but of course our history is so odd that it wasn't until relatively recently that we had any concept of citizenship at all - historically, in England and Wales, if you sought the King's peace, you were entitled to his protection! This is what made the Bristol assize decide that a 'slave' could be no-one's property and released him on a writ of habeas corpus ... many years before the abolition of slavery in our remaining colonies, let alone in those that had escaped our yoke.

Returning to Lord Ashcroft - no-one seems to ask why it was important to Baronness Dean and others that Michael Aschroft, uniqely it seems, be a full UK taxpayer, as opposed to all non-dom peers? The answer, I suspect, rather lies more in the partisan nature of Baroness Dean and her Labour cohort than in any alleged or claimed principle.

That does not mean that this affair is not embarassing or difficult for the Conservatives - but I rather suspect that I will not be asked about it on the doorsteps in the comming weeks (only by 'political hacks' and the like), as the affair rather confirms the suspicious public's minds about 'politicians' and their foibles - this is a Westminster story, rather than one with real resonance. Sorry, Alastair, but you're gilding the lilly ... but then it is an election in all but name.

Buying kit and 'the borrowers'

2010-03-12T09:58:00.000Z

Watch this video in which the mother of a soldier who is heading to Afghanistan complains about the fact that she has bought him better kit for use on his upcoming tour.

The answer from Caroline Flint is weak in a number of ways - her experience is with a familiarisation visit and her argument about other equipment is flawed.

When I was a soldier, I also bought much of the kit that I used on operations. The stuff issued to me was serviceable, but not always comfortable of the most convenient. So webbing was replaced with chest webbing that was more convenient and comfortable, jackets were replaced with wind proof smocks, undergarments were replaced with more comfortable (and warmer) kit, fleeces were added, gortex waterproofs replaced issued waterproofs - and the list went on. This was not unusual, and reflected the fact that I wanted the kit that I felt most comfortable with. I don't suppose that that wish will ever be diminished and I suspect that it would happen whatever kit is issued.

Where I have real concerns is in the kit that is used to transport people or protect people. We have had too many reports of a lack of basic body armour when the operations began. We have had too many reports of road vehicles being used in areas where people and supplies would ideally be transported by air - helicopters. We have had too many reports of inappropriate training and the inappropriate vehicles being used in certain situations.

After the Falklands war (which were recovered from the Argentineans only by the slimmest of margins), enquiries were carried out into the effectiveness of radio equipment, the effectiveness of rifles, the boots issued to soldiers, the relative lack of helicopter support, ammunition shortages and many other aspects of the equipment that were used. We re-learned lessons that we should never have forgotten - such as how to treat battle shock injuries and how to deal with trench foot - and we learned new ones - developments in dealing with serious injuries meant that survival rates were as never before.

During the current operations in Afghanistan, I understand that we are re-learning again and learning anew - so survival rates for injured servicemen and women are increasing again - but with great sadness, I am realising that it is our political leaders that appear not to be learning - that helicopters will be a tool of increasing importance in the sort of operations we will undertake and to have effective capability we will need to spend much much more on them in future than we do now; and there are lessons that our military commanders need to learn too - that equipment that saves lives needs to be acquired and transported quickly, much more quickly than in the recent past where it is needed.

It is only if we learn those lessons and act on them will it be possible for us to reverse some of the less than flattering epithets that our soldiers have earned.

Down tools! All out!

2010-03-11T12:41:00.000Z

The Welsh Assembly has been hit by the PCS union strike - see here.

Apparently the Labour and Plaid Cymru AMs decided that they wouldn't cross the picket line and so all business was suspended - see here.

The 'striking' (?) AMs expressed sympathy for the PCS union workers - as did the AMs who went to work.

The Western Mail reports that:
"Ms Wood, who was joined by fellow Plaid AMs Helen Mary Jones and Bethan Jenkins, said the only alternative to shutting the Assembly would have been to have employed “scab labour”. Are they are saying that they are so dependent on others that they can't get on with their work without them? If that's the case, Wales needs to find better AMs ... and replace these dinosaurs.

According to Betsan Powys from the BBC, Jeff Cuthbert, Helen Mary Jones and chair of the all party PCS group Leanne Wood considered that they could never cross a picket line. "No matter that they're not crossing it to do the job of those on it - they would simply not cross that line, literally or metaphorically." See here. Whichever way you look at it, they sound pretty daft ... what if there was a fire or some other emergency?

Foirgive the obvious pun, but how does that strike you? Reasonable? Reasoned? The meetings that were cancelled as a result of this included the plenary session of the Assembly to question ministers ...

It suggests that either these AMs do not consider that they have enough to do or that they have so lost the plot that they think that going to work, representing people and holding the Welsh Assembly Government to account for its decisions is less important (it is after all only what they are in the Welsh Assembly to do) than refusing to cross a picket line of a strike over pay and conditions of other people.

A currency transation tax?

2010-03-10T15:04:00.000Z

At the moment, the spread (that is the difference between the bid price and the ask price for currency traders) for commonly traded paired currencies (like the US $ and the Euro) is somewhere between 0 and 3 pips - that is between nothing and 0.0003%.

The proposals for a so-called 'Tobin tax' are pitched at 0.05% although the European Parliament recently suggested a 0.01% rate.

What is obvious to anyone who has that information is that the proposed tax is much much larger than the spread - and if you don't think that that is significant, just look at the figures for how much it is proposed to raise by way of this tax.

The next problem relates to those figures - the promoters of the so-called Robin Hood tax tell us to look at Stamp Duty as the example of a transaction tax that works and assume that it will be impossible to avoid the tax; the problem with Stamp Duty as an example is that it is a tax that I would pay as a small investor, but which large institutional investors finds methods to avoid. Secondly, unless we are able to control such transactions and ensure that every country applies the same or substantially similar a regime, the prospects of business gravitating to jurisdictions where the tax is lower or applied less stringently must be very significant indeed - as an historic example of such a trend, have a look at the history of the so-called 'eurodollar market'.

Whilst it may be attractive, in the current environment, to shout at bankers and the things that they do, the people that promote such Tobin taxes will have to go a lot further before I will be persuaded that their proposals are remotely sensible.

Dissembling on Defence spending ...

2010-03-08T18:56:00.001Z

This article in this morning's Independent is pretty damning ... and it is accompanied by the cartoon that I reproduce from the same newspaper.

The conclusion reached by Bruce Anderson mirrors a conclusion that I reached some time ago - that the Labour Government is responsible for a breach of the covenant that exists between the Government and those that serve in the Armed Forces and in particular in the Army - what is referred to as the Military Covenant.

More alarming still for Gordon Brown is the fact that his evidence before the Chilcott enquiry has been condemned as 'dissembling' and 'disingenuous' by a former Chief of Defence Staff - see the report in the Times last week here. Look up those words and you will find that the synonyms include 'concealed' and 'hidden' and 'insincere', 'lacking in candour' and 'dishonest'. Those are very strong words for a recently retired Crown servant to use ...

It is simply not good enough ... and it is one of the reasons why I am cynical when I read about the Prime Minister's visit to out troops in Afghanistan.

The abuse of words ...

2010-03-05T09:54:00.000Z

'Progressive' is used by Labour and its supporters to mean anything they support ... and anyone opposed to their proposals or who campaigns against them must therefore be 'regressive' or even extreme.

Look at this article on Will Straw's Left Foot Forward ...

Roger Helmer opposes the absurdly named 'Robin Hood Tax' and responds to an email from supporters of that tax that is sent to everyone. Yes, it may well be that by responding, he highlights the event again, but all he is doing is reminding everyone of his opposition to the proposal.

Shamik Das interprets this as an email sent out in the name of a 'hard right cause' ... what stupidity, what nonsense! To oppose a new tax that most people who work in financial services that I know consider to be both dangerous and extremely damaging to global economic prospects is in some way extreme ...

The abuse that is coming from the Labour supporting websites is clear ... they will use every opportunity to bend language to breaking point and beyond. This is already the most absurd election campaign that I have been part of ... and the absurdity is only increased by the silliness of 'evidence-based blogging' such as that contained in Will Straw's website.

Two thoughts ... the Electoral Commission's decision on Bearwood and a 21-hour working week!

2010-03-04T13:25:00.000Z

The electoral commission has produced a report on the donations to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services - you can access the summary report from the press release that you will find here.

The BBC is reporting this report and concentrates rather too much on the comment of the Chairman, Jenny Watson that, "We had concerns, based on some of the evidence, about the degree of certainty within the Conservative Party about the identity of the donor".

It seems to me that this is rather a silly comment by the Chairman, because the summary report accepts that the Treasurer of the Conservative Party was certain and 'had no doubt' about the identity of the donor before complaining that the Commission had no powers to compel an interview. In effect, the real complaint is that the Commission wants more power to compel attendance for cross examination - and it seems to me that any such power would be accompanied by a requirement for people to be represented and so further increase the costs.

Will Straw's Left Foot Forward publishes a call for Britain to introduce a 21-hour working week -see here.

The absurdity of this proposal is contained in the article itself - the 35-hour working week in France 'had mixed results' is an understatement and the motivation appears to be that typical mix of 'we know best' dictatorial nonsense that usually comes from the extremes in politics.

More worrying would be the effect on the poorest and those stuck in jobs paid by the hour. Ironically, rather than promote economic prosperity and increase opportunities for those at the bottom, I suspect that it would be yet another drag on inequality.

What is it about the people who promote these sorts of daft ideas that makes them believe that they can reduce inquality through the creation of structures that dictate the hours that people work? The real motivation is contained in the statement to the effect that the lifestyles our people enjoy must change to meet the requirements that these people want to impose ... frankly, I am very sceptical of people who proselytise in this sort of way.

Aschroft - has Labour completely lost the plot?

2010-03-03T10:17:00.000Z

Until recently, I had a reasonably good impression of Ben Bradshaw - after this, I have sadly come the conclusions that he's a prize berk!

Will Straw's Left Foot Forward blog has written a number of articles filled with artifice and artificial figures that only have to be thought about for a moment to realise just how silly they are - see here and here.

The silliness of the Mirror figures (see here) in which they estimate both the returns and the capital gains they claim will have been made on the Times's estimate of Lord Ashcroft's wealth and convert them into figures so that they can claim a particular figure for tax allegedly avoided is obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the taxes they make their claims about. What they ignore is that the returns could be very substantially smaller and the gains would only give rise to a liability to tax when realised - so the figures are not just speculation, they are disingenuous nonsense put out for politicial purposes.

As to the claims that it is Lord Ashcorft's money that has been spent in the marginal constituencies - the money that is referred to as 'Ashcroft money' by the party are the funds that are controlled centrally and are used by local candidates to carry out specific tasks in their constituencies - and as far as I am aware, most of that money has not come from Lord Ashcroft or any of his companies, rather it is from funds adminsitered by him for the purposes of the marginal seat strategy. There is no secret about this.

This is a Westminster village story - filled with the usual partisan cries that are no more than demonstrations of hypocrisy. If Labour thinks that this is a 'winning' strategy, they take the public for fools and ignore the real problems that people face outside the Westminster village - I do hope that they continue on this vein, as I believe it demonstrates just how bankrupt Labour is (and not merely financially)!

Domicile and residence

2010-03-02T14:09:00.000Z

The discussion about Lord Ashcroft's tax status in the newspapers and between partisan politicians is getting me down a bit - so I thought I would set out some thoughts about domicile and residence.

Before I go further, what I write here is a picture postcard of the laws of domicile and residence - it is not legal advice and cannot be taken to be such or relied on as such by anyone whatsoever.

In English and Welsh law, domicile is not the same as residence or nationality and should not be confused with either. Generally, an individual's domicile is the country that he or she regards as his home - it is where he or she has the closest ties and, when he is away, it is the place to which he intends to return (although he or she can be away for a considerable period of time). Domicile is not specifically defined for tax purposes(you won't find a statutory definition either), but takes its meaning from the general law which has developed over a very long period of time - and possibly finds its origins in the concepts relating settlement which in turn were affected by the Poor Laws (look them up in Wikipedia if you want to know more).

Domicile of origin is the most important type of domicile. It is acquired by birth and usually by reference to the domicile of the father at the time of the birth. A domicile of origin is maintained unless it is abandoned by the acquisition of a domicile of choice. A person cannot have no domicile and so, if they abandon a domicile of choice without making a further choice of domicile, it is probable that the domicile of origin revives.

Domicile of choice is acquired by physical residence in the chosen territory combined with an intention to permanently or indefinitely reside in that territory. The second of these tests is subjective and we have seen recently that even people who depart and change their lives in significant ways can be found by the court not to have succeeded in removing themselves from the UK for the purposes of domicile - see here, but remember that the case turned on questions of domicile not residence!

Residence and ordinary residence are also not defined in statute and as a result the dictionary definitions are usually adopted by the courts - ignoring any mental element whatsoever. A person can be resident in more than one country at a time - so a person who winters in Spain and summers in the UK can be resident in the UK and in Spain at the same time. A person can even have no residence - contrast that with domicile.

For residence, HMRC have adopted rules based on the numbers of days that a person is resident in the UK - if a person spends more than 183 days in the UK in any tax year, then he or she will invariably be resident in the UK for tax purposes in that tax year. If a person leaves the UK for a permanent residence abroad but spends 91 days per year or more in the UK then they are treated as continuing their UK residence.

Residents are liable to tax on their UK earnings - people resident here but domiciled abroad are not liable for earnings abroad so long as their earnings are not remitted here. So a non-dom is someone who pays tax on their UK earnings and on sums brought into the UK for their use. So to say that a non-dom is not taxed on their world-wide earnings is not quite true - because if they live here and have no income here but bring money in from abroad, they are liable to tax on the money they bring in.

Various proposals have been made to reform the laws of domicile and residence for UK tax purposes. What is remarkable is that the Labour Government's only significant reform of this area has been in 2008 when the £30,000 charge was made for registered long term residents who retained a domicile that was not the UK - it should be noted that the liability to tax on money remitted to the UK remains. Most other jurisdictions tax income on a residence basis - the quesiton I want to ask any Labour politician who complains about non-doms is this - why wait until now to complain and why did you not put in place the reforms you appear to have wanted at the beginning of your 12 years in power?

Election lines

2010-03-01T12:02:00.000Z

So, the Sunday Times reports a YouGov poll that has the Conservative lead down to 2% - and the headline it produces is that Gordon Brown will win a fourth term for Labour ... see here.

I am not unduly worried by polling data of this nature and I am inherently suspicious of press reports that arise from individual polls for all sorts of reasons - some of the best criticism of polling data can be found at Anthony Wells's UK Polling Report (at the time of this post, the link doesn't appear to work) and at the Political Betting blog. I don't propose to carry out such a critique here, partly because I don't have the sort of specialist knowledge required and partly because I would repeat what others have said.

The narrative in the newspapers at the moment is that the Conservatives are nervous and jittery - that they appear to be unclear and inconsistent about what they propose to do. I have to say that that is not my experience ...

But, there is a problem at the moment. We are, effectively, in an election campaign. The message that we are selling needs to be simpler and easier to grasp. The magic of the inheritance tax announcement at the party conference in 2007 was that it was simple, easy to sell and easy to understand - and it resounded on the doorsteps. The difficulty with the changed economic circumstances that we face today is that what is proposed is much more nuanced ... much less easy to state in simple langauge ... and much less easy to sell in two or three short sentences on the doorsteps.

When we return to simpler messages about things that people both understand and understand their effect on them I suspect that we will do better ... and if Labour thinks that their message is easier to sell, then they have a problem too. Who fiddled the figures whilst Rome burned? Who spent without reform? Who spent more than we can afford? Who created the mess that the public finances are in? The answer to each of these questions is, 'Gordon Brown' and 'Labour'.

On the negative side, the Conservative message is simple ... it is the positive one that is more difficult. Yes, Governments lose elections, but oppositions have it in their power to enhance their wins ...

Playing the man?

2010-02-25T09:54:00.000Z

I do hope that anyone who watches this video will conclude that Nigel Farage will not be an asset in Westminster ...

The problem is that his criticism is intensely personal when it need not be - the problem is that he attacks the man too much - the problem is that he doesn't need to be so personal and insulting.

When I was standing for the European Parliament last year, I came to the conclusion that UKIP occasionally makes lots of noise, but that when it comes to the work that has to be done in the European Parliament, they do very little indeed - so making their being in that place a complete and utter waste of time. That they then jump up and down criticising things that they could have had some influence over is, frankly, silly!

I suppose you could say that UKIP is like an old American V8 engine - lots of noise but lazy!

Bullying and confidentiality

2010-02-22T12:19:00.000Z

(Picture from Daily Record website)

Personally, I have no experience from which to judge whether Gordon Brown has abused other people employed to assist him - yet the allegations in the newspapers and elsewhere are numerous, frequent and long standing.

The problem in relation to the latest allegations is that, yet again, the Prime Minister's program is interrupted by what is, in comparison to the things he should be concentrating on, pretty insusbtantial - and when writing that, I do not diminsh the allegations which, for the individuals concerned will be serious and substantial.

The most damning of the reports, it appears to me, relate to the Prime Minister's refusal to countenance either the possibility that he may be mistaken or that others may have a different but valid point of view. The allegations appear to go so far as to suggest that he refuses even to accept the bona fides of others with whom he disagrees - and his approach to the legislative and political program supports that conclusion about his motives.

Equally, the behaviour of the chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline is odd. Odd in that the helpline is supposed to be confidential and she has essentially compromised that helpline in speaking out in the way that she has. Odd in that she appears to have failed to understand that by speaking out she has placed her organisation and herself in the eye of the latest political storm. Odd in that she does not appear to present a consistent story or to have listened to wise advice in advance of speaking out. Think about it, if you are working for someone famous or influential, will you think twice before telephoning this helpline now that Mrs Pratt has spoken out about the allegations of bullying in Downing Street?

I suspect that this story will play on for a little while longer - but that it will merely confirm in some people's minds (mine included) that Gordon Brown is sadly unsuited to the office or role that he currently fulfills - for others, conspiracies will abound about the motivation of Ms Pratt - but for most, it will merely confirm that politicians are in a class of their own ... and the need for reconciliation between the electors and the elected will remain.

Economics

2010-02-19T10:04:00.001Z

(Picture of a twitterer, from the Telegraph website)

Economists disagree - they often disagree - like lawyers, get 2 economists in a room and you'll have at least 3 opinions!

In the light of this group of economists' letter, our esteemed Minister of State for Health has decided to twit:

"The economists supporting Labour's approach are more numerous. Aren't they also better calibre than the Tories'"

So now the argument this Minister wants to have is about the quality of the economists in an argument that I suspect even those that coalesce around one letter disagree about ... it's like a footballer appealing that this linesman is better qualified than the other one!

We should not forget that the spending spree that Labour has been indulging in since 2001 is a spending spree that we cannot afford - could probably never afford - and it was partly based on a disingenuous manipulation of all sorts of figures that make us less trusting of Government statistics than ever before! This is the Government that was so fiscally incontinent and so verbally evasive that I find it difficult not to be exasperated by their attempts to now cling to fiscal conservativism - remember that the figures we are seeing are records - with the record for borrowing in January being broken just yesterday!

Rather than squealing, Mr Bradshaw, tell us with some precision what the Government proposes to do and why we should trust Labour to sort out the mess of Government finances that Labour created? Contrary to all the claims that were made at the time, we entered this recession in a worse position that any of our competitors. We entered this recession with Government debt, even on the manipulated date produced by Labour, at about 47% of GDP: we entered the recession in the early 90's with debt at almost half that (24% or so).

Unemployment in the UK

2010-02-17T16:51:00.000Z

The BBC is reporting that the unemployment figures are down - see here - but that the number of people who are classed as not in employment or seeking a job rose to 21.3% and the number granted jobseekers' allowance was also up (to its highest figure since 1997) - see the Financial Times' report here.

Now what appears to have happened is that people are taking part time work in larger numbers than expected and people are finding that the number of hours that they can work for their employers has also fallen - but because these people are in work, rather than out of it, their difficulties are not reflected in the unemployment figures.

Now it is probably good news that more people are working than might have been had employers simply laid people off - and it is probably a reflection of the changes in our community and employment patterns that have led to employers and employees seeking to protect jobs through reductions in wages and or hours - but the statistic that I find simply staggering is the one that records that more than 1 in 5 people of working age are not working or seeking a job!

This is the largest number, we are told, since records began in 1971 and the FT reports that this is in part due to an increase in number of students.

The difficulties that we face in coming out of the current predicament is that employment in the public sector will almost inevitably fall further - whichever party wins the general election - and the position of the private sector in terms of seeking loans for investment, in terms of seeking new markets or creating new opporunities for jobs are uncertain, espcially when one considers the difficulties being faced elsewhere and in particular elsewhere in Europe.

Capital gains on second homes

2010-02-16T09:37:00.001Z

Sir Paul Kennedy is reported to agree with Sir Thomas Legg on the issue of capital gains made on MPs' second homes - see here.

The interesting thing about interest on debt at the moment is that interest rates are, relatively speaking, low - especially for people with good credit ratings and a history of repaying debt. The money that would be paid in rent for a similar property in London would, I suspect, be more than that paid in interest - although that may change as the economy changes, particularly if inflation increases.

The interesting thing about the press reporting of this issue is that they ignore the fact that MPs take the punt and put up the capital under the schemes for expenses relating to second homes - they are reimbursed the interest on the loans they take out that are secured by a mortgage - I agree that there should be limits on what interest they can recover, preferably in terms of a particular sum - but it is the MPs that choose to take the risk on the market (and I know, since about 1980 there has not been much 'risk') and on the property they choose. But what if property values fall? Will MPs be able to recover their losses from the taxpayer? That can't be sensible ...

I fear that what we are going to end up with is a system where all MPs will end up renting their second homes - at considerable additional expense. I would prefer changes that cost us, the taxpayers, less - not more - and yes, avoidance systems should be put in place to prevent an MP from mortgaging an existing property simply to be able to claim the interes on the debt.

In litigation,when someone claims an equitable interest in a house, there are often circumstances in which they have paid the sums due on the debt secured by the mortgage and they seek to rely on that payment to support their claim. The courts have often (not always) concluded that their payment towards interest only equates to the rent that they would otherwise pay for their occupation and use of the home. As a result, the payment of interest is not counted towards the aquisition of an interest in the property itself. Why should a similar principle not apply to MPs' claims to interest on their mortgages?

Greece - a European tragedy?

2010-02-12T11:39:00.000Z

Dave Osler sets out his view of the solution to the Greek tragedy that is playing out in the markets as we speak. The difficulty that I have with his suggestion is that by imposing selective barriers on particular forms of hedging financial risk, he is effectively suggesting a structure that will either be subjective or he is suggesting a structure that bars some from trading in certin financial instructments but allows others to do so - both of which, it seems to me would be susceptible to legal challenge.

The difficulty that he faces with his argument is that the purely speculative market is not, in real terms, substantial - the idea that Northern Rock and RBS were brought down by people short selling the shares is fantasy. In my view, an explanation for the failure of banks was a combination of a regulation system that was disjointed, lacking sufficient clarity and disinterested and a failure on the part of those with power in the banks in question to take a proportionate look at or possibly even to understand the risks they were taking in their hurry to grow.

It seems to me that a problem with the Euro is that throughout its existence, the fiscal rules have been ignored by member states and been allowed to be so ignored by the Central Bank and the Governments; further problems relate to variability of the quality of information and data collected by member states on their finances; the preparedness of Governments to ensure that they comply with the rules for membership; and the sheer disparate nature of the individual economies of the member states. Yesterday's announcements regarding the support that Greece will get from other Eurozone countries and the conditions that will be required of the Greek Government emphasise these difficulties - indeed, the markets' reaction to the announcements has, so far, been muted at best.

One of the principal tools of dealing with an overheating economy in one nation state is to allow its currency to appreciate to slow things down a bit; on the other hand, where the economy is going into reverse, the currency can be allowed to depreciate - this process needs to be controlled using monetary tools, but the essence remains.

Within a nation state, the way in which the Government attempts to ameliorate the worst excesses of the disparate nature of the economy is by using policy (for example, to encourage investment where it is needed most) and by the use of direct transfer payments. A problem with the Euro area is that European law is used as a tool to set rules for the market that prevents, for example, Greece from using policy in a way that disadvantages the richer parts of the EU and at the same time the transfers are simply not available.

Now in the debate about the Euro, I was dismissed as being silly when I suggested that the Euro would inevitably lead to massive transfer payments from the richer parts of the EU to the poorer parts of the EU and so would inevitably lead to increasing pressure for there to be, effectively, a single nation state. Here we are, some 11 and a bit years later, and all the talk is about how to rescue the Greek economy and many of those with vested political interest in the 'European Project' are calling for a level of economic cooperation that undermines the essence of individual statehood.

I feel very sorry for the Greeks - they cannot re-create a separate national currency, as their national debt will be valued in Euros and the market would push any new drachma down so increasing the value of that debt still higher - the sheer cost of fiscal retrenchment that is being pushed through today may well push them back into recession and even into a depression, with the consequent political risks - there is no magician available who can cunjure up new jobs and investment that would enable them to grow out of the fiscal problems they face. Unless there are substantial transfer payments from richer parts of the Eurozone combined with workable restraint that reduces the size of the Government, I do not foresee a simple solution. Pursuant to terms of the Lisbon Treaty (that I opposed), it is possible that the whole of the EU can be required to pay!

When Sterling fell out of the ERM and considerable pressure was put on the French Franc to do the same, the Governments of France and Germany broke then-existing European law to effectively reintroduce exchange controls - and it is my view that those controls were what gave the French Government the breathing space to retain their membership of the ERM. Within the Eurozone such unlawful action is not an option ... for the obvious reason that the Euro is a single currency.

We shall have to watch the events unfold - and hope, and pray, that the costs are not too high!

Education and access to the Bar

2010-02-11T09:38:00.001Z

(Barristers, picture from BBC news website)
Last night I was at a meeting of a committee at the Middle Temple called the Scholarships and Prizes Committee. The Middle Temple is one of the four Inns of Court that people have to join in order to become barristers - you can read more about the Inn, its work and its history here.

Now an enormous amount of work has been done by the Bar to consider entry to it as a profession and you can read about that work in the final report of the Bar working party on entry to the profession. Considerable discussion about access to the professions is reported in the press and elsewhere from time to time but these have occurred too frequently to be linked to here - just type in 'access to the professions' in Google. Finally, the Social Mobility Foundation is an organisation whose objectives I wholeheartedly support.

For a number of years we have been seeing ever increasing numbers of children getting top grades in their A levels - see here for last year's report in the Guardian. A difficulty is that, as I understand it, of the almost 30,000 children with 2 A's and a B at A level, only 3,000 went to state schools.

Now we can argue about whether there has been a 'dumbing down'; but the essential problem for potential employers and those interviewing students with top grades is the simple fact that if more and more students have the top grades, then the opportunity to discern difference between the very best and the next best in any particular year group is made more difficult. The rhetorical question I ask is whether the decision to abandon marking against your peer group was a good one (and, yes, I am well aware that it was a decision taken by a Conservative Government)?

Sadly, it strikes me (and I know that I have said it before) that the difficulty with the ever increasing proportion of top grades is that the results become less important and contacts and how you perform at interview becomes more so - thus potentially giving advantage to the confident offspring, may be privately educated or tutored, of those who have those contacts or who are prepared to push their children.

A difficulty with trying to resolve the issues of access to the professions by targetting students at University or even in their final years at school is that it may well be too late. But how are we to seek out the poorest kids with the best prospects at an age when a substantial difference can be made? How do we affect their lives in a way that gives them the best opportunities and chances without interfering too much into their families and their lives?

As an Inn, the Middle Temple awards about £1 million by way of Scholarships each year - and we do all we can to award the money on needs and the named scholarships on merit. The other Inns award similar sums by way of Scholarships although their approach to interviewing differs. Does anyone reading this blog have any ideas about how we could approach children who would not otherwise even think of coming to the Bar as a result of their circumstances but whose prospects and abilities are such that they might be very good?

We obviously have some ideas, but the purpose of this post is my personal wish to seek input and information from you ... I should say that this question is asked in my personal capacity and is nothing to do with the Inn and the views expressed in this post are personal to me and do not represent the views of anyone else.

Contempt of Parliament?

2010-02-08T13:07:00.000Z

(Picture of Morley, Devine and Chaytor from Telegraph website)
Let us assume for a moment that MPs' claim to Parliamentary Privilege in relation to the alleged abuse of MPs' expenses succeeds ... what are the potential consequences?

Well, it seems to me that the only way in which Parliament can properly regulate its own processes - and that would include the processes relating to its expenses - would be through bringing proceedings for Contempt of Parliament.

Now Parliament regulates this and it should be noted, before I go any further, that a claim to privilege to defend against charges for fraud relating to those European Parliamentary expenses was rejected in Ashley Mote's case.

But what would happen? Well, as I understand it, what would happen would be that the disgraced former Members of Parliament would be brought before the bar of the House of Commons to be tried by their peers - I believe that the last time such a procedure was used was in the 18th Century and in the Lords rather than the Commons - and I am sure that someone with more time will provide more detail.

Now, there does not appear to be any guidance in Erskine-May as to what happens next, so I suspect that Parliament would have to decide its procedure - and in doing so would have to take into account the ECHR rights or risk exposing itself to challenge from that court; although I am pretty certain that the UK courts would view such a court challenge as being unavailable following the decision in Brass Crosby's Case in 1771.

The spectacle that would then follow would potentially include seeing the Speaker sitting as Judge and all of the members of the House of Commons sitting as jury; with the procedures, rules of evidence and, if conviction follows, punishments being all in the air!

So, would the decision regarding the subjective knowledge of dishonesty (as set out in Ghosh) apply?

As to penalty, Parliament has no limit - so unlimited fines and imprisonment could follow along with Acts of Attainder (confiscation of assets without recourse to the courts).

Now, as a lawyer and as a citizen I say that that would be interesting to watch ...

The 'power' of blogging?

2010-02-05T09:32:00.000Z

Paul Staines (who sometimes prefers to be known as Guido Fawkes) was on Newsnight last night having a spat with Tim Yeo MP - you can watch the argument here.

I'll let you be the judge of who got the better of the argument on Newsnight, and leave time to tell us whether the criticisms of Tim Yeo are either fair or just.

2 days ago, I pointed to Liberal Conspiracy and said that I thought that their source for a particular story was less than reliable - see here.

For bloggers and blogging, the problem with all of this is that if any of us get it wrong, then people will start to dismiss us in the way that they did before blogging entered into the mainstream. The mass media will be very keen to dismiss the blogging world as filled with cranks (which it undoubtedly is) and fools that can be ignored entirely.

Today's questions are these - have we passed the highwater mark for the influence of the individual blogger and are we about to enter a time when the only blogs with 'influence' or 'power' are the select few that are fancy and funded? Will the mass media seek to use 'mistakes' even minor ones as an excuse for ignoring the blogs? Finally, how do we ensure that lies told on a blog for perceived political advantage for the blog's favoured candidate do not influence the result (in relation to this, it is interesting to see South Australia's new law)?

Scams and other traps

2010-02-04T09:35:00.003Z

(Image from abcnews.go.com)
Last night I received an email - it said that I was the beneficiary of a will and that I was due to receive £10,000,000 from the deceased, but that the details of the deceased were being withheld as this was the second time they had contacted me. I had not received any earlier communication.

Attached to the email was a name, Joo Cawthra, claiming to be from Heir Trustees, South Wales UK and a mobile telephone number +447011152611.

Now I know of no-one who has died who would leave me such a vast sum of money; and those that know me know that I am a barrister and I have some specialist knowledge of wills and estates law in England & Wales. So I was suspicious.

I telephoned the number and, suprisingly, it rang through. Listening to the person on the other end of the telephone, my suspicions were confirmed. They had no real knowledge of the probate system in England & Wales and so I told the person that this was, I thought, an attempt at fraud and that I would report it. They rang off.

I have contacted Serious Organised Crime Agency (www.soca.gov.uk), who tell me that because I wasn't taken it, it was not something that they would deal with. The man was very helpful and gave me the telephone number for Consumer Direct (www.consumerdirect.gov.uk). I have reported the matter to them ...

These sorts of scams prey on the innocent and the desparate and it is time that we started to increase people's awareness of them.

Bloggers and the Conservative Party

2010-02-03T13:56:00.005Z

Those who have read Will Straw's blog today will have seen a report about a drinks party that took place yesterday evening - what they will have picked up from the comments to his blog entry is that Mr Straw's 'source' is less than reliable.

What happened was that Samuel Coates invited a largish group of Conservative and conservative-minded bloggers to a drink at the City Inn in Westminster. The famous and not-so-famous came and it was a chance to chat with other bloggers and also to some of the press officers of the Conservative Party who came too, as well as to some of the people from CCHQ who were thinking through an 'on-line strategy' for the coming general election.

Eric Pickles was on good form - he joked about his twitter reported doughnut-eating session and the fact that his 'form' was down to pies not doughnuts, going on to explain that the Australian newspapers picked up the story and run with it! Seriously, he explained that the coming election is not going to be 'nice' or 'pretty' with our opponents distorting our policies and views online and that we should be prepared to rebut these distortions - and that, it seems to me, is sensible.

What struck me about the people that I chatted to during the evening is just how difficult it will be to try to tie people to a 'party line' - the candidates have a party line to follow, and I would expect them to do so - for the rest, I think that many will be critical of the things that they disagree with, and that is going to be interesting when it comes to the election itself.

Politics - the end game?

2010-02-02T09:15:00.004Z

The gloves are off, Gordon Brown has decided to do anything that he thinks might limit the scale of the defeat that he fears will come in a few weeks time. Labour follows his lead ...

According to Guido Fawkes, Alastair Darling is not above a little fibbing ...

And now it is reported that Gordon Brown wants Parliament to vote on whether to change the voting system - see here.

Of course, what you will notice about the BBC report is not that this is being done for narrow partisan reasons, no, this is being done 'to restore trust'; and that raises very real concerns about the credulity of the BBC. Sadly, the reality is that Gordon Brown is looking for one of his famous 'dividing lines' ... he wants to lay a trap for the Conservatives - hoping that they will vote against and so be able to be portrayed as dinosaurs who favour the system that 'led to the expenses scandal'.

What he forgets is that the expenses scandal lies in changes to the expenses system brought in after 1997 - talking to MPs who were in Parliament before then, there was no 'John Lewis list', there were no expenses for furnishing houses in extravagent fashion and there were no expenses for Sky Sport.

That this proposal comes out in a Government amendment to a bill that is already in its Committee stage before the Commons shows just how disgracefully Labour is prepared to behave ... what about those discussions in advance with interested parties?

Actually, I don't believe that the Conservatives need fear this proposal one bit - although no-one has yet told me why someone's second preference should trump another's first in a way that convinces me that AV is any better than FPTP.

Well, what is sauce for the goose and all that ...

Jobs - does it matter who creates them?

2010-02-01T10:18:00.004Z

I know what I think - and my views appear to be confirmed by this news report in the Times and this academic report from the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change.

The academic study makes uncomfortable reading for the Conservatives as well as Labour, in particular criticising Margaret Thatcher's emphasis on supply side reforms as well as the activities of Labour over the last 12 years. The difficulties that Margaret Thatcher faced are very different to the ones we face today - but the identification of the problems is very often the beginning of the process that enables answers to be found - even if we disagree about the relative benefits of different prescriptions that are promoted.

The boasts of Labour ministers and MPs about the number of jobs created now appear so hollow when you consider the sustainability of many of these jobs. Like much of Labour's other rhetoric about the economy, their boasts appear to be so misplaced as to be thoroughly disreputable.

When one considers that our priority should be to increase the size of the wealth generating sector and increasing sustainable jobs, I wonder just how difficult is the next economic period going to be?

Whoopee!!!!

2010-01-27T09:58:00.006Z

"Growth is restored - the recession is ended - here ends the lesson!" The Government has been 'vindicated' and its 'talent' is showing. These are the things that Labour would like us to believe as a result of the end of the recession and growth in the last quarter of 0.1% - that is £1 has grown to £1.001.

The reality is that it is good news that our economy is no longer shrinking - but

we should not forget nor forgive the Government that denied that there would be a recession until we were in it;

that failed to balance the books in the boom years (if indeed they were boom years, rather than an unsustainable asset-price (house price) bubble);

that changed the measure of the 'trend growth rate' in an attempt to hide the boom and disguise just how irresponsible its spending was;

that changed that measure of inflation to remove that part of 'housing' by asserting that it wanted to measure inflation on the same basis that other European nations were using;

that resulted in a consumer credit boom that was fed too much credit too cheaply;

that relied too heavily on deflation in the price of imported goods (principally from the Far East);

that regulated too heavily in some areas (employment etc) while failing to effectively regulate the city at all;

that relied too heavily on advice from the partners of one bank (Goldman Sachs);

that claimed to have abolished the economic cycle - and believed that it was possible and that it had done so;

that claimed to have saved the world and when it understood just how preposterous that was went on to and continues to claim equally preposterously that it saved the banking world;

and that borrowed in peacetime more money that it took for us to defeat Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler combined!

I could go on, but I think that will do for now.

Equality, law and religion

2010-01-25T12:14:00.005Z

The Guardian reports that the UK Government is being pressured by the European Commission to ensure that the proposed 'Equality bill' applies fully to religious organisations - see here.

The bill is invidious for all sorts of reasons - not because it is an effort to remove the sort of discrimination that objectively adds nothing, but because of the manner in which it proposes to do so - but the idea that the European Commission should be applying pressure on equality would be, given its history of nepotism and other forms of direct favouritism that results in discrimination against anyone who is on the outside, laughable were it not so depressing.

When one considers that the levelling out of academic results - the number of children obtaining the highest grades is increasing year on year as a result of the folly of successive Government ministers and Ofsted boards acting on the direction of those ministers - means that it is increasingly difficult for employers, sifting bodies and other selection panels to distinguish between the very best and the rest: the result is that contacts, inside knowledge and other such factors are likely to benefit some at the expense of others ...

The ironic result of all these actions is that I believe that we are likely to find that the inequality (that most people recognise exists in our community) will increase and that the life chances of those that are not 'in the loop' will not be the same as those in it ... another unintended consequence of the 'do something, anything' culture of this Labour Government.

Difficult cases and bad laws

2010-01-22T10:20:00.007Z

(Justice from Disabilitynow website)
One of the things that saddens me most about politics, political reporting and political argument today is the use of difficult cases to illustrate or even justify a political standpoint. The reasons that it saddens me are numerous.

First, there is the old adage that 'difficult cases make for bad laws'. Hasty legislation is frequently shown to be 'bad' in the sense that it often fails to achieve the objectives of those that promote it and it often has considerable unintended consequences. The affect on civil liberties by the hasty criminal justice legislation over the past 12 years only has to be considered for an instant to realise that this is difficult and that the legislation is poor.

Second, the reports often overemphasise certain aspects of the case and underemphasise others. If we take Munir Hussain's case for a moment - he and his family were attacked in an horrific manner and he and his family has every right thinking person's sympathy for that. It appears that he managed to loosen his bonds and he went after his assailants - and in that chase, he and others attacked one of his assailants with, amongst other things, a cricket bat. The assailant was rendered unconscious some distance from the family home. The press and some politicians naturally focus on the assailants' actions ... but none of them listened the evidence heard by the jury which convicted Munir Hussain in its entirety. They pick and choose which bits of the evidence they like and use it to support an argument. In effect, rather than acting as jurors, they act as counsel for the defence of Munir Hussain. They are partial. They choose the side they wish to be on.

Third, the context of the judgment is often forgotten in an effort to condemn an individual judge. In Munir Hussain's case, the Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence and suspended it, resulting in his release. The conviction stands. Yet we read and hear personal criticism of the Judge who passed the original sentence; and the limited nature of his discretion as set out in statute law (and in the sentencing guidelines) is temporarily forgotten in the rush to comdemn the Judge in question. The possibility of an appeal - a swift appeal against sentence, as in this case - is ignored. The place of an appeal in our criminal justice system is forgotten.

In the rush to judgement we should be cautious of arguments built entirely on the basis of an individual case - especially where the argument is entirely built on one aspect of that individual case. That is not to say that the sentencing system is not in need of considerable reform - sadly, my prescription would be to give Judges considerable leeway and discretion rather than continue down the route that we are following today; but that is an argument for another day.

Reforming libel laws in England?

2010-01-21T10:05:00.002Z

One of the issues that vexes many bloggers is the state of the laws of Libel in England & Wales - see here and here and here.

Very often, the vociferous criticise individual judges or firms of solicitors - ignoring the unalterable fact that it is the law and the legal framework that these people work in that creates almost all of the criticisms that are made! Others have already set out very clearly why this criticism is both unfair and probably conceals the real motives of those that publish this criticism - see here.

So when a Judge makes a mistake - as arguably, Eady J has in his decision on a preliminary decision in the BCA v Singh case - there may be valid criticism of the Judge, but that criticism should be expressed in the appeal, rather than personalised, often with accusations of conspiracy.

One of the difficulties that we face as a legal profession is that the world is changing fast - in particular the speed and access to information is so fast and so vast that it is entirely possible that people can be libelled or slandered and their very livelihood threatened by false and even malicious accusations. The proposals to simply exempt interactive chat or online services is in my view really rather dangerous - indeed, as it currently stands, it is exceedingly difficult for people who are deliberately and or maliciously attacked to seek quick and effective remedies in court against those that attack them or those that facilitate those attacks.

In terms of the legal framework - one interesting problem relates to conditional fees and the uplift for success. This is interesting in that this was one of the innovations that was brought in by this Government to deal with an increasing legal aid budget - but which in relation to personal injury cases, for example, has led to a massive increase in the costs of litigation (and in particular in the effect of those costs on unsuccessful litigants). Other interesting problems relate to the rules of procedure in civil cases (the Civil Procedure Rules), which in my experience have substantially increased the costs of litigation and intended litigation. The use of litigation to seek to recover costs against the 'funders' of litigation is another increasing phenomenon that concerns me.

In terms of libel law, it does seem to me that there are considerable areas that need to be considered - and Jack Straw's intervention this week is interesting in relation to costs - and reflects one of the recommendations of the Libel Reform Campaign.

That lawyers seek to find ways around libel law - for example, using confidence, privacy or even conspiracy claims - also points to the problems of the existing libel laws - and rather than react piecemeal, perhaps the time has come for there to be a wholesale look at libel and consider, with the advantage of Law Commission input, a general reform of the law.

Bill McLaren

2010-01-20T10:19:00.004Z

Bill McLaren is being described as the voice of rugby in the news stories that report his death.

Here are some 'funnies' from his time reporting rugby:

He may have retired from reporting rugby in 2002, but his was one of the 'voices' from my childhood.

"What I meant to say was ...

2010-01-18T14:34:00.005Z

that I didn't mean what I said and I was answering a question that I wasn't asked but thought I was being asked about a question that I thought the Prime Minister I served was being asked but wasn't in fact asked but in any event he could have decided what he decided without having been told what he thought he was being told by the Joint Intelligence Committee but in any event he understood what he was being told by them and it is clear that that was in fact what he was being told in any event!"

I just hope that is clear - but in case it isn't, try this for size ... it makes Vicky Pollard's usual commentary the picture of clarity!

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words ..."

2010-01-18T11:04:00.008Z

We all know the end of the playground retort that we learnt to deal with the nastiness of 'friends' ... but the difficulty for society in these troubled times it that some want to stop the sometimes hurtful comments others make - crying 'sexism', 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' at the first opportunity. At the extreme, the accusations fly even when there is no basis for them - on other occasions, the name-calling appears fair and justified.

On Saturday, Cath Elliott referred to the behaviour and views of others in very trenchant terms - particularly excoriating those that make jokes about sexual assault - see here. If what is reported is true, the critique of what now appears to be an ex-conservative councillor is fair (although I am not certain that I would regard any of our tabloid newspapers as a particularly good source of 'fair' comment or reasoned or reasonable reporting).

Last year, Jimmy Carr made a joke about ex-forces' amputees increasing the UK's prospects at the next Paralympic Games - and he was castigated for that. The criticisms were probably fair - but in the right context, I could see such jokes being seen as funny by particular audiences - the dark humour of soldiers is not often understood by people outside the Army.

We have all said things that others will find offensive - and if we did not intend to offend, an apology should be all that is required.

Sadly, in these days of instant reporting and with an election just weeks away, I suspect that we shall be seeing many more accusations of racism, sexism or 'homophobism' (is there such a word?) in blogs and in the press. The problem with many of these accusations is that they will not be 'fair' - objectively or otherwise - and the difficulty is that some of that unfairness will stick unfairly.

In this febrile atmosphere, perhaps the end of the playground retort will be rewritten - 'and words will sometimes stick to me!'

Oops - advice to PPCs, associations and anyone thinking of mass mailing correspondence by post

2010-01-13T10:12:00.004Z

(Picture from Telegraph website)
Today, I was told of two letters from one political organisation to residents in 'its area' that had inadequate postage on it - the letters were separately addressed to a husband and wife I know well ... the result was real anger on the part of the resident who had to pay the post office for the privilege of collecting what was, in reality, a circular and leaflet.

With luck this will have been a 'one-off' - but if you are thinking or writing to residents or consitutents and sending a political circular through the post, please please please do not ignore the vital check to make sure that all of the letters have the correct postage!

If you do make a mistake and you discover it, you will need to find a way to let people know you're sorry - the quicker the better!