Monday, 24 September 2012

This isn't just the politics of envy, Mr Clegg. It's a war on Britain’s whole economic future Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2207539/Nick-Cleggs-politics-envy-war-Britains-economic-future.html#ixzz27PdRZF2u Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Once upon a time, the Lib Dems were gently mocked as woolly,  organic yogurt-eating sandal-wearers — harmless eccentrics who could be indulged because they would never get their hands on power.
Now, however, we can see that they are about as harmless to the body politic as strychnine — and the Conservative Party, apparently helpless in their thrall, is meekly helping administer the poison.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has launched a two-prong attack on the middle classes. First, he declared yesterday that the ‘top ten per cent’ — around three million people earning more than £50,500 a year — should face more taxes.
Audience: Nick Clegg fielded an hour of questions from the gathered party faithful
Audience: Nick Clegg fielded an hour of questions from the gathered party faithful
Attack: Nick Clegg said that the 'top ten per cent' earning more than £50,500 a year should face more taxes
Attack: Nick Clegg said that the 'top ten per cent' earning more than £50,500 a year should face more taxes
And in another move believed to be forced through by a gung-ho Lib Dem leader, the Coalition intends to target everyone with a home worth more than £1 million as a presumed tax-dodger.
A squad of computer and legal experts will comb through all the assets of such people — their property, savings and income. If this hit squad thinks the homeowners are not paying enough tax, it will have the power to knock on their front door and force them to account for every penny they are worth.

This is simply oppressive, offensive and utterly indefensible.
New wealth taxes — including possible changes to inheritance tax and the tightening of rules governing pensions — for people who earn just over the £50,500 limit would affect some teachers, senior nurses and top Army officers. These are not exactly the mega-rich.
Of course suspected tax evasion should be investigated and, where proved, punished. But this is not targeting tax evasion, which is a crime, but tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal.
The Business Secretary Vince Cable claims that the one shades into the other. Well, some tax avoidance schemes are so elaborate and convoluted they may well be deemed intolerable and should indeed be shut down.
The Lib Dems appear to be suggesting, however, that all tax avoidance is wrong. But there is no moral duty to pay more tax than you actually need to, and any attempt to pretend that there is would seem therefore to be coercive and itself immoral.
In fact, it is clear that this policy is not actually about tax avoidance at all. If that were the case, the Treasury would be setting its attack dogs on everyone who pays their cleaner or builder in cash — and on the builders and cleaners themselves.
No, the Lib Dems are not trying to catch up with tax cheats but rather to punish everyone they consider to be rich.
Danny Alexander has said as 'the wealthiest did best in the boom years and it is right they should pay more now'
Danny Alexander has said as 'the wealthiest did best in the boom years and it is right they should pay more now'
That’s why the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander insists: ‘The wealthiest did best in the boom years and it is right they should pay more now.’ In other words, this is nothing other than the old politics of envy — that sour and destructive doctrine which helped consign the Labour Party to oblivion until it finally realised that this was a recipe for suicide both for itself and the nation.
Yet now the Coalition has actually set up a special unit for fleecing the better-off. It’s called the Affluence Unit. Did you know such a unit existed? No, neither did I.
And just who is to be targeted by this Affluence Unit? It turns out it was set up to single out for harassment some 300,000 people who are said to be worth more than £2.5 million — and now it will widen its net to drag in another 500,000 people worth more than £1 million.
But the flaw in this ‘soak the rich’ policy is obvious. A £1 million or even a £2.5 million house does not necessarily mean its owner is wealthy at all (any more than is someone on £50,500 per year). It may simply mean that house prices have risen a great deal in recent times.
There are plenty of houses now worth this amount, in London and the South-East in particular, which are nevertheless pretty ordinary homes.
And their owners may have relatively modest incomes. Yet these are the people who may now find the tax inquisition on their doorsteps, feeling their  financial collars.
Indeed, anyone with a £1 million-plus home will be treated as if they are suspected of tax-dodging just because they own it.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Or the equally fundamental doctrine that it is wrong to trawl for offences without due cause for suspicion?
And in any event, the better-off already do pay more in tax than those on more limited incomes.
But for the Lib Dems, it appears that anyone whose assets are worth more than they think reasonable is to be treated as an enemy of the people.
Flaw: A £1¿million house does not necessarily mean its owner is exceptionally wealthy - it may just mean that house prices have risen a great deal in recent times
Flaw: A £1million house does not necessarily mean its owner is exceptionally wealthy - it may just mean that house prices have risen a great deal in recent times
Thus Nick Clegg told his party’s conference: ‘I want to reward people who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune. People for whom a bonus means a few extra quid at Christmas, not a million-pound windfall.’ So on preposterous Planet Clegg, working is good — as long as you don’t actually make any money, other than ‘a few extra quid at Christmas’.
All those who work hard enough to buy a house whose value goes up a lot are to be given no credit for industriousness or prudence, but to be treated as if they had won the Lottery — which justifies the State grabbing some of this ‘windfall’ for itself.
And note also Clegg’s implicit assumption that the only worthy form of work is to be employed. Those who do the employing, however, are to be punished for making money.
This is an attack not on wealth but on wealth creators.
 Nick Clegg told the conference: 'I want to reward people who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune'
Nick Clegg told the conference: 'I want to reward people who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune'
But when the rich are targeted in this way — as we can see from France, where President Hollande has imposed the kind of swingeing taxes on the rich that the Lib Dems doubtless dream of inflicting upon Britain — the tax-take actually goes down, and the wealthiest flee the country.  
Indeed, at precisely the moment that Britain urgently needs more wealth to be created if it is to struggle out of recession, the Coalition has set up a unit whose sole purpose is to target affluence as if it were some kind of disease to be stamped out.
This is not just the politics of envy — it’s the politics of sheer asinine imbecility.
It really is so utterly bonkers that it can only be explained as driven by the zeal of a fanatic.
There was a whiff of this from Danny Alexander when, trying to show he was not as wealthy as David Cameron or George Osborne, he declared: ‘I have a two-bedroom flat in London worth £300,000 to £400,000 and a home in Scotland worth a bit less.’
Ah yes: the knee-jerk sanctimoniousness of the ideologue who draws an artificial line in the moral sand — only £400,000! — and then damns everyone beyond it.
Such posturing is even more distasteful since the Chief Secretary himself avoided paying capital gains tax when his London property was designated his main home for tax purposes, even though he described it as his second home to maximise his expenses claims as an MP.
As we all know, the Lib Dems desperately want to impose a ‘mansion tax’ on all homes worth more than £2 million, a move blocked by David Cameron. Targeting the ‘affluent’ who own homes worth more than £1 million looks very much like a sneaky way of getting this ‘mansion tax’ by the back door.
So is the Prime Minister going to roll over and let this happen? What on earth are Tories for if not to protect the country from this kind of socialist wrecking ball?

This war on affluence is nothing less than a war on prosperity and on Britain’s whole economic future.

Will they ever heed the voice of Britain? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2206910/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Will-heed-voice-Britain.html#ixzz27PcToz5b Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

For three decades, an official annual report has highlighted the widening chasm between the views of the British people and those of the metropolitan, liberal elite who control the levers of power.
Indeed, the findings have become so familiar that the 30th British Social Attitudes survey, published this week, has attracted only perfunctory coverage.
Yet it reveals a crisis in our democracy that screams out for attention. It calls into question the very integrity of our system of government, as an inward-looking and increasingly isolated political class blocks its ears to the views of the people it is supposed to represent.
Take immigration. The survey finds that 75 per cent of the public want it reduced immediately, while more than half – up from 40 per cent in 1995 – say it should be cut by ‘a lot’.
For the first time, too, a majority reject claims that migrants are good for the economy, with resentment highest among the low paid (who, unlike the bien pensant advocates of open borders, have to compete with foreigners for work).
Defying public opinion, however, the Coalition allowed net immigration to hit a record 252,000 last year.
Meanwhile, the BSA report finds that just a third believe immigration has been of cultural benefit, while 48 per cent say it has had a negative effect.
But you won’t find a single mainstream politician who speaks for that 48 per cent. Indeed, with one voice, the major parties argue vociferously against their views.
Or take the welfare state. A resounding 62 per cent say unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work, while increasing numbers believe disability benefit claimants have been wrongly classified as unable to work.
These are not the findings of some Right-wing think tank with an axe to grind. This is the Government’s own research, funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Yet the widely-held views voiced in the BSA survey are either ignored or howled down by the publicly funded BBC – by far our most powerful news organisation, which has relentlessly pushed the liberal line and vilified the views of the people.
Meanwhile, even the feeblest attempts to match official policy to the public’s beliefs are fiercely resisted on both government and opposition benches.
No wonder voters are close to despair that their crosses on the ballot paper will ever make a difference.
When will the political class reconnect with the people – and remember the meaning of democracy?

Money to burn

As state borrowing spirals out of control and most ministers search desperately for cuts, the Department for International Development has the opposite problem.
For so bloated is its budget that officials are struggling to spend it fast enough to meet David Cameron’s target of increasing it to a blistering £12billion.
Earlier this week, it emerged that DfID splashed out almost £500million last year to aid consultants – while one  firm alone, as the Mail reports today, scooped contracts worth £100million in just nine months.
Yet, as evidence mounts that aid often does more harm than good to the needy, Mr Cameron still speaks of making it illegal for DfID to spend less than 0.7 per cent of the UK’s income.
This is madness. The Mail believes firmly in rich societies’ duty to alleviate the suffering of the world’s poorest – and Britain’s charitable donors are already the most generous in Europe.
But while families at home are suffering, how much longer can the Coalition go on squandering billions this country doesn’t possess, just so that politicians can feel good about themselves?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2206910/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Will-heed-voice-Britain.html#ixzz27PcPw7pZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sunday, 16 September 2012

The EU

From http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2203926/124-billion-reasons-time-brought-curtain-tragic-EU-pantomime-Camerons-powerful-Tory-critic-argues-new-Common-Market-Europe.html


124 billion reasons why it's time we brought the curtain down on this tragic EU pantomime: Cameron's most powerful Tory critic argues for a new Common Market in Europe


Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox is calling for a new Common Market in Europe
Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox is calling for a new Common Market in Europe
Now that our magnificent Olympic games are over, politics is returning to normal and the harsh reality of the problems we face are coming back into focus. The problems of economic debt and worries about global security have made headlines in recent days – but the issue of Europe is again rapidly rising up the political agenda.
There are two separate but related issues for Britain’s politicians to deal with – the self-created crisis of the eurozone and the vexed question of Britain’s long-term relationship with the European Union itself.
It is very clear that a number of EU countries intend to move much closer to political and economic union. Only last week,  European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso tried to use the euro crisis to justify  a new push to what he called ‘a federation of nation states’.
He said ‘pooled sovereignty means more power not less’.
My response to that is, yes, more power to the very people in Brussels who got us into this mess. When will Mr Barroso and Co learn? The answer is not more Europe, but less.
But all this should come as no surprise to us.
The very first line in the Treaty of Rome talks about ‘ever closer union’. This was not, of course, what the British people were sold in the referendum of 1975, but it is nonetheless what we were buying and history has shown that the Eurocrats and the European political class have continued without deviation down this path.
This latest chapter is simply a continuation of the ratchet process applied treaty by treaty to achieve the ambition of a federal European state by stealth.
The latest developments represent a historic milestone in the development of the EU and we had better understand their importance. Frankly, if the sign on the front of the bus says ‘ever closer union’ and that is not  the destination we want, then the logical thing to do is to get off the bus. We may not be alone  in seeking a different direction. In Finland, the Netherlands  and the Czech Republic, public opinion seems to be moving away from the assumption that ever closer integration is desirable. 
Cracking under pressure: The EU is doing its best to weather the storm and come out the other side
Cracking under pressure: The EU is doing its best to weather the storm and come out the other side
In any case, the eurozone represents only 17 out of 27 European countries and that number is likely to shrink as the full  horror of the eurozone disaster begins to sink in. How wise John Major’s Government looks in retrospect to have kept Britain out of the euro at a time when Tony Blair’s Labour Party, the BBC and the Guardian were telling us that we would be economically doomed if we stayed out of the project. It is impossible  to say exactly when the euro project will start to fall apart but the contradictions within it make it inevitable. 
How will the Eurocrats in Brussels react to events? History suggests that they will try to do nothing and hope they can continue their project encompassing as many countries as possible. They will throw European taxpayers’ money at the problem for as long as they can – after all, they are not accountable to those who pay the taxes.
 
When that is exhausted as an option they will probably try to do the minimum damage to their political ambition and that is most likely to mean a Greek exit from the euro. This could be the worst possible option. Once the markets recognise that the principle of membership can be breached, it will be a one-way bet forcing one country after another to leave under constant market bombardment. It will be the ERM writ large. There is a strong body of opinion, which I share, that suggests if a number of countries leave simultaneously that will at least send a signal to the markets that the remnant currency has  a real prospect of maintaining  its value.
Throughout this tragic pantomime, Britain will be largely a spectator waiting to see how much damage will be done to our collective economic prospects, before an inevitable economic reality sets in.
Beyond the Eurozone crisis, there is still a much wider issue of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. The British people have never given their agreement to political union. They voted in 1975 for an economic and trade relationship.  I believe it is time to keep faith with the British people. It is time to get back to a common market. Let’s just look at the financial and legal implications of our current position.
It's clear not everyone wants Brtiain in the EU as Hazel Prowse is shown burning the EU flag during a demonstration by UKIP supporters
It's clear not everyone wants Brtiain in the EU as Hazel Prowse is shown burning the EU flag during a demonstration by UKIP supporters
The think-tank, Open Europe, has estimated that the total cost of new regulations on the UK economy as a whole in the decade up to 2010 was £176 billion and of this £124 billion, or 71 per cent, had its origin in the EU.
When people say that we should not talk about Europe and focus on the economy, they are missing the point that a great deal of the cost and regulation of our economy comes from Europe. The issues are indivisible.
To get an idea of where this burden has fallen on Britain we need only look at three individual EU regulations.
The Working Time Regulations have cost Britain £17.8 billion to date, the Vehicle Excise Duty Regulations – implementing the EU pollution directive – have cost British motorists  £10.4 billion and the Data Protection Bill, implementing the data protection directive, has cost British taxpayers more than £8 billion.
Policemen clash with protesters during an anti-austerity rally in Athens
Policemen clash with protesters during an anti-austerity rally in Athens
These costs are on top of Britain’s contributions to the bloated EU budget – a budget that its own auditors refuse to sign off. This has continued to rise despite the austerity programmes being imposed by national parliaments on their own people. It is a disgrace that spending will rise by 6.8 per cent this year while only six out of 41,000 Eurocrats will have their posts cut.
Against the clear mood of the British electorate, the UK is  the third highest contributor  to the EU and our cheque to Brussels this year will be a cool  £6.9 billion net.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the EU Structural Funds are particularly iniquitous. While the UK will have contributed £33.7 billion to the CAP between 2007 and 2013, we will receive only £26.6 billion back. Per hectare, France and Germany will receive £236 and £251 respectively while Britain will get only £188.
The EU Structural Funds are supposed to provide investment across the whole of the EU but there are only two regions in the UK that are net recipients.
If you are reading this in the West Midlands, you pay £3.55 to the fund for every £1 you receive. This whole sorry picture is a far cry from what the British people thought they were signing up to in 1975.
What should be done? I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union – one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.
This would be, in effect, a common market without the political interference that the British people have found it increasingly difficult to tolerate and which politicians of both parties have discovered makes governing our own country increasingly difficult.
We should work with our European partners where it is in our mutual interest to do so.
But we must keep separate the levers that enable us to act as a sovereign and independent country where necessary.
When we have determined the relationship we seek we must set a negotiating timetable with a referendum at the end.
We must be willing to trust  the judgment and wisdom of the British people.
Our destiny should be decided on our own shores and nowhere else.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2203926/124-billion-reasons-time-brought-curtain-tragic-EU-pantomime-Camerons-powerful-Tory-critic-argues-new-Common-Market-Europe.html#ixzz26cWAIuVN