I would like to thank David Jones, MP, for drawing my attention to a statement made by Alistair Darling in relation to my current anathema. Specifically, that unless Government intervenes to prevent it, banks and other large institutions that are in receipt of taxpayers money (as a consequence of large scale losses), will be able to benefit from carrying forward current losses to offset against future taxes. This to my mind would be scandalous. In a statement last Wednesday, Alistair Darling said;

To protect the taxpayer, RBS will have to bear the first portion of any additional losses over the coming years, up to a total loss of 6 per cent., or some £20 billion, on top of the £22 billion of impairment and write-downs that it has already taken. As in any insurance scheme, RBS will have to bear the first losses. After that, the Government will cover up to 90 per cent. of any further losses. RBS will also pay a fee of 2 per cent. of the value of the assets insured—some £6.5 billion—again, as in any insurance scheme. It has also agreed for a number of years not to claim certain UK tax losses and allowances, meaning that when it does return to profitability it will not be able to benefit from the losses accrued in the intervening period.

Now, whilst there appears to be a recognition that banks and other such institutions in receipt of taxpayers money could take advantage of tax breaks related to past losses, it does not go far enough. Firstly, this is just words, there is no concrete agreement, secondly, it only refers so far, to RBS and thirdly, it highlights “certain losses” and “number of years”, providing no clear definition. As we all know, if there are grey areas and money is involved, such statements will be challenged by these large institutions. This is a classic New Labour statement, high on self-righteous rhetoric and short on substance, detail and commitment. We would all be well advised to take much of this statement with a large pinch of salt.

Government needs to legislate for this issue, given every business is entitled to carry forward past losses to offset against future profits. Therefore, unless legislation is introduced, specifically aimed at those in receipt of taxpayers bailout money, to prevent the use of these tax breaks, there will be a massive outcry in the future. This will doubtless be at a time when the taxpayer is being fleeced for even more money to pay for the losses, borrowing and debt accumulated in large part as a consequence of the mismanagement of these institutions.

It is unlikely that we can rely on New Labour to tackle this issue, especially as they are unlikely to be in power when the tax breaks become a political issue, but there is no reason why the Conservatives and LibDems could not, or should not raise this issue now. The electorate demands it of our elected representatives and they must not claim ignorance when the day of reckoning comes, as it surely will.

Anyone that was struggling to pay their mortgages would probably have been heartened in December last year when Gordon Brown said that the government were to introduce a new scheme to help them. Gordon Brown’s announcement even managed to upstage the Queens Speech. To be fair, Gordon Brown did say that the Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme would be available early in the new year, but a recent government update suggests that it will only be up and running in April. Surely this has got to be one of the cruelest things this government could do to people facing repossession? Does this man, Gordon Brown or New Labour have no sense of decency? In December, the government claimed that 8 mortgage lenders had signed up to the scheme, if true, why the subsequent delay, doesn’t this government understand the urgency of the situation for real people in trouble?

For a government that loves statistics, I wonder if they will have anyone calculate how many families will have lost their homes during the intervening period between the announcement and implementation of the new scheme? I very much doubt it somehow. People could have been forgiven for believing that the government, following the annoucement, had something ready for imminent launch. What was the rush for Gordon Brown, was he just chasing the headlines? It smacks of a cheap and wilful swipe at real people, in crisis…something that appears to have become the norm for New Labour.

To make matters worse, Cabinet Office minister Liam Byrne said the governments approach compared favourably to the Conservative Party’s “do nothing” approach. Is this guy on the same planet? Firstly the public are sick and tired of hearing government ministers and Labour MP’s constantly justifying their own failings by claiming that the Conservatives Party policy was to do nothing as if this was an acceptable excuse. Secondly, the Labour government appears to be incapable of understanding precisely how much they raise expectations when they make policy announcements and the level of disappointment felt by people when they find out that the reality doesn’t match up to the rhetoric.

Whilst I am not a great believer in government intervention, I do believe that if they make a commitment or promise, then they must deliver on it in timely manner and in accordance with the original announcement. That said, this government has rarely, if ever, lived up to any of its promises, it is time for a change and I suspect, the people that they are now disappointing, will be the very people that ensure they get it. I cannot wait for an election so that we can get rid of this incompetent, self-serving, spin loving, pathetic party and get on with repairing the damage they have cause and once again, get to the stage where we can call it Great Britain again. I suspect that it will take a long time to get things right, but at least we would have the comfort of knowing that a promise made, is one that they will do their damnedest to deliver.

Despite all the political grandstanding surrounding the proposed bonuses to be paid to RBS staff, there is little that can be done about it and the government knows it. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely against the payment of bonuses to staff when the very fact that they still have a job is down entirely to the intervention of the government with taxpayers funds.

However, the fact remains that the vast majority of the staff will have some form of contractual entitlement to a bonus; the senior bankers know this and so do government ministers. For example, it is estimated that some £500m is due to be paid to ABN Amro staff and this was a pre-condition of the original sale of the business to RBS. If senior managers don’t honour their employment contracts, then they could very quickly find themselves in breech of contract and you can rest assured that there will be a massive queue of lawyers offering to take up their cases.

Gordon Brown is reported to be “very angry“, well, bully for him,  what difference will his temper tantrum make? None! Treasury minister Yvette Cooper said any contractual or legal obligations on banks to pay bonuses at a time when they were making huge losses must be “challenged“. Yeah right Yvette, you know that there is little or nothing that can be done about it, which is why you squirmed so much when John Snow put some eminently reasonable to you on Channel 4 News last night. Alistair Darling is quoted as saying “I have spoken to the chief executive of RBS, and made it quite clear, and he agrees, that no-one associated with these huge losses should be allowed to walk away with large cash bonuses.” Quite right Mr Darling, but this is a legal issue, not a place for political rhetoric.

Even David Cameron demonstrates how out of touch he is by stating “As the principal shareholder, you are able to say what is and what is not acceptable.” True Mr Cameron and that is precisely the point, but you cannot do it retrospectively, if you had any business experience you would know that, unless of course, you are simply taking us all for fools.

The truth is this government rushed into “saving the banks from collapse” and in doing so, they left any commonsense back in the office. So keen were they to be seen as the saviors of the banking world, they did not complete any form of due diligence. I know that ministers and civil servants can often be accused of rank incompetence, but this goes off the scale. No experienced businessman and I mean not one, would blindly invest into a business, however urgent the need, without completing a full review of the business. As one contributor stated on one of my recent posts on the RBS fiasco;

Due Diligence is only half of the required formula for meeting the requirements under “Standard of Care” or “Due Care”. Due care is the second half of the diligence formula and equally as important. For without it, the standard of care can not be measured.

Performing Due Diligence identifies where investment risks or exposures lie, due care is exercising the requirements discovered under due diligence to protect or mitigate exposure from those risks.

Not only has the PM missed the first but importantly government has neither the resources, skills, or initiative to deal with the second which is what ultimately leads to failures.

In the normal course of events, due diligence would have uncovered that there were, amongst other things, contractual liabilities to pay bonuses; this would have included an estimate as to the likely cost. Had the government and its advisors acted with a reasonable level of care, arguably, this whole situation would have been avoided. Government could, for example, have included conditions which required staff to sign a waiver in relation to their bonuses. Alternatively, they could have been made redundant and re-employed on new contracts, the business after all was likely to collapse. Those that were expecting large bonuses, but had been party to significant losses, could have been warned that if they attempted to exercise there ‘bonus guarantees’ they could expect to be dismissed with immediate affect and could face a claim if they had acted recklessly or without a reasonable level of care.

I am not an employment lawyer, but I am convinced that there were (’were‘ being the operative word), any number of imaginative ways in which government ministers could have avoided this massive kick in the teeth to hard pressed taxpayers if they had acted with foresight and were in receipt of legal advice. Instead, once again, the rank incompetence of government ministers has cost UK taxpayers £billions.

There have been justified cries for the bankers to pay back their bonuses and even suggestions, quite rightly in my opinion, that traders should be sued for bonuses paid on what have subsequently turned out to be ‘questionable or toxic’ investments. These are perfectly justifiable initiatives, but what about the government ministers, surely they are equally culpable? Leaving aside the issue of regulation and so on (pre-bust), government ministers ordered a massive injection of taxpayer cash into banks without fully understanding the liabilities and obligations therein. At best, it demonstrates incompetence of the highest order and at worst, that they do not appear, based on the evidence currently available, to have demonstrated a reasonable standard of care.

This current political grandstanding and rhetoric is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to divert attention from the incompetent management of the whole banking crisis by members of this government. New Labour ministers have proven themselves to be incapable of humility, unable to accept any form of personal responsibility and aggressive towards anyone who would question their intent. That is arrogance in its most basic and crude form, the people of this country must not let them get away with it, government ministers must be held to account and accept moral and legal responsibility for their actions. Anything less would be an outrage to the people that will have to pay the price over the coming decades.

Is it just me or are we are all becoming a little blasé about money, or to be more accurate, the number of noughts that follow the £ sign? Let me explain. Ever since Gordon Brown announced a massive £500bn plus bailout of the banking sector, commentators and politicians have been talking about £billions in the same way as they used to talk about £millions. In other words, everyone seems a little punch drunk. In the sales arena, the constant mentioning of large amounts of money was known as conditioning, if you keep talking about £65k BMW’s, then when the salesman mentions ‘just’ £15k for a new Vauxhall, it sounds like a bargain. However, in my little world, a £million is still a lot of money, especially when you consider how long it takes us to hand that amount of money to successive governments.

At a time when everyone is having to tighten their belt, this government has announced that they will increase spending from £620bn to £650bn, the conservatives tell us that they will “only” increase it by £25bn. Forgive me, but this sounds like an awful lot of money! In my personal life and indeed my business life, I have always understood and accepted that there are excesses, in other words, there have always been things that I want, rather than need. Therefore, when times are hard, I am obliged to deal with my excesses, to reduce my outgoings and I suspect, that this will be going on in the majority of homes and business up and down the land. This is a painful but necessary evil when times are hard. Not so for the government. No, instead, they tell us how they are going to spend more money, not how they are going to provide better value. The conservative are no better, because they say that they will just spend less (£5bn), but their proposals still amounts to an increase of £25bn!

By spending our money more wisely, buying what we need, rather than what we would like and curbing our wasteful habits, I suspect that most of us could, conservatively, reduce our outgoings by around 10%, possible considerably more. I didn’t say it would be easy, nor did I say all of us, so please accept that I am referring to most, not all of us. If this is a reasoned argument, why is it that the government cannot reduce their own waste, surely they are not going to argue that they are lean and mean or that all of our money is spent both wisely and without excess? Not a cat in hells chance. Surely, it would be better to reduce government waste and excess to channel the savings into more relevant or deserving causes, rather than just borrowing more money. The government is effectively condoning living on the never, never. Failing to practice what they preach. What angers me most, is that the conservative party, petrified of being accused of being the party of cuts, has failed to talk convincingly about value for money, getting the most of each taxpayer pound collected or borrowed.

With an election likely to be just around the corner, now is the time for the other parties to get tough. I am not talking about an austerity speech, nor a doom and gloom scenario, as has become the conservative party mantle. No, I am referring to a party, any party, that offers realistic hope, leadership and direction. One that refers to government money as taxpayers money, borrowings as future liabilities and above all, the use of taxpayers money in terms of value, not numbers to be bandied about. The people of this country do not need to see doom and gloom whenever they turn on the TV or read a newspaper, the majority of us know that times are tough and that they will be for the foreseeable future. What we need to witness, are politicians that appear to know what they are talking about (a very rare bread) and political parties that truly demonstrate that they know how to run a country and a good start would be how to spend taxpayers money wisely in order that we, the taxpayers, receive maximum bang for our buck.

Politicians and government must stop ‘conditioning’ the British people by constantly bombarding us with numbers most of us simply can’t envisage or picture. Instead, they must do what most normal people managing household budgets do when times get tough. Ensure that we are getting value for money. It is, after all, possible to spend more money on a holiday if someone gives up smoking, or to buy a better car if we shop at Aldi’s instead of Sainsbury’s, buy tea instead of coffee, drink tap water instead of bottled or even to survive the recession if we cut our cloth to suit our circumstances. It is a question of priorities. Government, whoever they are, have a responsibility, in fact a duty, to ensure that they spend or invest taxpayers money wisely. They must not be allowed to pour more money into a bucket which is already leaking taxpayers money.

I have delayed writing about the Pre Budget Report because I was so angered by its content. Not so much for the state of the public finances, which most people expected, but the fact that we have yet another missed opportunity. The Gordon Brown touch was everywhere, because once again, it was about perception not reality and could never live up to its promise.

The principal part of this stimulus package was the reduction in VAT, which is estimated to cost £12.5bn over a period of one year. Which is what I shall concentrate on. Now, I would like to know how the government came up with a figure of £5bn, because we all know that sales are down, so is the estimate based on historical figures, or current sales? This is important, because the suggestion is that this £12.5bn is an injection of real cash into the economy, so a smoke and mirrors approach to presentation would just be a con and unforgiveable. Furthermore, if I had £12,5bn to spend I would have reduced direct taxation by 2.5% for a year not VAT.

VAT is a purchase tax, therefore in a sense, it is a voluntary tax and as a consequence no-one will feel any richer as a consequence of such small a reduction in retail prices. It is also essentially a luxury tax, in other words, it is added to non-essentials. Yes, I know that over the years this has been extended, but for the most part, it has to be remembered that there is no VAT on food, children’s clothes and so on. The VAT reduction would have had a direct benefit to people if it had been applied to fuel, but the government decided to raise duties to negate any benefit, they did likewise on alcohol, tobacco and spirits.

Many retailers have been offering massive sale offers, with cuts of up to 50% to tempt consumers to buy products in their stores, no doubt with differing levels of success. A reduction of 2.5% pales into insignificance set against this backdrop. Which is precisely my point, the VAT reduction had nothing to do with providing a fiscal stimulus and more to do with being able to brag about a big number, knowing full well that it would never cost as much as the forecasted figures. Moreover, it provided an excellent backdrop for the government to introduce new taxes on the basis that the ‘VAT holiday’ would have to be paid for.

Ask yourself this, if the government had £12.5bn to waste, why didn’t they put it straight into our pockets, by reducing income tax by 2.5%? A fiscal stimulus has as much to do with consumer confidence as it does ability to pay. If you want the public to feel wealthier, then the only way this can be done is by ensuring they have more  of their own money in their purse or wallet. That is tangible! But this had nothing to do with a desire to introduce a fiscal stimulus, it was only designed to con the British public into the believing the government were doing something. This will be an expensive failure because those that are in a position to buy products where VAT is applied will do so anyway and save 2.17%.  By contrast those that were not able to make the purchase will find that this 2.17% reduction will make no difference whatsoever.

Now lets take a look at another aspect of this ’smoke and mirrors’ tax con. The government has made this years increase in the personal allowance permanent and sold it as part of the fiscal stimulus. But all is not as it seems, because they had no choice. The only reason they increased the personal allowances this year was because of the last 10p tax con. They knew if they did not act to make this ‘tax concession’ permanent that they would have had a backbench rebellion which would almost certainly have lead to Gordon Brown being ousted in disgrace. Now that is almost a price worth paying!

Now here is the best part for the government. In exchange for introducing a highly questionable fiscal stimulus, in the case of VAT for just one year, they have been able to substantially increase their tax take. For example, the adjustment in duties to offset the temporary VAT reduction on fuel, tobacco, alcohol and spirits will remain in place after VAT has been put back up. So this is a very real and permanent price rise, not only that, it is worth remembering that the consumer always pays VAT on duties, yes, a tax on a tax.

Plus, they have announced an increase in National Insurance contributions of 0.5% on employers and employees. This will raise billions and is permanent! So, in comes the smoke and mirrors again, by setting this tax increase against the change in personal allowances, the government can claim that certain taxpayers are better off. But hang on a minute, the change in personal allowances was introduced because, according to the government, they made a mistake when they removed the 10p tax band, so this was only introduced to compensate for that error. In other words, it was already our money! Don’t think for one minute that this tax raising government don’t know that and so do the media, but they are so far up the backsides of the government, the media refuses to reveal the truth.

On top of this, the government have decided to introduce a higher rate of income tax and remove personal allowances for those earning more than £140k. This means that they will be £2,246.70 worse off in 2010/11 and £2,849.93 down the following year. Now many will say that doesn’t matter, because they are rich etc, etc.

But lets put this into perspective. Firstly, they already pay more tax in real terms than the average person, in fact someone earning £150k per year pays as much tax as 4 people on average earnings. Also, many, I accept not all, of these people are the very people that create employment and provide jobs for the rest of us. Often, they will have risked everything they own to set up a business which creates wealth for the country and jobs for the people. Under this government they have seen capital allowances slashed, corporation taxes on the rise, massive increases in business rates (money which is a direct taxation by the government on business) and now a much higher tax take from them in their personal capacity.

I do not and never would begrudge anyone earning those sorts of salaries where they have contributed to the wealth of this country by creating jobs and a contribution to GDP. Two things that are vital, no, absolutely essential to the wealth of every country in the world. We have already seen a number of companies moving their businesses to other countries, such as Southern Ireland, because the tax regime is so much better. Can you really blame them if they are hounded for being successful and punished with punitive personal and business taxes for creating jobs and wealth. We all need to get real, envy is a very dangerous thing and in this case, if there was an exodus of the very people that help create jobs and wealth, we would be finished as a first world country. This pre-supposes that we are not already as a direct consequence of Gordon Brown’s reckless mismanagement of our economy.

The other changes made by the Chancellor are hardly worth mentioning, because they are so insignificant… so I won’t. I will say this however, they Pre Budget Report produced virtually nothing for small and medium sized businesses. Given these account for 50% of our GDP and employs 12.5m people, this was a massive mistake and one we shall all be paying for over the next few months.

Never was there a greater need for an honest fiscal stimulus, but Gordon Brown could not resist conning the British public again. The VAT reduction had nothing to do with providing a real fiscal stimulus, because the affects have been so severely limited. Instead, he contemptuously used it to introduce massive tax rises, which were designed to allow him to claim that the countries tax receipts, PBR and balance sheet would not be as bad as would have otherwise been in future years. Alistair Darling even included an assumption that we would see strong growth in a little over a year, everyone knows that is justwishful thinking. Whislt no-one believes this argument it makes the government books look a little better. They have no shame.  As my old boss used to say, it is all jam tomorrow.

The most worrying aspect of all this is how many people actually fell for the biggest and most dishonest tax con in history. Gordon Brown and his motley crew make Robin Hood look like a philanthropist.

Gordon Brown has been thrusting himself about the world stage as he tries, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to appear like a sort of financial guru. I honestly believe that many world leaders are laughing at him behind his back. Only someone as naive and self-obsessed as Gordon could run around having virtually single-handedly destroyed the UK economy and think he is King Economy. The man is a fool, but then most objective British citizens already know that. Anyway, let me get to my point.

As we all know, the Labour government spin machine always leaks its own announcements early so that they can guage ‘public opinion’, normally expressed by what the newspapers say (rather than the public), before making any final tweaks to their policy announcements. However, if the leaks are to be believed it looks, once again, that Gordon Brown is going to continue with his social engineering project, otherwise known as Robin Hood from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

It would appear that Gordon Brown does not believe that everyone is suffering as a consequence of his handling of the economy for the past 11 years and the subsequent recession. Oh, no, Gordon Brown from his taxpayer funded home in Downing Street, believes that it is only those on “low incomes” that are in need of tax breaks. What world is he living in? He has spent 11 years long years targeting so called middle income earners with his tax increases, using this section of the community to fund his extravagant, cost-loaded experiment to re-distribute wealth. Now having squeezed the middle income earners until they are bordering on relative poverty, he has now abandoned them, by saying that any tax breaks will be targeted at “low income earners”.

During New Labour’s reign, top earners have remained relatively neutral in terms of total tax take, low income earners have benefited dramatically through allowances, tax breaks and various forms of income support and middle income earners have been seriously and relentlessly shafted. Now, he has got away with it so far, because the golden goose did not really feel all the affects of his shafting, as a consequence of a booming economy and the relative wealth created by higher house prices. That of course is no longer the case. As the economy starts to contract, the golden goose is starting to feel the pinch and because they were the primary target for revenue raising, they are feeling it more than any other section of the community. In spite of this, Gordon brown in his cosseted environment, turns his back on the very people that have funded his social engineering experiements.

Now I know that Gordon Brown needs to guarantee his core vote, many of whom will come from the lower earners and rightly so, because lets face it, they have been the only winners over the past 11 years. But he needs to understand that it was the votes of the middle income earners that actually brought New Labour to power and that irony cannot be lost on this section of the community. Nonetheless, it is all a bit academic, because there is no way that Labour will win the next election, even if Gordon Brown went around at Christmas and gave every Labour voter a £1000, oh sorry, that is the plan isn’t it, hope I haven’t spoiled anyone’s surprise!

Now enough of my sarcasm. Gordon Brown does need to provide a fiscal stimulus and I believe that everyone is agreed on that, even David Cameron, it won’t prevent the recession, but it may create enough of an impetus to save a few jobs and keep some businesses going if correctly targeted. However, it would appear that Gordon Brown intends to offer tax breaks in the form of increased allowances for low earners only. No widespread stimulus, just a further, last ditch attempt at social engineering, except this time, he can’t take anymore money from middle income earners, instead, he has to borrow it. Worst still, one of the reasons that Gordon Brown prefers to offer increased ‘benefits’ is he can always exaggerate the numbers, but this is not the time for one of his infamous smoke and mirror exercises. The economy will only get a boost if the money is real and tangible.

Gordon Brown has repeated many times that this is a unique set of events that requires a unique set of solutions and I couldn’t agree more. But he is just promising more of the same, take from one section of the community and pass to another, except this time, he wants to store the cost, so that middle income earners can pay it later. The man is a fanatic, he quite clearly has an ingrained almost psychopathic hatred of middle income earners.

What is needed is a simple and properly funded fiscal stimulus, which benefits everyone, not one section of the community. Everyone is suffering from the downturn in terms of the increases in fuel and utility bills, council tax, caps on wages, reduced pension benefits, insurance costs, travel, shopping bills, job losses, the list is endless. They all need to be able to see the benefit of a fiscal stimulus and the best way to do this is a reduction in the basic rate of tax. Everyone knows that Gordon Brown always exaggerates the affects of any government ’giveaways’ whilst moving swiftly over the small print that invariably takes back any benfits, with interest, so the reality is, most people have learned not to trust a word he says. Therefore, he more than anyone, needs to ensure that any stimulus is kept simple and results in people being able to keep more of their own money. This is no time for treasury tricks.

He also need to offer targeted assistance to small business, they employ 12.5m people and many, as a consequence, will not have huge cash reserves, nor can they go to the bank or shareholders. He ignores this area of business at his peril, small and medium businesses generate nearly 50% of UK Plc’s GDP, not an area to be ignored.  David Cameron’s suggestions are weak and will offer very little assistance to small business, I have already outlined what I think needs to be done for small business in a previous post.

The bottom line is many of the problems we are facing today are because Gordon Brown allowed, (inspite of warnings about the risks), this country to continue a relentless boom on the back of easy credit and rising house prices. He could and should have done something about it, but he chose not to. Our economy was booming and the relative tax take was increasing anyway, still he opted to introduce many, many stealth taxes. Often, but not necessarily, disguised as green taxes, but invariably targeted at middle income earners. This was not enough for the man Brown, on top of all that, he increased public borrowing during this period, spending like a man possessed, not saving anything for a rainy day. He was reckless in his handling of the economy and he allowed the public to become reckless, by not introducing measures to cool,things down, because it would have been unpopular and inevitably, would have required him to reign in his social engineering project.

As a consequence of this mans actions, not only has his reckless behaviour virtually bankrupted this country, it also means that Gordon Brown owes a massive personal debt to the people of this country. He can start to pay that debt by stop trying to be clever and spinning the numbers. He can help redeem himself in part by offering an apology to the people he has shafted in is quest to be the hero of the low income earners, by introducing a universal 5% reduction in direct income tax. This must be funded through capital project cuts and a good start would be all of these unpopular information technology projects that are invariably doomed to failure, always have substantial cost overruns and in most cases are not wanted by anyone and in particular the public. He must also tighten his belt on other forms of government spending, just like everyone else has to do in difficult times. Government has become a very lucrative place to do business, because many of those charged with negotiating terms are no match for the very professional, highly paid, highly skilled sales people on the other side of the desk. This has to stop!

New Labour’s social engineering project was a failure in terms of value, although I do accept that low income earners are substantially better off than they were when New Labour came to power. However, were it not for a booming economy, it could have been safely argued that Gordon Brown actually reduced the gap between low and middle income earners so much that they the differences are no longer discernable. Because as he boosted income for low earners, he took this money of middle income earners, pushing one section up and the other down. This will become self-evident as the New Labour Boom turns to Bust. Thanks Gordon!

Well I have argued that there needs to be a combination of monetary and fiscal cuts in order that the economy can receive a well needed stimulus, although I am not naive enough to believe that it will stave off a recession. This country is already in a recession, even if the official measures used to determine a “real” recession have not yet been met, all we can do is try to lessen the impact on people, jobs and business.

Gordon Brown has indicated over the weekend that he believes fiscal policy should include tax cuts and rumours abound as to the extent of such cuts, with estimates of £480 per person through to an annual estimate of £15bn in tax cuts. Whatever the case, there are two things which I am wary of. The first, that Gordon Brown has a habit of double counting and this is no time for a sales pitch. The economy needs a real injection of cash and the people of this country need to know that they have a little more money in their pockets, no sales pitch is going to change that, so Gordon Brown, beware of New Labour spin. The second is the form that tax cuts will take.

Some “experts”  have suggested a temporary cut in VAT. What are they smoking? Lets take a look at that proposal shall we? There is no VAT on food, council rates, children’s clothes etc., what many will call essential items. Where VAT is charged, how can we be certain that retailers, keen to impress their shareholders and hold onto their bonuses, will not take the opportunity to increase their margins? Thereby minimising the affect of any price reduction which ought to be brought about by a fall in VAT to the proposed 12.5%. Also, there is the cost to business, especially small business, they are the organisations and people that will have to deal with the major changes to their business that would be brought about as a consequence of a short-term change in VAT. Are these people really advising the government? I hope Gordon Brown is not listening, fortunately, not one of his strong points.

What we need is a simple, clear cut, obvious reduction is direct taxation. It must be one that is both tangible and visible, no messing around withallowances, tax credits and bandings. Instead, there should be a significant reduction in direct taxation and I have suggested this should be a reduction in the bottom rate of tax from 20% to 15 %, with all other banding’s remaining static, so the full effect benefits everyone, in a way that cannot be fiddled. Fiddling, with one or 2% will make little or no difference to the man on the street. There is no point in targeting cuts to the poorest sections of the community, because,put simply, everyone is affected, especially so called “middle England”, that has funded virtually every one of New Labour’s ‘feel good’ initiatives over the past 11 years, through proportionately higher taxes.

I doubt that it will be possible to fully-fund such tax cuts, which I think, at least for the time being, should be limited for a period of 3 years, to provide the personal reassurance that most people seek in their lives. However, in these uncertain times, I go against my instincts in terms of government borrowing if required to as a result of a ‘funding gap.  I would insist, however, that some funding is gained through cuts in non-essential government and believe me there is a great deal of that. For example, the Big Brother Britain database estimated at a cost of £12bn, should be cancelled altogether, the NHS database, estimated to cost in the region of £32bn, should be shelved in the short-term and re-considered in the medium term, based on a genuine cost versus return basis. Other database systems, that this government has so badly commissioned, budgeted for and managed should also be shelved until such time as the economy recovers, this would include everything related to ID cards. The cost of being part of the European Union is rising year on year, our ministers need to ensure that the European Parliament also looks at their costs in these difficult times, so that member countries can see a reduction in their ‘dues’. A good start would be to stop the European Parliament introducing draconian, liberty busting, politically correct rules and legislation, which costs money as well as stripping everyone of their national identities.

At this difficult economic time, we must also consider revising the $5bn overseas aid budget, this amounts to 1.5% of all tax receipts and cannot, therefore be ignored. Similarly, the public sector now employs some 1 in 5 of all those employed in this country, it has bloated and is arguably out of control. Equally, the cost of public sector, final salary pension schemes is paid for out of tax revenues, not a pension fund, therefore, the costs are enormous. This needs to be curtailed, the economy cannot afford such generous pension schemes, particularly when the private sector, who were hammered 11 years ago by Gordon Brown, have ‘pensions’ on average, worth just 1/15th of the public sector schemes.

Mere mortals like me, do not get provided witha detailed set of fiancial accounts for UK Plc, therefore I am unable to go through each and every expenditure line, but one thing is certain, you can guarantee that there is waste and excess in a public sector the size of ours and it needs to be dealt with. The way any businesses would do at a time of crisis. The adult population are better positioned than the government to determine where any additional money is spent, which is why any tax cuts must be via direct taxation, not indirect taxes, lets face it, it is our money in the first place. But whatever happens, it will never cost as much as the headline figure the government use to sell the cuts. Because, if people buy, companies prosper, business tax revenues are preserved or rise, VAT is paid, more people are employed, therefore less benefits are paid out, even if people save, many of them will be taxed on the interest. The government never loses.

For the record, I do not believe that bringing forward public sector infrastructure projects is the right way to go. The impact would be very limited, and the benefits disproportionate to the costs. Most of these projects would be PFI initiatives and, mark my word, history will look back at these PFI contracts and wonder why it was, that a government was awash with tax receipts, would enter into contracts which are akin to a consumer buying their houses at credit card rates, rather than on a traditional mortgage.

David “the cupboard is bare” Cameron, with his austerity speech, which I am sure he thought would make him look clever and responsible is in a tight corner. Traditionally the Conservative party has been the party of tax cuts and enterprise, he has fallen into a trap and it was one of his own making. David Cameron thought we needed to be told how bad things were, we didn’t, because we can feel it! A good leader must never, never back himself into a corner, now he must either eat a bit of humble pie, or, more likely for a British politician, he will come out with a fudge. Either way, he made a mistake and he will pay dearly for it. He will not be forgiven for allowing Gordon Brown, one of the most despised men in this country, get away with using former tory policies, at a time when people want them most.

Let me provide David Cameron with one piece of advice, something that he will not appreciate from his privileged upbringing. There is no point in having a balanced budget if you die of starvation in the process. Government takes our money at will, then they spend it on their favourite pet project or group, without consultation, in the process, they keep as much as 35% of our money on ‘administration costs’. If government were an investment fund, it would need a bailout every year, in fact that is what they get, it is just government take our money when they get a bit short, forever dipping into our pockets when we are not looking, a kind of distraction theft. I have always voted conservative in the past, but this lightweight, ill-considered leadership provided by David Cameron frustrates the hell out of me, he just doesn’t seem to have a clue.

Now come on guys, whatever your party colours, pull your finger out. Do what is necessary to help the people of this country, interest rate cuts were the first part, the second is a reduction in direct taxation and the third to reduce wasteful public expenditure. To have a short term impact, the second was contingent of the first, but the second should not be contingent on the third, because the third must always be part of responsible government. Stop whining about losing your seats or creaming yourselves over the thought of winning the next election by default, not one of you has earned your pay yet, so you are all, still very much on trial. If you don’t grow up, we could see quite a few members of the Monster Raging Loony Party, as people register their protest. Still, from what I can see from the current crop of MP’s, it couldn’t be much worse.

Rant over, but have left in typo’s, poor grammar and other errors so you can see just how much I have smashed into this keyboard, off to PC World now to see if they have any cheap keyboards.

When Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of his first tasks was to raid the pensions of the private sector, something that has provided the exchequer additional income of over £10bn every year since. This put pay to many private sector, final salary schemes. Meanwhile the public sector, which of course includes politicians, have had no corresponding adjustments to their own final salary scheme pensions. So much for the Gordon Brown mantra of a “fairer Britain”, as with so many things he says, they are full of promise and have little or no substance.

The latest figures suggest that public sector pensions are worth more than 15 times those of private sector workers. So whilst the private sector has had to grasp the nettle and accept that final salary schemes are no longer sustainable, Gordon Brown, whilst he was at the treasury and now has prime minister has failed to deal with the issue. So lets put that in perspective. According to Ros Altman, one of Tony Blair’s own advisers, the average public sector worker will be entitled to a pension of £17,091, compared to the average private sector pension of just £1,086. Is this a fair Britain?

The public sector is invariable the first group of workers to vent their spleen about earnings. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, in 2007, the average public sector worker earned just under £26,000 per year, whilst the average private sector worker had to settle for a tad under £23,000. Unlike private sector pensions, public sector pensions are paid out of future tax revenues, not an annuity. This means that the treasury does not have to ’purchase’ an annuity to pay for the pensions, nor do they have to include the liability on the treasury balance sheet. Even though the cost of these pension contributions are estimated to be £1 trillion. That’s right, more that twice the cost of the bailout or nearly 5 years worth of tax receipts. This is a scandal of monstrous proportions and yet Gordon Brown continues to swan around as if he is a financial genius. I would not trust him to hold my loose change!

Someone in the private sector would have to buy an annuity of £427,275 in order that they could benefit from the average pension of £17,091 enjoyed by the public sector. The average private sector pension scheme has a ‘pot’ of just £24,000! So they would be lucky to receive a pension of £1100 per annum. Given 1 in 5 of all workers are employed by the state, I doubt that my observations will curry favour with everyone, but it is a scandal and one that we shall all have to pay for.

If you thought Gordon Brown was taking this matter seriously, you would be wrong, here is a excerpt of what a treasury spokesman is reported to have said: “High quality pension provision is a key part of the remuneration package of public servants, aimed at maintaining a high quality public sector workforce. These pensions are fully costed and fully affordable.”  

Gordon Brown may choose to ignore public sector liabilities of circa £1 trillion, but the taxpayers of this country cannot, nor can our children who will be expected to pay the bill for Brown’s largess. At a time when everyone must look closely at their liabilities and consider tightening their belts, the opposition parties need to push this scandal right to the top of the political agenda, given the costs are not sustainable in the short-term, let alone the long term. Given that we know MP’s final salary schemes are amongst the best in the world, we should, perhaps, not hold our breath for an investigation anytime soon.

Yesterday, I wrote an article suggesting how this government could reduce taxes to help stimulate growth in the economy. This was partly a Keynesian approach, given I argued that it was possible that these tax cuts could be self-funding, if my proposals worked. The reason for this was, if we do nothing, there is likely to be a significant surge of people claiming benefits, rather than generating income for government coffers. My proposal was, if the government was going to borrow to invest, they would be better off doing so, with a natural stimulus, rather than bringing forward capital building projects which would only benefit a small section of the economy.

My proposal, amongst other things, was that government should reduce the basic rate of personal tax by 5%. Over a period of 3 years, this would cost around £45bn, less than 10% of the cost of the banking bailout. However, by allowing us to retain more of our own money, we could decide how and where we would spend the extra money we were ‘permitted’ to retain. If we were to spend it in much the same was as we did before the crash, my argument was and is, that more small and medium sized business would survive and therefore more people would remain in employment. I noted that some 13.5m people were employed by small businesses and these same companies accounted for, just shy of 50% of UK Plc’s output. However, I also noted, that the Keynesian approach was that government should adopt a balanced budget, that is to say, they should cut back government spending in certain areas, to allow them to invest in other areas. Having read my post this morning, addressing the usual, inexcusable typos, I decided that I should expand on my own theory.

For example, my pet hate is the government’s proposed Big Brother Database, which I think is a massive attack on the civil liberties of every person in this country and an unforgivable intrusion into our right to privacy. That said, this government, if it goes ahead with this initiative, is expected to spend some £12bn on this massive Big Brother Database. Now quite apart from the fact that we know this government has never yet managed to bring an IT project in on budget, the figure that needs to be allocated is huge.

Therefore, the question I wanted to ask was:
Which would you prefer a Big Brother Database that infringes our civil liberties and intrudes on our privacy at a cost of £12bn or an immediate 4% cut in the basic rate of income tax for at least 1 year? From 20% to 16%? - I know what my answer will be.

Then I went on to look at other large government capital expenditure projects, this time I focused in on the much criticised NHS Database Project. It is worth noting that the original cost was estimated to be £2.3bn, by 2006 that had rocketed to £12bn, with some independent estimates suggesting it could cost as much as £32 billion. Most medical professionals question the viability of this project, the public have barely been consulted on such a massive project and even though some £2bn has already been spent, there is little to show for it. So, lets be generous, and take a middle figure between the governments estimate of £12bn and the independent estimates of £32. This leaves us with a likely cost of £22bn.

Therefore, my question is:
Which would you prefer, to shelve or cancel the NHS Database or receive an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 5% for at least 18 months? The reason I have said ‘at least’ is because if this additional money prevents people losing their jobs and claiming benefits, then it would be possible to extend the period of the tax cut, perhaps indefinitely.

So what of the ID Database Project. Yes, I know, this government is completely obsessed with databases, it is a pity, they do not also consider the massive security risks associated with having all of this information on computers. However, I digress, this particular project, is simply aimed at having all of our personal ID information in one place. The cost, an eye-watering £5.4bn.

So, once again, my question is, which would you prefer, an ID database where only the government and its agents see the benefit, or an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 2%, for a least one year, from 20% to 18%?

My basic premis is that this government has an obsession for massive information technology projects, most of which have been so poorly considered, specified and planned that they are either doomed to failure or massive cost overruns. This governments track record of waste is well documented and appalling. Most of these pet projects are not wanted by the public and it has to be said, the vast majority will allow government to know everything their is to know about every single legal citizen in this country. Because this government is obsessed with using IT to spy and control its subjects. At this time, the biggest threat to our security (apart from the government itself) and our well being, is the state of our economy, not terrorism. Yet no-one from government has suggested shelving, postponing or cancelling any of these Big Brother databases. Even though, combined, these 3 projects alone, will cost a staggering £40bn. If the government were to add an extra £5bn, we could all benefit from a reduction in the basic rate of income tax of 5%. From 20% to 15%, for a period of 3 years, if we are lucky, this would be able to see us through this period of recession. In addition, as I have argued earlier, if this money is invested into the economy by us, then jobs could be saved, government would benefit from the revenues brought about by indirect taxes, business taxes and fewer unemployed claiming benefits.

So, my final question, is which would you prefer? Government to spend £40bn on 3 highly questionable information technology projects at a time of this massive economic downturn, or more money in your pocket. £40bn on IT projects, or a 5% cut in the basic rate of tax for 5 years. QED!

Footnote:
I have also argued strongly for a significant, simultaneous cut in the Bank of England bases rates from 4.5%, to 2%, with all taxpayer funded banks being ‘required’ to pass on this cut to their customers. This will reduce the number of repossessions and/or increase the amount of money available to us, to reinvest into the economy. I am sure there will be economists out there that can or will pick holes in my arguments, well go ahead, someone needs to come up with some ideas, because it is pretty clear to me, this government hasn’t got a clue, the Conservative Party has backed themselves into a corner with their negative, one size fits all ‘austerity’ assessment of our economic future and none of the other parties have any influence. Sad, but true!

At prime ministers questions time, Gordon Brown, once again, decided to take all the credit for “creating 3 million new jobs” and none of the responsibility for the ‘bust’ brought about by the credit funded boom that was his creation. Instead, he avoided all of the questions he was asked and once again, came out with the same old mantra, that the problem was the fault of the Americans and the bankers. Nothing new there then.

He did imply, however, that he believed that the government should invest in times of recession, a sort of embracing of the Keynesian approach. However, John Maynard Keynes did not suggest that government should simply spend, but that there should be a balance. He also argued, that it was possible that if government used borrowed money wisely, it could be self-financing. For example, most people want to work, which means that given the opportunity, they will not be a burden on the state, but an asset. In addition, companies want to sell their goods, at a fair price, employ people, succeed and therefore, be an asset to the state.

To achieve this, people need to have money to spend, yet the state takes nearly 50% of what we all earn. That is way, way too much. A reduction in direct taxation, would be much less expensive than building new schools and hospitals earlier than was originally intended. Moreover, a construction boom will be very limited in terms of assisting the wider economy. What we need is more money in peoples pockets, which they can invest in buying goods and services offered by retailers, service providers and manufacturers. In other words, a natural stimulus, not a false one.

If people feel poorer, then they will push their employers to pay them more, this adds a further burden to struggling businesses and places inflationary pressures on the wider economy. In addition, public sector workers, who account for some 20% of all employees in the UK are starting to get increasingly vocal about higher wage increases and they are backing this up with threats of industrial action. This is no good to anyone. Furthermore, if they succeed in getting higher wages, this will be a cost borne directly by the taxpayer and will inevitably result in a cut in services as the public sector attempts to balance the books.

We know that a boom based on easy credit is not the answer, nor does the equity in a property really amount to tangible wealth. The Keynesian approach advocated, amongst other things that borrowing to provide tax cuts can provide an aggregate increase in demand and, that properly targeted, it could be self-financing, because demand will create or save jobs and people that are employed, are not a burden on the state. In addition, companies that are selling goods, will be pay tax and sell goods that, for the most part, attract VAT.

A cut in direct taxation would have an immediate and tangible affect on the publics ability (not necessarily willingness) to spend. If this would was coupled with a substantial, perhaps 2 or 2.5% cut in bank base rates, then the benefits would multiply as would the potential speed of recovery. The government has indicated that they want to spend £12bn to create a database to spy on the public, apart from the fact that this is both unnecessary and a massive attack on our civil liberties, it is also something that is a nice to have, rather than a need to have. That notwithstanding, even if they proceeded with this database, the chances are, the contract would be awarded to an American company! Yet this £12bn, could ‘fund’ a 5% cut is direct taxation for nearly 3 years, if you were to ask the public what they would sooner have, there are no prizes for guessing their likely preference.

In addition, the government is intending to proceed with the £13bn NHS computer system. There is no proof that the system will work, nor has their been a sensible cost/benefit analysis. This project should be shelved and the money used to invest into small and medium sized businesses. I wrote an article yesterday, outlining some of my own ideas to assist small businesses. These companies employ 50% of our workers, some 13.5m people and provide nearly half of our output. An investment in this area, could secure jobs, companies and tax revenues.

It is true, governments cannot prevent a recession, but they can, through careful management of their (our) finances, targeted initiatives and the shelving of non-essential investment programmes, reduce the length and severity. Had the conservative party not nailed their colours to the mast, with an austerity assessment of the UK economy, claiming that “the cupboard was bare”, then they could have proposed this type of solution. Instead, they must either say that they got it wrong, or the Labour government, if they are bright enough to steal the initiative, will be able to come out of this smelling of roses.

For what it is worth, I am not convinced that this government, or the other political parties will want to endorse my suggestions, because they seem more interested in telling us what won’t work, rather than what might. It is this dithering and indecision that will damage this economy. Whatever action is taken it needs to be bold, decisive and meaningful. Therefore, in summary, my suggestions are as follows:

1. Shelve the £13bn investment in the NHS computer system
2. Cancel the proposed £12bn Big Brother Britain database
3. Reduce direct taxation by 5% for a minimum period of 3 years
4. Implement a package of incentives and tax reductions for small business
5. Instruct the independent Bank of England to slash rates from 4.5% to 2%
6. Ensure that all taxpayer funded banks pass on the full cut immediately, which should encourage the others to follow or lose

My suggestion will cost a tiny fraction of what the government has already invested into the banking system and provide a tangible stimulus to the economic activity of this country. Above all, it may just ensure that we can watch the news and receive some good news. If the government introduced, or the other parties proposed such an initiative, I do not believe anyone, other than a few discredited bankers and economists (who already got it wrong), would criticise the move. The bottom line is it is our money and we should be allowed to keep more of it and decide where we will invest it.