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.

There is a real risk that the plight of small business, the so called SME (small and medium enterprises) are becoming a political football as each party attempts to outdo the other. Labour are saying they will “do whatever is necessary“, where have we heard that before? Then they put up a pittance to address the issue, to put this in perspective, the amount proposed is probably much less than they paid the consultants for advice on the banking bailout. I am not advocating state aid as such, but less government interference and an understanding of what makes small business tick.

David Cameron suggests that a 1% cut in national insurance contributions for companies employing less than 4 people. This he claims will save these businesses up to £600 per year! What? Is he serious, this would barely cover an organisations business rates for one month. He then suggests that small businesses should be allowed to defer VAT payment and PAYE etc., for up to 6 months. Yes, I agree, this will aid cashflow, but the reality is, for many who need to take advantage of this option, it will only delay the inevitable, leaving a large hole in the HMRC balance sheet.

What is clear, is that none of these ministers really have a clue how small businesses operate, what is important, or what policies will make a real difference. They seem to believe that a little tinkering here and there will make it look like they are doing something positive. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Our MP’s visit one or two businesses, ask a few questions and then try and portray themselves as in touch, or knowledgeable on the subject. Instead, they have had, at best, a very limited overview of a couple of businesses. There are 13.5m small and medium sized businesses, yet they talk to a handful, what is the point?

What is clear is that there are many ways in which government can aid small business, some initiatives will cost money, most will not. Some options will work for some businesses and others may only receive a small benefit, but it is something. That said, there has to be a starting point, and I would like to include my two penneth. Firstly we need to look at some hard facts, so that government, ministers and members of parliament can truly understand the risks of doing nothing or just tinkering with the issues. This subject is so important, that it needs to be addressed in the same way as the banking bailout, I am not talking about numbers, but effort and thought.

The UK’s 4.4m small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) are the engine room of our economy, accounting for 47% UK employment (13.5m), 99.7 per cent of all enterprises and 48.7% of UK Plc turnover. Within the SME sector, some 4.2m actually employ less than 10 employees and a further 167,000 less than 50. In fact, SME’s actually employ 60% of the ‘private sector’ workforce. It is, therefore, self-evident that small business is the primary vehicle for innovation which leads to new jobs, new industries and new wealth for this country and its people. Tangible and effective moves on issues such as tax, regulation, education and infrastructure are areas which are most likely to have a positive impact on small businesses. Only government can do this, because in most cases, they caused to problem in the first place.

It is worth noting that the government currently has in excess of 3000 ‘business support schemes’, yet the Federation of Small Business claims that just 4.4% of their respondents confirmed that they had used any of these schemes. This cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be called a success, but that is hardly surprising, with this number of schemes. Where is a small business to start? Okay, so the government has indicated that they want to rationalise this to around 100 schemes, but given few of these schemes have any tangible method to measure success, it is difficult to see how this government will determine which schemes to scrap.

Business Link is probably one of the best known and supported schemed, but even this ‘local’ initiative has many detractors, who complain that emails are not answered, those charged with supporting small business have little understanding of their needs and that there is very little depth within the organisation. This would imply that whilst the initiative has merit, it needs a vast overhaul.

So what would I do? Well I am going to put forward some of my ideas, some relatively simple, others rather more controversial and perhaps complex. Nonetheless, if we are to avoid a genuine catastrophe within the SME sector, it will require bold, new initiatives and the introduction of some former programmes that have been withdrawn by this government.

I believe Business Link is a good programme, but it truly lacks depth and promotion. There are a good number of semi-retired and retired business people and out in the market and their skills are going to waste. I believe Business Link should look to recruit these people and bring them on board on a casual or self-employed basis and utilise them as business mentors. Many will have sector experience and/or specific skill sets such as finance, sales, marketing and so on. To waste this resource is ridiculous and many, I am sure, will be grateful of the opportunity to get involved in something tangible and the additional income that could top up their pensions. Of course, the recruits don’t have to be retired, there is no reason why full-time, experienced business people should not be recruited to this programme.

In addition, I believe that Business Link should be able to provide small business with specific advice on key areas, such as sales, marketing, health & safety, legal, employment law, exports, finance and so on. I know that Business Link will claim that they already do this, but my point is that they should seek to employ the best, not the cheapest, so that the small businesses can have access to the best advice.

This government has wielded the stick over everyone ever since they came into office, particularly where it comes to HMRC and regulation. They do not appear to have understood, that most ‘normal’ people use and respond better to a combination of carrot and stick. The New Labour government has always and continues to act as a schoolyard bully, not supporters of small business. They are the first to claim to be business friendly and that may be the case where businesses can afford the services of lobbyists, but it is most certainly not the case for small business. This has go to stop. Government must act and act now to reduce the burden of red tape imposed on small business.

Here are my proposals, in no particular order.

• Government must reduce personal tax for all by 5%. This will cost around £40bn over 5 years. However, it will reduce the pressure on businesses to increase wages, it will negate the public service sectors claims for higher wages to take account of higher inflation, so at least in this sector it will be self-financing and above all, it will (potentially) provide a natural stimulus to the economy. If people spend more, jobs can be saved and government will not have to pay out tax payer funded benefits. Instead, they will benefit from tax receipts through national insurance contributions, income tax, VAT and so on. Contrary to popular belief, this type of initiative introduced now may even be self-financing.
•  Government must extend the ’small business rate scheme’. Business rates are often the third largest expenditure for a small business, after wages and rent and proportionally higher for those with turnovers of less than £1m. I believe businesses with a turnover of less than £1m or employing less than 10 people should receive a 100% rebate, with a progressive programme for larger businesses. Furthermore, business should not have to apply for these rebates, they should be automatic, given many small businesses are not even aware that they have an entitlement.
• There should be a cut in small business corporation tax (businesses with a turnover of less than £5m) from the proposed 22% (2009) to 17.5% and the introduction of a tax threshold (before tax is payable) of £50k
• The VAT registration threshold should rise from £67k to £200k. HMRC, whilst retaining their vital role of collecting VAT revenues, should be directed to be supporters of business, in partnership, rather than assuming that every unpaid tax collector (anyone registered for VAT), is out to shaft them. They must also stop issuing threats to “wind up” companies that are a little late with their returns. A late return does not mean that the business is in danger of folding, it is more often than not, something that is considered a bind, a burden and therefore, not necessarily something at the top of the priority list. Fines for late returns from small business should be ceased immediately, except for persistent offenders, particularly in the current climate.
• VAT rules on exports need to be simplified. Current HMRC will offer advice, but cannot be held responsible for it, unless they agree to put it in writing (a ruling). Missing Trader Fraud has now meant that HMRC assumes that everyone is trying to do something dodgy on exports. As a consequence, they make life very difficult, especially when it comes to Europe, because often HMRC will tell the trader that they must charge VAT, the European customer argues that this is wrong and the order is lost to the business and, of course, UK Plc. In addition, small business are expected to shoulder the financial burden if VAT cannot be recovered by HMRC, even if the HMRC provided the information that exempted a transaction. I know many companies that despair of HMRC when it comes to exports, so much so, that many now avoid European exports,rather than take on the VAT risk!
• Unlike sole traders, for tax purposes, if you are a director of a limited company, you are an ‘employee’ of the company. You are therefore liable to pay Class 1 NIC’s on your earnings. The limited company is also liable to pay Class 1 NIC’s as your ‘employer’. This practice should cease for businesses that turnover less than £1m or employ less than 5 people.
• Small business should be encouraged to take on the long term unemployed and those that in receipt of disability benefits (some 2.5m), but can work. Small business employers could be offered a full rebate on all employer NIC’s for employees that are classed in either of these categories. This will assist small businesses, increase the opportunities available for the long term unemployed and result in a massive reduction in the burden on the state from those who are in receipt of benefits, rather than contributing. This initiative could be self-funding or even offer a surplus.
• Small business often have to use large commercial vehicles out of necessity, yet they are now being penalised as a consequence of the increased vehicle excise duty, under the guise of an environmental or green tax. This should be reduced to the lowest tariff for small businesses with a turnover of less than £5m
• Government should understand that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to business is not appropriate, especially where employment laws are concerned and specifically in the case of businesses with a small workforce. For example, parental or maternity leave obligations may not adversely affect a company employing 100 or more people, but a small business employing 4 people, could lose 25% of its resources overnight. The employment laws must be relative to the size of the workforce and the regulations relaxed for all employers with a workforce of less than 50. Employees have a choice, if they want all of the benefits of parental leave, maternity leave, paid sick leave and so on, they must look to find a job with a larger employer.
• Government bodies, local authorities, NHS trusts, agencies and so on, must be required to actively encourage trading with small, local businesses. Most small businesses are not aware of  supply opportunities with government agencies and if they are,  they find the paperwork too time consuming or complicated, especially for what may be low level or uncertain returns. Therefore, many do not pursue this opportunity. Businesses with a turnover of less that £1m should be given free access to www.supply2gov.uk, rather than charged £180. Many local authorities, for example, use the same suppliers as they have done for years, instead, they must be required to encourage new suppliers, they must assist these companies to complete the paperwork and offer constructive advice. Tenders have to remain open and unbiased, but the process of encouraging new local suppliers has to become a priority. Similarly, where possible local government bodies should be required to share their tenders amongst more companies, rather than using a single source.

Cashflow
Cashflow is important to small business. In fact, many small businesses fail or cannot expand, not because of a poor business model, but because of the pressures on cashflow. Invariably, this is the fault of larger companies that will not adhere to agreed payment terms, this problem now is all too common. The small business is often reluctant to chase too hard, in case the supplier refuses to place further orders. Government must legislate, to require all large companies, perhaps those with turnovers of over £5m, to pay on time and where they do not, offer a fast track legal recovery system for small businesses to recover their outstanding invoices.

Public companies should be required to sign up to an ‘ethical small business practice’, where they undertake to pay all SME’s businesses within 30 days. This objective should be audited by the firms auditors and included in the company’s year end accounts. Where public companies fail to meet these obligations, they should lose the support of investment funds and/or face fines based on turnover. Further’ all companies with a turnover of over £5m should be required to provide their ‘average payment terms’ to Companies House in the form of, for example: 1. Average payment terms 30 days., 2. Percentage paid within terms 85%. Legislation does already exist in part, but it is not enforced by Companies House.

Banks & Credit Card Processors
Two organisations that can have a significant impact on small businesses are banks and credit card processors and yet, they are very lightly regulated and, for the most part, operate a virtual monopoly in terms of financial support services to small business. Banks can change terms, conditions and rates on a whim and often do, whilst credit card processors, successfully pass of much of their financial risk in relation to fraud, directly on to the retailer, through a set of onerous terms and conditions.

Many small business operate with a bank overdraft. Banks can, in many cases, withdraw these facilities with 24 hours notice, change the risk profile requiring further security, higher charges or apply penal interest rates and/or the interest rates are variable. Government must legislate, alternatively the regulators must insist that banks offer their customers the alternative of a fixed rate of interest or variable on all bank overdrafts, reviewed annually. Banks must be required to provide small business at least 6 months notice of their intention to withdraw or reduce overdraft facilities. Banks must permit small business to convert, on request, overdrafts into short or medium term loans at rates no less favourable than the overdraft rates.

Government or the regulator must come up with a formula to ensure that interest rates are ‘reasonable’ taking account of the risk, available security and Bank of England rates. For example, many overdrafts are charged at very high rates, even though banks have personal guarantees and/or a fixed and floating charge over all business assets. Where a bank acts unreasonably, small businesses should be able to refer the matter to a fast-track arbitration service which is binding on both parties. Banks that ignore these rules should be open to litigation if a business suffers or fails.

Currently all business credit card processors have a similar set of terms and conditions. These terms, in effect, pass off the risk of fraud to the retailer. Even when the retailer has had the transaction ‘authorised’ by the card processor and followed all of the rules. The card processors have an appeals process, but this is long-winded and I am not aware of anyone that has ever ‘won’ their case.  It is estimated that credit card fraud costs small business upwards of £200m every year and the figure is rising rapidly with the advent of the Internet.

Card processors automatically charge the retailer, whenever there is a suspected fraud, it is then up to the retailer to demonstrate that they followed the rules. However, where the transaction is ‘cardholder not present’, even if the retailer has used a terminal to verify the validity of the card, the address, transaction amount and signature strip number…if it turns out to be a fraudulent transaction, the card processor re-charges the retailer. Worst still, the card processors, may take 6 weeks or more, before they re-charge the retailer, even then, the first time the retailer is aware of it is, invariably, when they receive their statement.

These terms would undoubtedly be considered unreasonable in a court of law, however, any business that needs to transact debit or credit cards, has little choice, because all of the card companies have the same onerous conditions attached. If the retailer complains, the card processor will just terminate the contract. Government must legislate, alternatively the regulator must investigate this unreasonable practice as a matter of urgency. Card processors that have approved a transaction, must be required to honour the transaction, unless they can provide incontrovertible proof that the retailer was party to the fraud.

Now, I know that I have not included everything here and I am sure that more ideas could be added. Equally, I am certain that it is possible to pick holes in some of my arguments or suggestions. Although I hope that anyone that wants to criticise will be constructive and perhaps, offer alternatives. What I am adamant about however, is that whatever steps are taken to assist small business, they must be bold, swift and meaningful. Not all of my suggestions will cost money, some just require new or tighter legislation. Some will be self-funding and other initiatives may cost money, at least in the short-term. However, to ignore the plight of this sector, is, in many ways, more risky that allowing the banks to fail. Too much of our economic well-being is reliant on the SME businesses, from GDP, to taxes and employment to enterprise. Politician’s that use this aspect of UK Plc as a football, do so at their peril!

Now that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have committed some £500bn to the banks in loans, guarantees and shares, it is time to reflect, to allow the city, time to digest the level of this intervention before going any further. There is now a real risk that the government could become its own worst enemy, by saying they “will do whatever is necessary to stablise the UK economy”, they are sending the wrong message to the city. Yes, I mean the wrong message, city investors are not uninterested parties here. Whilst the taxpayer is shoring up balance sheets, buying up shares, rescuing companies and intervening in the money markets, the ‘city types’ have their own investment portfolios protected. The government is continuing to speculate at our expense, with limited or no risk to the investors.

As I have said before, I am no economist, I am no expert, but I have been blessed with some commonsense. This tells me that if you are constantly running at full pelt, you don’t have time to see what you have passed, what you have left behind and whether you are still in the race. The government must stop NOW, before they bankrupt this country. They have oiled the wheels and reduced much of the investor risk through these interventions and the substantial injections of cash underwritten by the UK taxpayer. No more open-ended promises.

Government must also look at which stocks are falling. For example, most people accept that we are about to face a world recession, therefore, you can expect organisations that are involved in commodities to see their share prices fall. And, of course, these are some of the largest companies, in terms of value, on the stock exchange. Add this to banking and financial stocks and of course we will see a massive fall in the value of the FTSE. On top of the so called banking crisis, a recession means that city experts will be looking at companies that will do well out of a downturn and those that won’t, this will then be reflected in their share price. So, given there is a recession looming, it is fair to assume that stock prices would have fallen anyway.

Virtually from day one, this government has used taxpayers money as if they had been given their very first credit card. They have gone on a spending spree, thinking they are rich and there is an endless money supply. Then, once they realised they had overspent or reached their credit limit, they simply came after the taxpayer for more money. As a consequence, this Labour government has set a poor example to everyone else, now we must all pay for our excesses…but that includes government who must haul back on their investment commitments, they must learn to live within their means, just like everyone else must do.

My concern, is that the current banking crisis has them on that road again, they think they can spend more and more of our future tax revenues in the name of saving us all from some type of doomsday scenario. Now I accept, some form of intervention was necessary, but this must have limits and I am worried that this government has exceeded those limits with an intervention that is worth at least as much as that provided by the American’s, who’s economy is 3 times the size of our own. It is also worth noting, that £500bn is more than double all tax receipts, based on the 2007 figure. Given we are likely to have much reduced tax revenues because of company losses (they can carry these forward to offset against future profits), falling employment and lower sales, this £500bn might end up being the equivalent of 3 years worth of tax receipts.

Now the government have told us there may be some upside for the taxpayer. I don’t like the word ‘may’, nor do I really trust this government to negotiate a good deal for the taxpayer. It has been suggested that this government has lost close to £110bn in poorly negotiated contracts, mistakes and failed projects. This record does not bode well for the taxpayer, when the same people are negotiating with experts. Lets hope, this time they have learned some lessons, though I will not hold my breath. But in the meantime, I would like to advice Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown to STOP, pause for thought, look at whether what you have done has had any positive affect and stop offering the city a blank cheque, no-one could blame them for taking advantage.

Yesterday, David Cameron, in his address at the conservative party conference told us that he was a man with a plan. The generally accepted definition of a ‘plan’ is ‘A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective’. Now, whilst I accept that he may have a plan, his speech was short on detail and therefore, he must either expect the electorate to take him at face value, or he intends to publish more detail in the future. If it is the former, then it is a very big ask, given few, if any politicians have earned the trust of the electorate. If the latter, then I would suggest that it be sooner, rather than later if he wants to be considered a heavyweight, rather than a lightweight.

It was clear that David Cameron wanted to come across as sincere, a man of depth, with honesty and sincerity at his core. Excellent values, but if I may be so bold? David Cameron adds little, when he simply repeats what we already know, that the economy is sliding towards a recession, the government has incurred significant debts and that the overall tax take is on a decline in line with the economic downturn. He tells us that we must fact a period of austerity and that he must make, indeed will make the tough decisions for the long term benefit of the country, “no matter how unpopular” that makes him. Really? Well I have got news for you mate, we have just had 11 years of tax rises and there is no point in the electorate voting in a Conservative government that is promising more of the same, No way sunshine, not in a million years.  

David Cameron may, albeit based on yesterday’s speech this is hardly guaranteed, win the next election simply because so many people are fed up with New Labour. But, if Cameron thinks he will be whisked into Downing Street on the back of tax rises, I think he is wrong. Okay, so he hasn’t said it in so many words, but isn’t that the point, we are all fed up with politicians talking in code, saying one thing and meaning another. However, if he tells us he is going to put up taxes, he would probably need to explain which one’s, by how much, when, and of course, why. So instead, we get coded threats about David Cameron being willing and ready to make the ”tough decisions”. Sorry mate, that doesn’t make you clever, because we could all do that, even Labour. David Cameron doesn’t deserve to be elected on a principle of using higher taxes to prop up government finances, after all, surely a principled man like David Cameron wouldn’t approve if we all went and helped ourselves to more money from our employers pockets and lets face it, there is no difference.

With a bloated public sector employing one in five of the workforce, massive government waste on projects and initiatives that have gone nowhere, or are going nowhere, there is plenty of ‘fat’ that be cut before dipping into our pockets. Much as many of us want to get rid of New Labour, I would urge floating voters not to vote for David Cameron on a mandate, coded or otherwise, of higher taxes. This is because it really doesn’t take a very clever man to increase taxes, in fact, that is the easiest thing to do. Increasing taxes is what we would expect from a novice, a man of little experience and man short on ideas, ability, depth or lets face it, credibility. It takes a real man, or woman, to tackle the reason why so much of our money is needed in tax and that, is what we have come to expect from a conservative leader. There must be a war on government waste and excesses.

I believe Cameron is sincere, but I also believe his personal life is shielded from the real problems of the people in this country. He doesn’t have to struggle paying his mortgage, car payments or utility bills. Yet he meets a couple of people and think he knows what it all means. If I spend 10 minutes observing my car being serviced, does that mean I am a mechanic?

I have said, in the past, that anything is better than New Labour. But if I am honest, a new government, that still believes that they are entitled to increase their tax take from the British public, in spite of the hardship, before knowing how much they could save by cutting government excess and waste, doesn’t deserve our vote.

Think again Cameron….the LibDems have failed miserably for the past 3 or 4 elections because they thought the British public would agree to higher taxes. They were wrong and you are wrong. It is possible that the conservatives will get in because of the significant backlash against New Labour, however, if we know that the conservatives are going to put up taxes, we may just decide that it is better the devil we know and stick with experience.

I have always been a conservative, but I could not and will not bring myself to vote for any party that includes tax increases as part of its commitment, not least because this current administration has left enough fat within government to keep a butcher employed for 5 years without losing any of the meat. Think about it Mr Cameron, get rid of some of your Eton boys and get some real people in to advise you….before you cock it up!

When the dust settles, governments around the world need to reflect on precisely how a situation arose, where taxpayers were required to bail out struggling banks and insurers. This should be wide ranging and lead to both regulation and prosecution.

It is insufficient in the extreme to state that the stock markets require regulation, the truth is that executives of some of the largest banks and insurers in the world have acted recklessly and in return, have profited through bonuses and dividend payments. They have manufactured products that could be traded for profit, even though 10 years or so ago, these types of trades did not exist, in fact, some are so complicated, that even financial experts and city observers have struggled to explain how they worked.

It must be remembered, that the executives of these banks and insurance companies were charged with a fiduciary duty to look after their shareholders interests and act responsibly. From what I can see, they have created products that allowed them to make short-term profits on traded mortgage securities and the like. In many cases, shareholders have lost everything, many of whom are pension companies, which means that the ultimate losers will be all those that have invested their hard earned money in a pension fund and of course, the taxpayer.

Few can argue, that the actions of many of these top executives has been reckless in the extreme, because previously solid businesses have now had to be bailed, whether through nationalisation or central bank loans. With the position, salary, share options, dividends and bonuses, must come the responsibility. Anyone who has been party to the decisions that have lead to the failure of the business they were responsible for, should be required to forfeit any profits they received.

During these tough times, there is a need for cool heads, particularly from government, but we will come out the other side. The government’s however, must act now, by freezing the assets of all executives who are believed to have been party to this reckless behaviour, before they are allowed to salt away their assets, as they surely will. The public will not forgive government, for allowing these people to protect their assets and avoid paying the price for their reckless behavior.

This is not about starting a blame game, nor is it a witch-hunt, both of which may even be justifiable. It is a method by which government, on behalf of the people, can make clear, that reckless behaviour, for short-term profit, which leads to business failure has a price. In the UK, company directors can already be held personally responsible if they have continued to trade whilst insolvent, based on some of the recent examples of spectacular business failures, it is difficult to see how some of the banking executives could claim that their business was solvent.

Government must use existing legislation to investigate and if necessary, charge reckless company executives. If necessary, they must introduce further legislation to increase their powers in such circumstances, but in a first move, they must seek to freeze most or all of the assets of these failed bankers and their cronies. It does not matter if they have been donors to party funds, politicians responsibilities are to the electorate, not a few failed bankers. The predict, that the first party to promise to freeze the assets of these bankers, pending an investigation, will receive a massive boost in the polls, so even if they don’t do it because it is right, they could try it for the poll boost!

There is an inevitability in politics that your unguarded, or newor that matter your carefully delivered words will come back to haunt you. Here are some of Gordon Brown’s.

During his Labour Party conference speech in 2000, Gordon Brown said “We will not put hard won economic stability at risk. No return to short-termism. No return to Tory boom and bust” and he went on to say “why did the Tory party give Britain twenty years of stop-go, twenty years of boom and bust. It is Labour that is now the party for stability and growth.”

Now we know that whenever anything goes wrong, Mr Brown always blames the “Tory party” or now, he prefers to say that our problems are as a consequence of “world economic issues and the credit crunch”. Okay, for a change, there is some truth in that statement, but that is only a recent phenomena, it does not really answer the question of how we got into this position of boom and bust.

On Gordon Brown’s watch, we have seen house prices rise some 200% (23% in 2003 alone) from 1997 to 2007, we have seen a massive increase in the availability of credit and people have felt relatively wealthy as a consequence of the increase in value of their homes. Easy credit meant that many people could remortgage their homes so that they could buy a new car or go on a fancy holiday. During the same period, 1997 to 2007, average wages rose by just 52%, so it was quite obvious that consumer spending had nothing to do with increased wealth through rising wages.

People were offered interest free credit for car and electronic purchases, 125% mortgages, equity release programmes and would receive credit card offers through the post every day. Because many people considered that the increase in their property value was a one way bet, they continues to borrow, believing that they could release equity as and when they needed to. Experts were telling us time and again that the level of consumer debt was at record levels and wasn’t sustainable. Gordon Brown chose to ignore this advice, in spite of the assurance he gave in his conference speech and on numerous occasions since, that he would not allow a return to boom and bust, what he termed a Tory disease.

Gordon Brown knew that the consumer boom was financed by debt, much of which was secured against property prices, which he knew could be volatile, he know that savings were down and debt has spiralled. But he did nothing, previous governments had put in credit controls to address these issues and risks, he sat there preening his feathers and claiming credit for growth figures, yet ignoring that one day it would all come to a dramatic end. It is unlikely he understood just how dramatic that would be, but he knew it would end up is a “bust”.

Gordon Brown’s relationship with prudence was a mere dalliance, personally, I am at a complete loss as to why political commentators and the tabloid press continue to refer to him as a good chancellor, an iron chancellor or one who places prudence first. At the same time as this country was experiencing an economic boom, financed on credit, he himself was, in spite of the fact that he had increasing tax revenues, on a government spending and borrowing spree. Fancy footwork ensured that the PFI initiatives, which will cost us £170bn between now and 2032, did not end up recorded as government debt, but it is still there and it has to be paid. In the good times he should have been repaying government debt, to place us in a better position when the inevitable “bust” came, he did not, he ignored it and continued to spend.

Rising commodity prices and the credit crunch have exacerbated the problem, but ask anyone with a little understanding of basic economics and they would have told you that the crunch was going to happen anyway, debt financed growth was not sustainable even in dreamland that was New Labour. Gordon Brown inherited, whatever he says, a steady and sustainable economy, he just blew it!

It is also worth noting, that manufacturing in this country has been in decline, yes, even under this government and our economy is heavily reliant on banking and financial services. Two areas that are under significant and sustained pressure. It remains to be seen how this will affect employment, tax revenues and our balance of payment deficits. With many banks and financial institutions making substantial losses, these will transfer, not just into an immediate loss of tax revenues, but, because they can accumulate these losses, a further reduction of tax revenues in the coming years.

Gordon Brown’s economic credentials and reputation for prudence is in tatters and we shall be paying the price long after he has left office.

If you have heard him say it once, you have heard him repeat it 100 times. Gordon Brown keeps telling is that the UK economic fundamentals are strong. Now I am no economist and that will become self-evident when reading this blog, but I am blessed with a little commonsense and logic. My conclusion, the so called fundamentals don’t look so great from where I am sitting, so common Gordon enlighten us.

At the CBI Scotland Annual Dinner, Gordon Brown outlines what he considered those fundamentals to be, they are;

“First, Bank of England independence has given us low interest rates founded on sound macroeconomic management and so despite increases in the prices of food and fuel - and I understand the impact this is having on families and businesses - the sound framework for monetary policy which we have established means inflation remains far below the double-digit levels we saw in the earlier decades. And this will help ensure that interest rates remain similarly low by historical standards.

Second, the most flexible labour market in Europe means that even though unemployment has risen in recent months, employment remains close to record highs - and wage pressures are subdued, led by our own responsible decisions on public sector pay. And with the investment in the New Deal and our latest welfare reforms there is more support than ever before to help people back into work and to fill the 600,000 vacancies still in our economy. And a balanced approach to migration allows businesses to benefit from the specific skills that economic migrants can bring to our country and improves the responsiveness of our labour market to fluctuating demand.

Third - the underlying financial strength of British business reflects its improved efficiency - driven by your hard work in achieving the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. Britain remains a magnet for overseas investment and our export performance is improving, with our manufacturing productivity growth strong.

Fourth, low debt. The significant debt repayments we made since 1997 mean we have cut public debt as a share of national income from 43 per cent in 1997 to today’s 37.3 per cent. This means that, unlike in earlier economic slowdowns, we can sustain our ongoing commitment to investment in fixed capital infrastructure - up 58 per cent in real terms in the last decade. In 1997 we invested £144.5 billion. Today it is £229 billion. Even after inflation a 58 per cent rise.

And - while  no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike  in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into pay packets later this month.

Fifth – we are making all the long term decisions, difficult as they are, to boost our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. And the 2002 Enterprise Act has given us one of the most robust, independent competition regimes anywhere in the world. The support for British enterprise - strengthened over the last decade with the launch of Enterprise Capital Funds, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee and administrative burden reduction targets. Britain today has four and a half million businesses - more than ever before. And the OECD says Britain has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any OECD country. ”

Now lets have layman’s take on this, as I said, I am no expert on economics, but I am one of the people that is expected to understand what the government is telling us.

Fundamental One

One of the primary movers in determining interest rates is inflation and as we have seen over the past few months, Gordon Brown is limited in what he can do to control inflation. Yes he can keep public sector wage deals low, but he cannot control commodity prices such as fuel and food, which can have, as we have seen, a significant impact on inflation. Furthermore, government borrowing can also affect inflation, but Gordon Brown’s fancy footwork has managed to keep long term debt such as the PFI initiatives off the government balance sheet. This may have the affect of massaging government borrowings, thereby providing a knock-on affect in terms of lower interest rates.

Fundamental Two

Gordon Brown goes on to lecture us that the second part of the fundamentals is a flexible workforce, low unemployment, low wage settlements, economic migrants and welfare reforms. Really? Firstly, there is no explanation of what a flexible workforce is, but whatever it is, the government cannot claim the credit for it. The low unemployment figure doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. There are now 1.7, people out of work and on top of that those claiming disability benefits have risen to 2.5m, many of which, under the old system, would have been classed as unemployed. So, once again, this would appear to be a deliberate manipulation of the true jobless total.

Granted, the government can be credited with reaching low wage settlements with the public sector, although their ability to maintain these agreements may be questionable given the increasing militancy of the the public sector unions. But there is something else that Gordon Brown has omitted to include here. Many public sector employees benefit from excellent, final salary pension schemes and, even though many of these have been withdrawn in the private sector, Gordon has not had the courage to likewise in the public sector. Therefore, whether Gordon Brown likes it or not, it is an inconvenient truth that pensions are a cost of employment and it is estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is some £890bn, yet the government does not include this obligation anywhere in their figures.

So what about economic migrants, who do they benefit? Well yes, they benefit private companies that cannot or more likely, will not offer a wage sufficient to get ‘local’ workers to join their business, even though we have 1.7m unemployed. But what about the hidden cost, economic migrants can bring their families if they wish and many do, so when they are here, we must provide them with, at the very least, free education and free healthcare. So, in effect, by offering these benefits free, we, the tax payer are effectively subsidising employers looking for cheap labour. As the government knows only too well, these economic migrants could not possibly pay enough in tax and national insurance to cover the cost of these free benefits. If I was Mr Brown, I would be keeping my mouth shut, unless of course, he thinks we are all too stupid to work it out.

Fundamental Three

Gordon claims that we have the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. This may be true and therefore I will accept it at face value. But, can he really claim that their is an underlying financial strength in British business? Over the past few months, we have seen a high street bank have to be rescued by the tax payer, we have had a series of profit warnings from major retailers and manufacturers, we have had a number of high profile companies having to go to the stock market for more money to shore up their balance sheets and we have seen the failure of several airlines and the UK’s third largest travel companies. This doesn’t look strong.

In addition, we are now starting to see the highest level of business failures in over a decade, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Gordon Brown would do well to be remember that it is the SME market that has created many of the new jobs that he takes credit for, but also, because they cannot afford to go offshore or look at fancy methods of tax avoidance, they loyally pay their taxes. So what has he done for them?

Despite promised to the contrary, he has saddled them with a mountain of red tape, punitive fines and penalties for even the smallest misdemeanor in respect of tax or VAT returns. He has ensured through legislation that, the SME employer now has to have expensive experts on hand either as employees or consultants to advise on health and safety issues and employment issues as they have become one of the largest burdens on any small or medium sized business. In doing so, Gordon Brown, his cohorts and civil servants have demonstrated that they know nothing about running a business of this size.

Further, as a result of reduced central government funding to local authorities, business are having to pay ever higher business rates, even though they are getting less and less in return. Typically business rates now equate to 50% of the SME’s lease or rental costs. That is not business friendly, it is punishment. Far from taking credit for the business sector success, certainly in terms of the SME’s, he and his penal policies have made it increasingly difficult for them to survive as will be demonstrated over the coming months with a disproportionate number of SME business failures. You mark my words Mr Brown. This government also withdrew tapered tax relief a few short years after it was introduced to encourage entrepreneurship.

Fundamental Four

This takes the biscuit, Gordon Brown claims that government debt, as a percentage of national income has fallen from 43% in 1997, to 37.3%. As I have mentioned before, this is not a true figure, it is massaged. Mr Brown has become adept at using fancy footwork to ensure that government obligations do not end up on the government balance sheet. Now, I am not suggesting that he can’t do this, because he has, but what is the point in kidding himself, unless of course, the plan is to kid us? Between now and 2032, we will have to pay back some £170bn through the various PFI schemes used to pay for our schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects. This doesn’t appear as a borrowing, so what is it? Then there is the debt from the failed Network Rail project and Northern Rock, as well as countless other obligations, why don’t these show up?

This man, even claimed in his speech, that he is using government intervention to assist families and business, bragging that basic rate tax payers will receive £120 a year in tax cuts. Have I missed something, this is the man that though he could rip us off using a classic trick of smoke and mirrors, got caught out and had to back down, Then he is trying to claim that it is some gift from the government. What an arrogant, deluded little man he is. 

Fundamental Five

This is really a more detailed repetition of Gordon’s ‘Fundamental Three’, but there are many more grandiose claims that do not bear scrutiny, but I haven’t got the time to analyse them one by one, so perhaps Gordon can enlighten as all be telling us how many of the 4.5m businesses he alludes to have actually been able to benefit from the Enterprise Capital Funds and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee? Precisely what red tape burdens has he removed and does this assessment include the new red tape this government has introduced.

I would also be very keen to hear precisely how this government can claim credit for boosting our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. I don’t remember any of the companies operating in this sector thanking the government for their contribution. He also claims that our exports are improving, could this be anything to do with the fact that Sterling has weakened against all of the other major currencies, one of the primary reasons that our bills and inflation is rising, given we are a net importer of goods.

There are also other things that a government should be doing, such as planning. Gordon Brown makes no mention of the fact that as a direct consequence of his government’s prevaricating over nuclear power stations, there is a very real risk that we could suffer major power shortages in  3 or 4 years few years time, as the older power stations are de-commissioned and new one’s which take 10 years to build, are not ready. We could be reduced to third world levels of power shortages, with an estimated reduction of some 35%, affecting every family, every home and every business in the country. There is your legacy Mr Brown.

As I have stated at the outset, I am not a financial or economic expert, but when I analyse what Gordon Brown has said, against what had actually happened, I see a massive gulf. Therefore, this man must be deluding himself, or attempting to hoodwink the public. Either way, it is not good for us or our country. Step aside Mr Brown, before it is too late.

If you have ever wondered why so many government departments are in a mess, then you probably don’t have to look much further than the man or woman in charge. Ask yourself whether they are fit for purpose. If you visit MP’s websites, you will note that many are bereft of any detail regarding their past experience, in other words, before they entered parliament. Some may have had experience in senior management and others run a business, but by and large, my straw pole indicates that few have experience either.

My question is, should members of parliament, with little or no experience, be placed in charge of huge departments and labour forces? One minute they are trundling the street begging you for votes and the next they are running some of the biggest organisations in the country (in terms of budget, headcount etc). One or two may even be running departments which determine our civil liberties, even though the MP’s have little business, or for that matter, life experience. Little wonder that our civil liberties have been steadily eroded.

Could anyone imagine Barclays Bank appointing a postman and telling him to start running the business with little or no relevant experience? You know, “don’t worry mate, you can learn on the job”. Ridiculous isn’t it? But what is the difference? Would Unilever appoint a new CEO, who has a total of 7 years ‘commercial’ experience as the deputy head of the Inflation Report Division at the Bank of England and an economic writer on The Guardian Newspaper? Yet this person now runs a department with 20,000 staff and a budget of £14bn.

The problem must start when the local constituencies select their prospective member of parliament. What criteria do they use to determine who to select, is it because their face fits, they are mates with the constituency chairman, a determined party ’activist’ or some other banal reason? Once elected, they could end up in a junior government post, or even in the cabinet. So how does the prime minister decide who is going to get which post? Experience suggests, that more often than not, the ‘plum’ posts are offered as a reward, rather than based on experience.

Yes I accept, that ministers heading government departments will receive advice and guidance from experienced civil servants, but surely that is not the point? Members of Parliament, if they are being paid to run a department, need to add value. Lets face it, when they talk at the public, they do so as if they are experts in their field and how many of us actually question their qualifications and ability to judge the issues they are covering?

No system is perfect, but surely we can do better than this? Surely the public have a right to know what level and type of experience our members of parliament have? Why do so many MP’s rarely publish their pre-politics careers, are they worried that the public may be concerned at their relative lack of experience? None of us would be able to secure a job without a CV. Why shouldn’t MP’s, that work for the public, be compelled to publish a detailed account of their past experience, which is then open to the public. Then, perhaps, when they make a statement, we can make a judgement as to whether they are properly qualified to make such a statement or if they are just acting as a mouthpiece for some faceless civil servants.

Yes, I am questioning the very basis on which our MP’s are selected and our government is run, but just because that is the way it has always been, does not mean that it should continue to be so. Progress requires and top to bottom review of systems, processes and protocols, if we determine that the current system is better than the alternatives, then so be it, if not, then we should seek to make changes. 

Perhaps if our members of parliament had not screwed us for more and more tax, then squandered so much of this income, or they had not attempted to turn this country into a police state by eroding our civil liberties, we would be less inclined to ask such impertinent questions, such as are they qualified for the job? But they do, they have and they are.

John Demitriou, on his excellent blog Boatang & Demitriou offers a noteworthy and thought provoking series of suggestions to the problems that we are facing, specifically Politic’s isn’t working and I couldn’t agree more.