The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

Kent County Council's "coherence" spending

The Kentish Express reported last week (20th September) that Kent County Council have defended their decision to employ advertising firm M&C Saatchi to “improve its communications” at a cost of £48,000 to the taxpayer.  Kent County Council has a media and communications budget of…wait for it…£1.1 MILLION taxpayer pounds.  What the hell are they wasting more for if they’re saying the £1.1 MILLION isn’t getting the job done in the first place?

In a bumbling defence, deputy leader of Kent County Council Cllr Alex King said the council need help to be “more coherent”.  M&C Saatchi may be able to help Cllr King become more coherent, but they won’t be able to help him defend the indefensible.

To put this in perspective, Kent County Council has wasted £48,000 of your money on a campaign to tell you how good they are.  That’s it.  You’re paying for their arrogance on top of the £1.1 MILLION already spent per year.

So get out there and tell Cllr King and Kent’s taxpayers that they shouldn’t stand for this flagrant waste of taxpayers’ money.  Write to Cllr King at:

Cllr Alex King
Philpotts Gate
Slip Mill Road
Hawkhurst
Kent TN18 4JT
Tel:  01580 754119
Email: alex.king@kent.gov.uk

And the Kentish Express should know how outraged the British taxpayer is at this waste of our money.  Like always, write into them:

Letters Editor
The Kentish Express
Express House,
34-36 North Street,
Ashford,
TN24 8JR,
United Kingdom
Email: editor.kentonline@thekmgroup.co.uk

It’s up to us to hold the politicians to account.  Bit by bit we’re raising these issues and highlighting the waste going on in our Town Halls. 

FACT and TPA at work in Norwich

FACT (Folk Against Council Tax) activist and TPA supporter June Farrow got a letter into the Norwich Evening News recently, raising the issue of council tax.  The NEN is very quickly becoming the low-tax-activist’s house magazine.  We got a series of rapid-reaction letters in the NEN in response to the £300,000 squandered by Norwich City Council on their bid for unitary status.  Now Mrs Farrow keeps up the rate of letters appearing in local papers maintaining the local debate on tax.

So keep up the fight.  The more we get our message out there, the more the British public wake up and join the campaign for real reform and lower taxes!

Tower Shamlets 'defend' Islamist books

A couple of weeks ago we highlighted a report by the Centre for Social Cohesion that exposed the shocking amount of Islamic Fundamentalist literature stocked in Tower Shamlets’ taxpayer-funded libraries.  So I wrote to the leader of the council and got a reply from their head of Idea Stores (Chief Librarian to you and me):

"Dear Councillor Jones,

In reading the latest Centre for Social Cohesion report into Islamic Fundamentalist literature stocked in public libraries, would you care to explain how and why taxpayers’ money has been used to stock public libraries with books promoting hate, violence and Islamic Fundamentalism?

Yours sincerely,

Tim Aker"

Have a read of thier reply below and tell us what you think of their response in the comments section.  Are Tower Shamlets dodging the questions?  Should they spend taxpayers’ money on terrorist manuals?  Let us know what you think!

Inheritance "crack down" is about securing the government's spending fix

The Taxpayers' Alliance has long held the view that the inheritance tax should be completely abolished because it is immoral, unfair and unnecessary.  It is totally immoral that the state should tax your estate simply because you died, leaving a grieving family to cope with a huge tax bill.  It is unfair because often it represents double or even triple-taxation, with the same money having been previously taxed through income tax and stamp duty.  Moreover, despite the pain it causes, IHT is totally unnecessary; it raises only £3.6 billion (less than 1% of total tax revenue), whilst the government's own enquiry into waste found over £20 billion wasted and a study by the European Central Bank showed we could save £80 billion if our services were as efficient as those on the continent, so with just a small percentage cut in government waste cut and a small increase in efficiency, we could easily afford to scrap this immoral and unfair tax.

Opinion polls have consistently shown that many people instinctively share our view that there is something very wrong with the state making a claim to your assets simply because you passed away, particularly when it has dipped its hands into the same pot once or twice before.  This is a view that has only strengthened recently with more and more people being dragged into the inheritance tax-paying band (a 72% increase over the last five years) because of increasing house prices.  So it is not surprising that our most recent YouGov poll showed that inheritance tax is the most hated tax.

Yet in another sign of how out of touch the political class has become, unfortunately it is not a view shared by the government.  While the people are turning against the death tax, the government has just announced that it will be taking steps to squeeze even more money out of grieving families. 

Any gift made 7 years before a person's death may be taxed at 40%.  Government officials will now be going to pains to trawl through financial information in an attempt to make sure all of this money is clawed in to feed the government's ravenous spending addiction.  It is obvious that this step will make it even more difficult for families to pay their huge inheritance tax bill as gifts given seven years ago are unlikely to be available to pay a sudden, unexpected bill. 

Government clearly cares very little for the bereaved families who are hit with huge tax bills simply because one of their relatives has had the misfortune of dying.  Government is far more concerned with securing its spending fix at any cost.  The only hope is that this will further strengthen the public's righteous anger and so bring about the death of the death tax much sooner.

The PCSO Problem

                                 

                           PCSO "Steve" - here to help, unless you're drowning...

The tragic story of the 10 year-old boy who drowned in a pond whilst two Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) looked on without helping because they were not appropriately trained, presents a damning dilemma for the whole PCSO system.

The first horn of the dilemma is that we are clearly not employing the right people to be PCSOs.  The type of person that we would expect to be employed as PCSOs would be the kind of person who, on seeing a draining child, would move swiftly to try to save the child - whether in uniform and on duty or not.  That these two officers did nothing as the boy was left to drown proves that we are not employing the right people to be PCSOs. 

Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable of the Northern Ireland Police Service (formerly the RUC), successfully prevented the introduction of PCSOs in the Province some years ago after arguing that guarantees on the quality of recruitment were not strong enough.  With the threshold for entry so low, there was a serious danger of paramilitary infiltration into the police (Iraqi-style...).  Needless to say, this opposition has been sidelined and they are now being introduced there as well anyway.

The second horn is that the regulation governing the behaviour of PCSOs seems so restrictive that it stops them from doing an effective, worthwhile job.  If the first horn is incorrect, and we are indeed employing the kind of people suitable to be PCSOs then the only reason these two officers failed to rescue the drowning boy was that they were wearing PCSO uniforms and felt obligated not to deviate from the rule book.

So PCSOs are incapable of doing a good job either by their own inappropriateness for the role or because they are ridiculously over-regulated (or both).  Whatever horn you take, the 14,000 PCSOs that have been recruited since 2000 cannot be relied on to do a good job, they don't solve crime, and they are therefore a waste of taxpayers’ money, preventing the hiring of more credible and qualified sworn officers.  Add to this the fact that criminals and increasingly the public do not respect them (not helped by scandals like this), and the conclusion is clear: further PCSO recruitment should cease.

Ashford Council's waste habit

A supporter in Kent keeps us informed with a constant stream of information on local government waste and mismanagement.  She completes the hat-trick over Ashford Borough Council this week with yet another instance of overspending, this time highlighting Ashford Council’s £80,000+ legal fees.

In a Freedom of Information request by the Kentish Express, Ashford Borough Council conceded it had spent more than £80,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal consultation to recover any money caused by the delays in rebuilding a local leisure centre, the Stour Centre.

True to form, like we exposed in our research into government overspend, the Kentish Express reveal the Stour Centre is £5 million over budget and 18 months late.

Yet again, we see local government unable to do anything under budget and on time.  And yet again we see councils dipping into our money – which we want to go to frontline services – for legal consultation to try and undo the mess they’ve made.

So feel free to write into the Kentish Express and keep up the campaign, let the people know there is a majority against our councils wasting our money like this:

Letters Editor
Ashford office of the Kentish Express
34 North Street
Ashford
TN24 8JR
Email: editor.kentonline@thekmgroup.co.uk (highlight it’s a letter for the Ashford edition of the Kent Express)

And also let the leader of Ashford Council know that we’re holding him directly to account on this overspend and waste:

Cllr Paul Clokie
Ashford Borough Council
The Briars
High Street
Tenterden
Kent TN30 6JB
Email: paul.clokie@ashford.gov.uk

Democracy coming to a Parish near you?

We reported recently on the local parish referendum down in Devon on the EU referendum, and the results are in.  Ninety percent voted in favour of holding a referendum on the EU constitution and now other parishes are looking to hold their own local polls on the EU constitution.

Just think what this could be extended to.  We could have local parish votes on the parish precept, for instance, or even rates of council tax and local budgets.  Up and down the country local campaign groups can lobby and bring democracy back to the local level.  We already have our activists, who sit on Parish councils, planning motions calling for lower council tax.  Why not use these local referenda as a way to advance the low tax cause?  Please use the comments section to put your ideas on what we can push for local referenda on.  I’d be glad to hear what you think…

Primary Care System in Need of Urgent Reform

The health service exists not for the doctors it employs but for the patients who fund it.  This seems a pretty uncontroversial statement, yet when 90% of GPs have chosen to make themselves unavailable to patients outside the weekday hours of 8am to 6.30pm whilst enjoying an average salary of £118,000 a year, it seems clear that in practice the system is set up for the convenience of doctors not patients.

No one denies that our doctors do an excellent job or that high salaries are needed to ensure the NHS is able to recruit and maintain the best doctors, but it seems absurd that it is the patients that have to fit doctors into their own schedule rather than doctors fitting their schedule around patients.  Not only is the system incredibly inconvenient but research by the CBI shows that it costs UK businesses 38 million working hours a year at a cost of £1 billion. 

The system is clearly in need of reform.  To this end the CBI offers a number of interesting recommendations.  That patients should be allowed to register with more than one GP so that, for example, they can have a surgery near both their house and workplace, that pharmacists should take a greater role in treating basic ailments like colds, that GPs should have at least some of their funding based on patient reviews, and that it should be easier for patients to switch GPs all seem like sensible suggestions.  Ultimately, these reforms would allow for greater innovation and flexibility in the system along with an incentive structure to ensure that such a system is provided. 

Taxpayers will no longer tolerate their money being used to fund rigid, monolithic public services which do not cater to their needs.  They demand a flexible user-based system which is innovative enough to cater for their diverse needs.  The CBI’s suggestions would help to create such a system.

Taxpayers introducing local democracy

A local Dorset campaign group has used UK legislation to stage its own ‘parish referendum’ on the EU constitution.

From the BBC:

“Villagers in Dorset are using part of UK legislation to stage a referendum on the EU Treaty.

Demands for a national ballot on the treaty have been refused by ministers.

However, campaign group Carp has used a part of the Local Government Act to stage a parish poll in East Stoke, near Wareham, next Thursday.

The outcome would not have any formal impact on government policy, but the group's aim is to increase pressure on ministers to hold a national vote.

In East Stoke, 339 voters will be asked to vote yes or no to the question, "Do you want a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty?"

Carp - Campaign Alliance for Referendums in Parishes - is also attempting to stage votes in other counties in England.

The campaign includes members of UKIP but it says it is not a party political group.”

This is an interesting breakthrough.  I will certainly be looking into this to see what else we can get parish votes on.  Anyone for a referendum on abolishing the hated council tax? 

A wheelie bad waste in Ashford

Ashford Borough Council, fresh after wasting thousands of pounds initiating a public consultation on graffiti (that’s street art to the politically correct), is now wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers money buying bicycles and accessories for council staff to urge them to 'go green'.  Council staff will then buy back the bikes but the VAT, income tax and national insurance savings could save them up to 50% on the overall cost of bicycle equipment. 

Never mind foot and mouth, folks, the quickest spreading disease in this country is green-gimmick-syndrome.  Each council is under statute to employ a ‘climate change’ department at a running cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.  Now Ashford Borough Council slavishly follows a government initiative to encourage cycling to work at a greater cost to you.  Surely it would save more energy to scrap these gimmicky departments rather than have them waste our money and energy just to appease politicians' consciences.

These gimmicks won’t solve climate change and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for them!

So keep up the pressure on town halls, write to the leader of Ashford Borough Council, Cllr Paul Clokie:

Cllr Paul Clokie
Ashford Borough Council
The Briars
High Street
Tenterden
Kent TN30 6JB
Email: paul.clokie@ashford.gov.uk

And the local paper:

Letters Editor
Ashford office of the Kentish Express
34 North Street
Ashford
TN24 8JR
Email: editor.kentonline@thekmgroup.co.uk (highlight it’s a letter for the Ashford edition of the Kent Express)

COMING SOON! - THE MUST-HAVE NOVELTY GAME OF THE PARTY CONFERENCE SEASON

In time for the start of the conference season, the week after next, the TaxPayers' Alliance will be releasing the must-have accessory for all hacks and political junkies - Political Trumps!

Every politician has been rated on their media skills, scandal avoidance and integrity by a panel of political journalists and commentators, as well as on the facts: their private sector experience, length of ministerial service and the frequency with which they shift from department to department. 

There are fascinating details of some of our most famous contemporary political figures on each of the 52 cards, plus the obligatory two jokers.  To play Political Trumps just match up politicians against each other on their different rankings and see how they compare - or just use the cards as a conventional novelty deck when you next play bridge or poker.

To pre-order your pack of Political Trumps, click click the PayPal button:

(Cost including P&P is £2.99 per pack). Alternatively, send a cheque for £2.99 made payable to "The TaxPayers' Alliance" to 43, Old Queen Street, Westminster, LONDON, SW1H 9JA.

 

Tower Shamlets at it again...

From this morning’s Metro newspaper:

“Two white councillors have hit out after being excluded from a meeting because of their colour.

Peter Golds and Stephanie Eaton said they were outraged at not being asked to take part in the focus group at Tower Hamlets Council in East London.

The gathering was organised to come up with ideas for improving opportunities for Bangladeshi and ethnic minority workers at the council.

Mr. Golds, who leads the Conservatives on the council, has taken the matter to the Commission for Racial Equality.  Ms Eaton, who heads the Liberal Democrat group, made a sarcastic apology after the snub.

Deputy Labour leader Siraj Islam, who organised the gathering, told a council meeting this week: ‘without wishing to be patronising, we felt it should be “Bangladeshi only” because we have the expertise on these matters and we talk to staff in the corridors about concerns’.

Ms Eaton replied: ‘Well, I’m sorry for being white and there’s nothing I can do about that.’ She added: ‘Am I irrelevant because I’m white?  I do actually talk to Bangladeshi’s a lot and think I would have had something to contribute.’

After the cabinet meeting, Mr Golds wrote to council chief executive Martin Smith saying he was ‘disturbed’ by the exclusion.

He has also contacted the commission, asking it whether the move was a breach of equality policies.

Tower Hamlets Council said other sessions would be organised so that all councillors were involved.”

I don’t think much commentary is needed just to say that Tower Shamlets has disgraced itself again.

Please write to the deputy leader, Siraj Islam, who forbade ‘whites’ from attending a council meeting.  His contact details are:

Cllr Sirajul Islam
c/o Cabinet Office
Town Hall, Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent,
London, E14 2BG

Tel:  0207 364 4993
Mobile:  07931 708308
cllr.sirajul.islam@towerhamlets.gov.uk; layla.richards@towerhamlets.gov.uk

And the leader of Tower Shamlets Council:

Cllr. Denise Jones
Leadership Office
Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent
London, E14 2BG
Tel:  0207 364 4993
Email: layla.richards@towerhamlets.gov.uk; cllr.denise.jones@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Why even stop there, let the local rag know what a shambles Tower Shamlets council are:

Letters Editor
The Tower Hamlets Recorder
182 - 184 High Street North,
London,
E6 2JD,
United Kingdom
Email: john.finn@newhamrecorder.co.uk (specify that the letter is for the Tower Hamlets Recorder letters page)

[EDIT: Hat tip to Richard Brown]

The Wharf
Trinity Mirror,
One Canada Square,
Canary Wharf,
London E14 5AP
Editorial: 020 7510 6306
Email: newsdesk@wharf.co.uk
Fax: 020 7293 2264

[Edit:  Hat Tip to William Norton]

East London Advertiser
138 Cambridge Heath Road London,
E1 5QJ
Telephone (switchboard): 020 77908822
News desk 020 7791 7799
Editor: Malcolm Starbrook
malcolm.starbrook@archant.co.uk

We’ve had some success from our letter writing campaigns before, initiating a debate in Norwich on wasting £300,000 on a campaign to become Unitary.  So why not try it in Tower Shamlets.  We have to hold these maniacs to account!

TPA ignites tax debate in Norwich

The TPA has today scored a success in Norwich.  The Norwich Evening News has printed a selection of our ‘rapid reaction’ letters to the news fed to us by TPA activist Barbara Lockwood.  We thought it disgraceful that Norwich City Council spent over £300,000 of taxpayers’ money in a power-grab campaign to change to unitary status.  Now the Norwich Evening News readership of many thousands is hopefully going to get involved and ask whether it’s justified that the council wastes so much taxpayers’ money.

It just shows how effective these rapid reaction letter writing campaigns can be.  If you want to have your say in the Norwich Evening News debate and say you stand with the forces for better government and lower taxes, then write into:

Letters Editor
Norwich Evening News
Prospect House,
Rouen Road,
Norwich,
NR1 1RE,
United Kingdom
Email: eveningnewsletters@archant.co.uk

As you can see, every bit we do helps the cause.

Islington Branch to kick off their campaigns!

Wednesday saw the first meeting of the Islington TPA, with an impressive turnout of activists committed to a grassroots campaign for change.  We met at the very stylish Alwyne pub in Islington and talked about the local campaign and what plans there are for the coming months.

Chris Williams and Mandy Sosta (above) agreed to be joint organisers of the Islington Branch of the TPA and have committed to an action day in Islington in the second week of October – so watch this space to get involved as they kick off their campaign against inheritance tax.

Islington TPA is launching a fight against a tax hitting millions of ordinary working families every year.  To join in the campaign contact Mandy and Chris at their Islington TPA email address: taxpayers@btinternet.com.  Even if you’re not in Islington, do get involved.  It’s time to abolish an unfair, immoral, unpopular and unnecessary tax.

Islington is just the first of many branches to kick off their campaigns in September.  Next week I am in Liverpool planning out the campaign with our Organiser Veronica Hind.  The week after Hatfield and St. Albans TPA branches are meeting plan the fight against over-spending councils in Hertfordshire.  October sees Derby TPA launch along with TPA members putting motions to councils calling for lower council tax.

Needless to say, the coming months are going to be exciting times for the TPA and a winter of discontent for our high-spending, over-taxing local authorities that have pushed the British taxpayer around for too long.  To join in the exciting campaigns, contact me at tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com - I look forward to hearing from you!

Political-Correctness in Cornwall

TPA supporter Richard Jones has let us know of some political-correctness-gone-mad down in Cornwall.  Local resident Denis Lusby had been publishing a community magazine with news and the odd smattering of humour until the local (*drumroll*) ‘head of equality and diversity’ at Cornwall County Council urged local schools to boycott the newsletter.

The ‘head of equality and diversity’ at Cornwall County Council objected to the humour (and you’ve got to be pretty humourless to work in an equality and diversity directorate).  She found it grossly offensive that some of the jokes were ‘Irish jokes’.  But Denis is Irish himself, taking the jokes as humour rather than ethnic slur, as any balanced individual would take them.

Not surprisingly, the robotic arm of local bureaucracy didn't see sense and continued a campaign against him and now the Newsletter, informing a close-knit rural community of local goings-on, awaits someone else to take over publication…always under the watchful eye of the Sauron-esque equality and diversity officer.

Can’t councils do something better than interfering in our lives.  We want our taxes to support services and not these meddling bureaucrats trying to regulate every single thing we do.

As always, therefore, protest.  Here is the council address of Cornwall County Council’s ‘equality and diversity’ manager, Ginny Harrison-White:

Ginny Harrison-White
16 Carolyn Road
St. Austell
PL25 4AJ
Phone/fax: 01726 77113
Email: gharrisonwhite@cornwall.gov.uk

Also write to the Western Morning News to garner more exposure:

Letters Editor
Western Morning News
17 Brest Road
Derriford
Plymouth
PL6 5AA
Email:  wmnletters@westernmorningnews.co.uk

And/or the Cornish Guardian

Letters Editor
The Cornish Guardian
St Austell Guardian
3 Fore Street
St. Austell
Cornwall
Email:  cgedit@cd-m.co.uk

And/or The Cornish and Devon Post

Letters Editor
Cornish & Devon Post
Tindle House
Westgate Street
Launceston
Cornwall
Tel: 01566 772424
Fax: 01566 778243
Email: g.seccombe@thepost.uk.com

We have to let these bureaucrats in Town Halls know that we’re not going to be dictated to.  It is one thing to have them meddling like this, it’s an insult to injury to know our taxes are being paid to unelected officers who want to regulate our daily lives.  Tell them what you think.  Tell them we’ve had enough!

Note to Basildon Council - you are being watched...

A TPA activist has alerted us to this shocking example of government waste in
Basildon Council:

"Inclusion & Diversity Manager To £43,233 plus PRP (subject to review) A
hands-on, determined manager is now required with a real understanding of the complex legislation and issues associated with equality and diversity. You will need to deliver initiatives in all diversity disciplines, including cultural change programmes and involvement with both the community and business sectors.  Not only will you need to be able to identify and justify your own objectives, you will be involved in making decisions that impact on our overall agenda and strategy. You must have the skills to influence and effect strategy at senior management level with both officers and members."

Despite the fact that Basildon taxpayers are facing ever higher council tax rates, supposedly to pay for vital local services, the council has somehow found enough money to employ an "Inclusion and Diversity Manager" at £43,233 pa!

I suppose we can draw some comfort from the fact that the bureaucrats are
beginning to realise that all these laws are "complex".  However, rather than
solving this complexity by simply slashing the huge amounts of legislation and
red tape concerning "equality and diversity", they have instead decided to
waste more of taxpayers money to hire non-jobbers to translate the gibberish.

If you are sick of being forced to subsidise the agenda of a politically correct
bureaucratic class then write to:

Letters Editor
The Basildon Evening Echo
Newspaper House
Chester Hall Lane
Basildon
Essex
SS14 3BL
Email: echo.letters@nqe.com

And the leader of Basildon Council, Cllr. Malcolm Buckley:

Cllr Buckley
The Basildon Centre
St. Martin's Square
Basildon
Essex
SS14 1DL
Email: malcolm.buckley@members.basildon.gov.uk

Councils waste half a million on 'status'

 

TPA Activist Barbara Lockwood, who also runs her local campaign ‘Folk Against Council Tax’, has sent us a story about Norwich City and Norfolk County Council’s waste of half a million pounds over a battle to change Norwich City council to unitary status.

A breakdown of Norfolk County Council’s costs reveals just how wasteful the council has been:
• £105,313 on market research, publications and “external support”.
• £204,356 of office time, £153,022 of which is time office staff should have spent on official county council work and not responding to Norwich City Council’s bid for unitary status.

Compare this with Norwich City Council’s costs:
• £130,657 on “consultants”
• £59,048 for a “full time project manager” (in itself a non-job)
• £54,700 on research including consultations, surveys and focus groups
• £9,332 on “expenses” including “travel, consultation meetings and refreshments” (and I doubt they picked a can of coke and sandwich buffet option)

That’s over half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted on bureaucratic restructuring so politicians can squabble over which has more power, the city councillors or county councillors.  Does it matter which one ultimately has the power of the purse - they both seem quite talented at wasting our money.

It’s up to us to stand with Norfolk’s taxpayers.  Barbara Lockwood has written into the Norwich Evening News, she writes in a lot and should be commended for a long and sustained campaign for tax fairness.  We should do the same!  So here are the contact details for the Norfolk Evening News and the Eastern Daily Press.  Write into them and shame Norwich City and Norfolk COunty Council for wasting much taxpayer’s money:

Letters Editor
Norwich Evening News
Prospect House,
Rouen Road,
Norwich,
NR1 1RE,
United Kingdom
Email: eveningnewsletters@archant.co.uk

And

Letters Editor
Eastern Daily Press
Prospect House,
Rouen Road,
Norwich,
NR1 1RE,
United Kingdom
Email: edpnewsdesk@archant.co.uk

Do specify these are letters for the respective local papers.  We’ve had our activists get letters in papers before from these ‘rapid reaction’ campaigns, so give it a try.  The more we make waste an issue, the more people will listen and join our campaign.

Same old TUC

The conference season started in a predictable fashion yesterday when Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, claimed that the “super-rich” should pay more tax.  In particular, he pointed to the non-domicile loop-hole as an effective tax break worth £4 billion a year, whose closing would generate revenue to tackle child poverty and various associated social malaises.

That the TUC General Secretary should demand higher taxes on the rich and greater redistribution is hardly earth shattering news, yet the fact that the simplistic relationship between tax and revenue, and government spending and social wellbeing that his argument depends on should be so blithely accepted is what really grates. 

Undoubtedly our tax system is riddled with loop holes and exceptions which the army of lawyers and accountants that the rich employ are able to exploit.  That is why the Taxpayers’ Alliance is in favour of flatter and simpler taxes which minimise both the incentive and opportunity for tax avoidance.  However, the idea that child poverty can be tackled simply by throwing more money at the problem is pathetically lazy thinking.  To start with, the idea of child poverty tends to be a fairly vacuous concept when thrown around in the political arena, who after all can argue against measures for “tackling child poverty”?  Yet the poverty talked of tends to be an incredibly amorphous concept - not only is there talk of material poverty, but also of opportunity, of aspiration, and even love.  It is clearly incredibly difficult to measure let alone tackle many of these types of poverty, or even decide the demarcation point of poverty.  In short, whilst easy to make positive sounding noises, child poverty is not an issue easily tackled by the blunt bureaucratic instruments of the State. 

Indeed, it has often been the attempt of politicians to “do-something”, but ensure at the same time that that “something” flatters their commitment to completely discredited ideologies.  For example, it is the welfare dependence that has done so much to breed a culture of joblessness and low aspirations.  It is a top-down system of comprehensive education that has helped to destroy a flexible education system.  It is ultimately the patronising attitude that the State, and more specifically Whitehall knows what is best for each individual community, that homogenous standards must be imposed with little or no room for innovation.

The poor cannot be lifted up by pulling down the rich, instead individuals and communities must be set free to lift themselves up.  Our tax and benefit system which currently acts as a crippling disincentive to work must be reformed by cuts in tax at the very bottom of the income ladder.  Schools must be allowed to tailor their own curriculum and parents to chose between these diverse schools so unleashing the benign forces of competition.  Local communities must be given more power over their police force and other services.  People must take responsibility for themselves and feel they have a stake in their own local community and this can only occur if the stifling hand of the State is removed.

The solution to child poverty then is to remember Reverend William Boetcker’s 10 Cannots, particularly these four:

• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

News Release: TaxPayers' Alliance Annual Conference Season Poll

 Major landscape poll finds strong shift in public attitudes towards tax

 Council Tax is second biggest financial worry for UK families after rising utility bills

 Big majority think last ten years of higher public spending has been used badly

 63% think Ministers lack the experience, competence and knowledge to run public services

Each year, before the start of the party conference season, the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) surveys public opinion on our key issues of taxation, spending and better government.  The YouGov poll of more than two thousand adults shows big support for lower taxes and strong scepticism of the ability of politicians to manage public services.

TPA Presentation:

You can view a PowerPoint slide show presentation of the main poll findings HERE (PPT, 490k)

(N.B. If you do not have Microsoft PowerPoint, you can still view the presentation by downloading the free MSN PowerPoint Viewer here)

On tax and waste:

 Tax features twice in the top five financial worries for British families, with 61% saying the level of council tax was a major financial worry, just behind the cost of utility bills (65%).  More than a third (37%) said the rising tax burden was a major financial worry.

 A super-majority (77%) of people thought that a fair rate of tax was a quarter of an average household’s income or less.  The actual figure for 2006 is 35 per cent.

 70% believe they are paying more tax or significantly more tax than in 1997 and only 1 in 10 think they are paying "about the same".
 
 Two-thirds believe that the Government spends too much and therefore taxes were too high. A massive majority of Conservative identifiers (85%) think the government spends too much and therefore taxes too much, but so do half of Labour voters.

 A massive majority (79%) think taxes will be higher in three years time than they are now.  A mere 2% think taxes will be lower.

 A clear majority (53%) think that the government wastes one in every five pounds it spends (more than £100 billion last year).

 Council tax has doubled in a decade and is seen as the most unfair tax. The BBC licence fee is seen as the second most unfair tax, followed by inheritance tax.  Business taxes and duties on alcohol and tobacco were seen as the fairest taxes.

 Of the different types of tax cuts, the most popular tax cut was to lower council tax. There was also strong support for increasing the tax-free personal allowance – a tax cut that benefits all earners but would also take the poorest out of tax altogether. The least popular tax cut was reducing business taxes.

 When asked how they would spend a £1,000 tax cut, the most popular option was using it to pay off credit cards and reduce debt.  When savings, reducing debt and topping-up a pension are combined, they amount to 54% - with people clearly favouring investing in their own future over spending now. 

On government and politicians:

 Public scepticism about tax is matched by the view that the present system of government in Britain does not work well.  Only 1% agreed that the present system "works extremely well and could not be improved". 62% thought that the present system of government could be improved quite a lot or needed a great deal of improvement.  A third thought it could be improved in small ways but mainly works well.

 Almost two-thirds (63%) think that few if any senior politicians have the necessary experience, competence and knowledge to run public services, with just 12% thinking that senior politicians do have the necessary skills.

 Almost half (49%) think that politicians should not even be involved in setting overall policy on education and health services.  This coincides with a similar question in last year’s TPA conference season poll where 60% agreed that "Schools and hospitals are too important to be run by politicians who run things badly..." (ICM, August 2006)

 There is even stronger resistance to the practice of politicians attempting to manage the day-to-day delivery of education and health, with 73% saying they should not be involved.

Lessons for the parties:

 Two-thirds (65%) think the extra money government has spent on health and education over the last decade has been spent badly, against less than a fifth (19%) who say it has been spent well. More Labour voters think the money has generally been spent badly than spent well.

 A clear majority (54%) think the government has got worse at spending taxpayers money over the last decade, with only one in ten (11%) saying it has got better.

 When asked what they think causes wasteful spending, big majorities blame bureaucracy (62%) and the habit of constant changes, reorganisations and re-branding (66%).

 A super-majority (82%) oppose any increase in the tax burden - a major shift from the 1990s when more supported tax increases to generate extra investment for public services.  Now, only 6% would like to see taxes rise and 38% think they should be held at their present level but not rise any further.  With this level of opposition, it would be almost impossible for any party to run on a tax-raising platform at an election and win.

 The fact that the two main parties now have identical commitments on tax and spend policy is at odds with 44% of the electorate who want the party they support to reduce taxes. This includes 61% of Conservative identifiers compared to less than a third (29%) who want the Party to hold taxes at their present level (the current Conservative Party position).

 40% of respondents said a signed public pledge not to increase taxes would make them more likely to vote for their preferred Party, and only 5% said it would make them less likely. A majority of Conservative identifiers (53%) would be more likely to vote for the Tories if they signed a tax pledge.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said:

“We are entering a new phase in British politics. The public are warming to tax cuts because of the poor returns to higher spending on public services and a strong belief that there are significant amounts of waste in government. Scepticism about the competence of politicians to manage public services has never been so high. Voters want better government and lower taxes and the party that adopts this modern agenda will reap the electoral rewards.” 

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

 For more information on the YouGov poll, please call the TPA’s Campaign Director Blair Gibbs on 07790 908 860 or at blair.gibbs@taxpayersalliance.com.

 Established in 2005, The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) is Britain’s independent, grassroots campaign for lower taxes and better government.  To find out more about the TaxPayers' Alliance or to download the poll and our analysis, please visit www.taxpayersalliance.com.  You can view a PowerPoint slide show presentation of the main poll findings HERE (if you do not have Microsoft PowerPoint, you can still view the presentation by downloading the free MSN PowerPoint Viewer here)

 All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc.  Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 28th-30th August 2007.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).  YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council.  Further information at www.yougov.com.  The full poll tables are available upon request.

The Taser debate heats up...

                            

                             

                                     

                                        A "reasonable force" tool

The Conservative MP David Davies – who has more specialist knowledge than most politicians of law and order as a volunteer Special Constable – wrote in the Daily Mail last year arguing for the legal right of UK homeowners to own taser-style stun guns.  Recent debate around whether police officers should be routinely armed with the electric stun devices in response to rising levels of violent crime suggests that the arguments around arming for personal protection are not going away. 

Callers to John Gaunt’s show on TalkSport this morning (a refreshing antidote to the liberal consensus of the mainstream media - call 08717 22 33 44) were strongly supporting the principle, with some happily confessing to owning tasers and electric stun batons – mostly purchased abroad – as a means of defending their family and property from intruders.  The vast majority of the British public have always taken this view (typified by the response to the Tony Martin case) and admit freely to it when question by pollsters.

But as gun crimes rise, and more and more police are (rightly) routinely armed in the face of it, the obvious question arises: why, in a free society and one with high levels of violent crime, should we tolerate the police being armed, the criminals being armed (because they always will be), but the law-abiding citizen not to be?  In his powerful article inspired by his own experience of a “hot” burglary (much more common in the UK than America, and usually at night when occupants are at home), David Davies makes a compelling case for self-protection:

"It is not fair to expect a law-abiding home-owner in pyjamas to confront multiple intruders with his bare hands .... Only one crime in 20 results in a conviction and burglars are not usually jailed unless they have been convicted several times. Politicians and judges need to realise that only by handing out long prison sentences will we tackle the rise in burglaries. In the meantime, given the Labour Government's failure to protect law-abiding citizens, it is time for home-owners to reassert their own rights to self defence."

Unfortunately, politicians and the police – who must bear some responsibility for the surge in violent crime – still take the attitude that the people whose taxes pay their salaries cannot be trusted to defend ourselves.  The police establishment are essentially abusing their monopoly (classic “producer capture”) by resisting the dispersion of power to grant to citizens the capacity for self-defence, which in real terms translates to the enforced emasculation of the law-abiding citizen, even while the threat to their safety and secuirty grows. 

Adult men therefore, whose wife and daughter could be at risk from rape or murder as a criminal thug cruises freely around their home at night, are expected to sit cowering in the dark on the edge of their bed, while a police operator comforts them with reassuring words that the police service are a mere 20 minutes away.  As Davies writes:

"The Taser offers a hope. Having heard the noise of the break in your wife dials 999 while you stand at the top of the stairs pointing the gun. Anyone coming up would have to weigh up their chances of making it to the top before you pulled the trigger. My guess is that most thieves would not take the risk."

Lawyers could (and did in the 1999 Tony Martin case) successfully argue that shooting a burglar who is leaving your property in the back (whether the gun is licensed or not), is by itself, not “reasonable force” and the homeowner is therefore liable for a manslaughter conviction.  But what is reasonable force exactly? Surely a taser – which is not deadly and has an excellent safety record, despite attempts to suggest otherwise by Amnesty – would surely be a completely fair example of “reasonable force”.  If it is reasonable for police officers to use them to subdue a violent drugged-up maniac wielding a broken beer bottle in the street, surely an armed burglar with serious intent warrants the same reasonable treatment?

Owning a taser would be strictly for defence rather than deterrence in the first instance, but as more people owned them and the middle-class stigma reinforced by the liberal media eroded, deterrence would become a bigger factor and the positive side-effect would grow (there is strong evidence that arming homeowners deters burglars, reduces crime and doesn’t stimulate an arms race).

As a limited extension of traditional Common Law principles, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that while firearms cannot be tolerated (and probably will never be legalised for private possession in England ever again – the cultural opposition is now too entrenched), tasers do represent a compromise option where householders are granted the right to defend themselves, without being given the capacity to deliver deadly force.  And like most sensible law and order proposals, we have the American experience to suggest it would work.

Despite the proliferation of handguns and the more liberal gun laws in the United States, tasers there are widely owned and have become a more civilised (and stylish) part of the commercial “self-protection” industry.  This is in response to the widespread adoption of “Castle Doctrines” in more than half of all US states (most recently Texas).  In a nutshell, the law is derived from English Common Law principles where citizens who in public who have a duty to retreat in the face of violence, are allowed to defend themselves – with deadly force if necessary - in their home, on the legal presumption that if you are in your own residence, there is nowhere to which you can retreat.  This is essentially the same as the Householder Protection Bill, that was floated in response to the Radio 4 Today Programme competition in 2004, but which in typically supine and aloof fashion, politicians refused even to sponsor in Parliament.

There is only anectdotal evidence at present that the middle-classes in Britain have begun to arm themselves, but with public attitudes to the police becoming increasingly sceptical, and shock crime cases of people being attacked in their own homes becoming more common, it is only a matter of time before a householder who has already taken the decision to illegally own a taser, successfully uses it to incapacitate an intruder.  The police would without doubt charge the homeowner and the controversy would explode.  The debate about law and order in Britain would finally demand political attention, because you can be guaranteed that the print media and the vast majority of the public would be on the side of the homeowner.  In fact, you probably couldn’t imagine a more obvious case of public vs. politicians where the stakes were so high.  And MPs, who as Davies writes, have failed to uphold the “unwritten compact between the State and the citizen”, would finally have to respond.

P.S. Buying tasers online to be owned in the UK is illegal, but there is nothing unlawful about doing some harmless window shopping….

TPA Organiser in Liverpool newspaper

Three cheers to our Liverpool Organiser Veronica Hind.  She managed to get a letter in the Liverpool Daily Post speaking out in favour of our report into University non-courses.  For your interest it is reprinted here:

"Letter: You say - What a waste
Veronica Hind
6 September 2007
Liverpool Echo

The recent Taxpayers' Alliance report into university Mickey Mouse courses shows how much waste there is. Liverpool John Moores University has two prime examples of such waste with degrees in Outdoor Education with Adventure Tourism and Physical Activity, Exercise and Health.

Do these really need to be degrees? Although students pay tuition fees, taxpayers still pay huge sums for degrees and end up subsidising non courses like Outdoor Education.

This taxpayer cared for her family while both working full time and paying full fees for degree studies with the Open University, yet now finds herself at the age of 67 and retired in 1997 on the grounds of permanent ill health, still paying income tax plus 12.5 % of my income in council tax.

We need more scientists and innovators, not more students encouraged to defer entry into the real world by spending three years in university learning what they easily could do via effective on-the-job training in the workplace.

Veronica Hind, Liverpool organiser, the Taxpayers' Alliance"

Veronica’s letter is a prime example of an activist letter.  It’s short, to the point and makes a clear argument.  Moreover, her letter is open to a readership of over a hundred thousand.  If only a handful read it and want to get in touch, that’s more potential recruits, more people to write letters and continue the paper-campaign for lower taxes.  If you want to do as Veronica did and get involved, you can write into the Epping Guardian about our non-job or to the Tower Hamlets Recorder about public libraries using taxpayers money to stock books inciting violence and hatred.  The more people see that we are the campaign on the rise, making our voice heard and the more willing they’ll be to join the winning team.

Libraries stocking books of hate

The Centre for Social Cohesion reports that libraries are spending public funds to stock books that promote Islamic extremism and glorify terrorism.  The libraries in London, Birmingham and Blackburn stocked books by convicted preachers Abu Hamza and Abdullah Al-Faisal.  The report's main focus, however, is on public libraries in Tower Hamlets.  It exposes eight lending libraries in Tower Hamlets that glorify, incite and endorse acts of terrorism against those of other religions and faiths.  You can read the full report here.

Taxpayers should be alarmed and outraged that our taxes are going to pay for works inciting violence.  Moreover, where is the accountability in the system to at least offer a balance?  It would be wrong to ban any book; we like to believe we are all reasonable people able to interpret ideas and debate issues facing us.  But we should draw the line when so many of these radical books appear on public bookshelves. 

We’re rallying our members in Tower Hamlets and the wider country to write into Tower Hamlets newspapers and make this an issue.  It’s not fair, right or just for our taxes to fund books preaching hate and violence.  So make your voice heard.  Write to:

Letters Editor
The Tower Hamlets Recorder
182 - 184 High Street North,
London,
E6 2JD,
United Kingdom
Email: john.finn@newhamrecorder.co.uk (specify that the letter is for the Tower Hamlets Recorder letters page)

Strikes looming in Town Halls

It’s not just throwing money at a problem, but how much it takes to make it go away.  Such is the mentality of the public service Trade Unions who, trying to revive some kind of 80s militancy, are threatening to strike in Town Halls up and down the country and want us to foot their ransom.  Unison and the GMB Union are threatening to strike after rejecting a substantial pay increase deal, according to the Daily Express today (not online).

So we see yet another Trade Union trying to punch above its weight.  It’s bad enough that the non-job sector in local government is expanding, but for the unions to reject an increased pay deal is a slap in the face to our over-burdened taxpayers.  Should they succeed in strong-arming the authorities into increasing public sector pay, then the decision will come just in time for votes on council tax and implementation when council tax bills hit your mats next year.  Thank you Unison.

This isn’t to say all those in the public sector don’t perform a good service or aren’t worthy of a pay in crease.  Meals on wheels and essential care for the vulnerable are worth investment.  Yet week-in-week-out we see more local government non-jobs, such as climate change officers, benefit overpayment officers and other bureaucrats that only soak up taxpayers’ money.  If we scrap these bureaucratic departments, we’d then be able to free up money to invest in essential services and award suitable pay increases to those public servants who perform a brilliant service without increasing council tax. 

Campaign Diary 5th September 2007

Interactive forum for TPA Supporters in St. Albans

TPA organiser Martin Thornhill has set up a yahoo group to help St. Albans TaxPayers’ Alliance activists and supporters coordinate campaigns and get in touch, share ideas and debate the issues.  Go to http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/stalbanstaxpayersalliance/ and join in.  We’re an interactive, grassroots campaign where no idea is too small or daft to be heard or debated.  If you’re reading this and live in St. Albans, then join the forum and get in touch.

Liverpool TaxPayers’ Alliance

I will be in Liverpool on Wednesday 19th September meeting TPA activists and discussing the development of a Liverpool branch of the TPA.  If you’re a TPA member or supporter or just interested in meeting and talking about developing a TPA branch in Liverpool, then email me at tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com.  I look forward to meeting you.

Islington TaxPayers’ Alliance

The first meeting of the Islington TaxPayers’ Alliance will be in Islington on 11th September.  If you’d like to come and join us and share your ideas then email me at tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com.  We hope to kick start our campaign in Islington with a petition against inheritance tax, so please come along and help the campaign.

Waste and Over-Spending 

If you’ve found any examples of local government waste, then please email them to us and write to your local papers exposing it.  As we report in our non-job of the week and in our survey of the Guardian jobs page, local government waste and over-spending are soaking up incredible amounts of taxpayer’s money and is one we have to put front and centre of public debates.

If ever you have half a million spare...

Even though we got today’s non-job from a supporter’s research into their local council, we have gone through the Guardian Society jobs pages and, naturally, found some startling adverts for local government jobs.

Since I’ve been trawling through the Guardian jobs pages, I’ve seen the odd job over £100,000 (remember this is a hundred thousand of your money) but this week must be some kind of record.  Look at the following all from one week:

Corporate Director at Wrekin Council - £113,000
Director of Manchester Improvement Programme at Manchester City Council - £110,000
Executive Director of Children and Young People at South Tyneside Council - £106,000
Director of Corporate Finance and Audit at Ealing Council - £110,000
Strategic Director of Education and Children’s Services at Slough Borough Council - £120,000

The totals of these jobs run to over half a million pounds of taxpayers money.  And that’s just the start.  Add in the pensions and operating costs and you’re looking at well over a million pounds for only 5 taxpayer funded jobs in local government.

This is the scale of the problem facing us.  The public sector payroll is growing ever more, taking more of our taxes as the politicians sit silent.  It’s up to us to fight back.  Join us by emailing info@taxpayersalliance.com or calling us on 0845 330 9554 to get involved in the campaign.  Write that letter for lower taxes, lobby your councillor or MP and tell your friends and colleagues about the TaxPayers’ Alliance.  Every bit we do helps the cause.

Latest from the TPA...

CAMPAIGN UPDATE

4 September 2007

New Research

The Case Against Further Green Taxes

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has released the first audit of environmental taxation in the UK alongside a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes. 

The report applies the conclusions of the most prominent experts in the field of climate change research (from the International Panel on Climate Change to academics such as William Nordhaus, “father of climate change economics”, and Sir Nicholas Stern), and compares these studies’ recommendations of the price the UK should be prepared to pay to offset the cost of the UK’s carbon footprint with the actual level of green taxation.  Such a comparison is the only way of knowing whether environmental taxes address root problems or whether they are merely revenue-raising measures.

Covering the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the report investigates each of the green taxes and charges in turn, and reveals that each one has serious flaws.

The main conclusions of the report are:

• In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope.
• Taking an average of the most widely quoted official and academic estimates of the social cost of CO2 emissions shows that green taxes in the UK are already well in excess of the level they need to be to meet these social costs.
• The social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion.
• This means that green taxes and charges are already £10.2 billion in excess of the level they need to be to meet the social cost of Britain’s CO2 emissions. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.
• Green taxes are therefore already too high if they really are a means of internalising environmental externalities rather than simply revenue-raising measures.
• Download The Case Against Further Green Taxes (PDF) 

NEW TPA YOUGOV POLL – Public distrust politicians on the environment

Most believe politicians are not sincere on green taxes

• When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.”  Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.” 

Huge number oppose new council recycling charges

• A vast majority (77 per cent) disapprove of local councils placing extra charges for bin collection on top of council tax to encourage recycling, including two thirds (65 per cent) who would “strongly disapprove”.

Fuel Duty and Air Passenger Duty seen as unfair taxes

• 60 per cent think that Fuel Duty is an unfair tax, compared with just 17 per cent who think it is fair.
• 45 per cent believe that Air Passenger Duty is unfair, compared with 23 per cent who think it is fair.

Trebling Air Passenger Duty would not stop people flying

• Concern for the environment will not lead people to change their behaviour unless there are significant tax increases – in the realm that most politicians would be unwilling to advocate.  When asked how much extra air passenger duty would have to cost before they chose not to fly, more than two thirds (71 per cent) would only stop flying if Air Passenger Duty was trebled from its current rate. If politicians only doubled it, 81 per cent of people would still choose to fly.

New green taxes must only ever be used to reduce other taxes

• As a result of this scepticism, there was a very strong view that any new green taxes should not add to the already high tax burden but should be met with reductions in other taxes.  A majority (61 per cent) thought that if extra ‘green’ taxes were raised, “the extra funds should be used to reduce other taxes”. 

Public split on further green taxes

• There is no majority support for moving towards additional green taxes.  When asked whether, “Generally speaking do you approve or disapprove of additional ‘green’ taxes on motoring and air travel?”, 46 per cent disapproved while 45 per cent approved and one in four people “strongly disapproved” against less than one in ten who “strongly approved”.

Coverage

The report and poll has already been featured as the main story on the front-page of yesterday's Metro, the free-sheet with a daily readership of up to 2 million people.  The story was also reported by the Today Programme, and in the Daily Telegraph, BBC News Online, The Sun, Scotsman, Evening Standard and the Financial Times.  Matthew Elliott, the TPA's Chief Executive was also interviewed about the cost of green taxes by Newsnight, in the context of the announcement of the Conservative Party's commitment to match Labour spending plans.  You can watch it here (25 mins in).

- Britons 'pay more than £10bn too much in green tax' 

"Matthew Elliott, the alliance's chief executive, said: "The public are right to suspect the motives of politicians. Our research proves that they have been using green taxes as a revenue-raising measure. They are cynically trying to win support for new taxes by exploiting concern about climate change." - Telegraph

- Calls for tax breaks to fight climate change

"The TPA polling, meanwhile, shows the depth of public hostility to specific green taxes - 77 per cent oppose extra charges for bin collection in order to encourage recycling and 60 per cent think fuel duty is an unfair tax." - Financial Times