The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

Peter Webb's November Campaign Diary

Surrey South West TaxPayers' Alliance and Surrey Tax Action Group Organiser Peter Webb updates us on the campaign in Surrey:

Pre and ongoing: Prolonged dialogue with County Council on the effectiveness of roads contracts management and work supervision.
Reflecting on development of TPA branch organisation
2nd November: Non-job letter on 3 Relationship Managers published in Surrey Advertiser
Sent above to all County councillors with comment
Sent to all other Surrey papers
3rd November: Made the front page in Surrey Times with a quote in a report on MPs expenses.
5th: Enquiry from Staines Herald following circulation to all other Surrey newspapers of non-job letter (but from outside their catchment area) about 3 Relationship Managers. Put in touch with STAG supporter in area.
7th: Replied to MP Jeremy Hunt letter of 31st October on council tax and localisation. Stressed government malfunction and basis of need for Better Government
Anne Milton MP wrote inconsequently  after my letter to her on Grant settlement 2008-09 following phone discussion at her request.
11th:  Steve Bowers writes (published) West Sussex County Times re pensions inequity
16th:  Non-job letter, Senior school and Parent Consultant, published in Surrey Advertiser.
18th: Circulated latest non-job letter to 80 county councillors with comment and to all other Surrey newspapers.
19th: Letter to County Leader Nick Skellett introducing TPA, chasing outstandings and anticipating next precept increase.
Letter to Surrey Advertiser re Equality and Diversity procedures as revealed on CC web-site.
Completed exchange with top of Waverley Borough Council re short form annual report and accounts to 2006-07. Located on web-site. Audit Comm joined me in commending 2005-06 version.
Steve Bowers writes again to West Sussex County Times re top paid West Sussex County Councillors
20th:   Brian Haran of Croydon Advertiser called for more info and pic after 18th
21st:   E&Q letter copied to all County councillors with comment
To MPs Jeremy Hunt and Anne Milton “we don’t hear you complaining” about  £billions to Europe ‘good for Britain’ when accounts not audited for 13 years
22nd:   E&Q letter sent to all other Surrey papers
Wrote to District Auditor (cc Nick Skellett and Chief Executive Richard Shaw)  questioning audit of County use of resources (poor ?) in light of non-job and risk analysis and Equality and Diversity procedures.
26th: Response from County Leader Nick Skellett re Relationship Managers.
Comment sought by Surrey Advertiser regarding Independent Review Panel report proposing 27% increase in Guildford Borough Council Members allowances and expenses. Seek volunteers to apply for position on IRP.
28th: County invite STAG for 23rd January pre-budget talk alongside Business and Industry leaders.
30th: County Councillpr Ernest Mallett (Residents Party, West Molesey) will to sign up to TPA.
Generally: TPA leaflets to Angela, Barry and Ernie for distribution, and Alastair Campbell.

Well done to Peter on a fantastic month with some impressive breakthroughs in local Surrey newspapers and the County Council.  Keep up the excellent work!

How much for a chess tournament?

Liverpool’s taxpayers will be shocked to know they have to stump up a whopping £150,000 for…wait for it…a chess tournament. 

This tale of incompetence started with the Liverpool Culture Company (LCC), a semi-private body, agreeing to pay for the European Chess Tournament, but reneged on the £100,000 deal. 

Out of the blue, however, the North West Development Agency (NWDA), a taxpayer-funded quango, has emerged with £150,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund the tournament. What are they using, golden pawns? 

But alas if you look closely enough you find this is yet another story of government bureaucrats going along hand in glove with each other to squander yet more taxpayers’ money. 

Follow this trail if you will.  The Liverpool Culture Company was meant to have funded the European Chess Tournament in Liverpool.  The Chairman of the LCC is Bryan Gray.  The Chairman of the NWDA now funding the tournament is Bryan Gray.  The chief operating officer of the LCC is Bernice Law.  The deputy chief executive of the NWDA is Bernice Law.  Isn’t it odd that the same people are involved in spending your money on a chess tournament when a private body was meant to?  You draw your conclusions from those links, but it seems to us that taxpayers’ money is being used where it shouldn’t be and far too much is being used on a mere chess tournament.

Feel free to email Bernice Law to find out why the taxpayer should foot the bill.

We should strongly expose this to the local papers.  Send your letters to the Liverpool Daily Post:

Letters Editor
Liverpool Daily Post
PO Box 48,
Old Hall Street,
Liverpool,
L69 3EB,
United Kingdom
Email: alastair.machray@liverpoolecho.co.uk

And the Liverpool Echo:

Letters Editor
The Liverpool Echo
PO Box 48,
Old Hall Street,
Liverpool,
L69 3EB,
United Kingdom
email: letters@liverpoolecho.co.uk

The chance to do your bit!

Ever since we came across a story on the BBC website advertising for residents to join Lancaster City Council’s ‘independent remuneration panel’, we’ve found that all councils have to have some form of panel to initiate hearings and make recommendations on councillor allowances.  This is where you can get involved as TPA activists.  Call your council, ask for the democratic services department and enquire about joining your borough’s independent remuneration panel.  They don’t meet often, however the decisions they make can have a real impact on taxpayers.

It’s time to get low-tax activists onto these panels to see that decisions on council allowances take into account the interests of taxpayers.  Norfolk County Council recently agreed to increase its councillor allowances by 28%.  We have a chance to stop such increases and keep council tax down.  So do your bit, get involved and make that welcome difference for your community. 

As always, if you do get on a council panel, then please let me know so we can give you any support and assistance you need.

The power of the positive

There's a fascinating poll up on the BBC News web site today. The related story is about the Capital Gains Tax debate, in which Alistair Darling announced that Taper Relief would be abolished - a decision he is now under great pressure to reverse.

Darling's proposal would simplify CGT, which is of course welcome, but would also raise the rate by 80% for many people, which is of course not very welcome at all.

The CBI and the Conservatives, as well as some extremely prominent individuals from the world of business, have urged Darling to abandon the change, slamming it as both poorly thought-out and dangerous both to Britain's competitiveness and to short term stability. The Federation of Small Businesses has proposed a halfway house alternative designed to protect small businesses, too. The potential for people rushing to sell their assets in British businesses before the tax hike occurrs in April means that there is a lot of pressure for the Chancellor to make a decision one way or another soon.

So faced with this complex issue, the BBC has offered the public the chance to vote on the question "Should Capital Gains Tax be reformed?"

The first problem with this is that it provides a Yes or No choice on an issue where there are any number of answers. It rather depends what you think they mean by 'reform', a word both loaded with political meaning and deeply ambiguous. What kind of reform could they be referring to?

Does voting 'Yes' mean:

1) you support Alistair Darling's original proposal to increase the rate of CGT - reforming CGT as it used to be.

2) you support getting rid of Alistair Darling's CGT proposal and going back to how it was before - reversing Darling's decision (i.e. completely the opposite of option 1).

3) you support getting rid of Alistair Darling's CGT proposal and replacing it with the Tories' suggestions.

4) you support getting rid of Alistair Darling's CGT proposal and replacing it with the FSB's idea or any one of the numerous other alternatives.

5) you believe CGT should be further reformed in any one of a myriad of ways irrespective of Darling's proposal.

The fascinating thing here is not only that the idea of boiling down a question to which there are at least five answers into a yes-or-no ever seemed a good idea, but that over 4000 people still felt able to  vote one way or another. Amazingly, only 9% chose to vote "Not Sure". Nor did the others balance out equally as one might have expected due to the ambiguity of what "Yes" or "No" means. Overwhelmingly, "Yes" won, receiving 60% of the vote - double what "No" received.

Politically, and in campaign terms, this is a handy reminder of the power of the positive. People aren't stupid; they weren't being foolish voting like this. We all evolved as social animals, wanting and needing to be a productiove part of a group. Thus, faced with a question to which one's opinion could be justifiably be identified as "Yes" or "No", people overwhelmingly identified themselves as Yes supporters.

It's not a perfect rule - it is definitely possible to set a debate up as something where a gruff, Churchillian "Never" is attractive (for example in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum), whilst some people always like to be contrary - but for campaigners it is always worth bearing in mind whether opportunities exist to harness such trends.

And if you're wondering, I voted "Don't Know".

A 'coo' for the taxman

Is nothing in this country sacred, nothing too out of reach of the taxman?  Today in the Telegraph it appears the taxman is trying to get his beak into pigeon racing.  Yes, pigeon racing.  As pigeon racing isn’t recognised as a sport and therefore doesn’t qualify for tax relief, pigeon fanciers are subject to business rates on the shed where they store the competing birds.

We can add this to the list of reasons how the government is getting bigger and why we need to fight to get the government out of our pockets and back to doing what we want it to do, to keep us safe and let us get on with our lives. 

Usually with these blogs I encourage you to write and complain.  Not this time!  Write to the Royal Pigeon Racing Association to support them in their campaign to be registered as a sport to claim tax relief.  You can contact them by calling 01452 713529 or through their website.

Do get in touch with the RPA and stand by them in their struggle against the taxman. 

The HMRC Helpline (and what it tells us about government)

HMRC have announced that any of the 25 million people whose personal and banking information has been lost or stolen can now phone 0845 302 1444 for information and advice about the "organisational failure" and how to protect themselves against any resulting risk of fraud or identity theft.

Given the gravity of the problem and the number of people affected, it has taken HMRC a remarkably long time since yesterday's announcement to set this phone line up and start publicising it. If you consider that they've actually known about the data loss for more than 11 days now, it is another disgraceful delay in a story full of squandered time.

Worse is the fact that, having finally set up the number, Revenue and Customs have used an 0845 number which is not even free to call. Having caused 25 million people great anxiety (and it is still entirely possible that it will yet cost people money or their identities) the idea that those people will now have to pay to get advice on how to protect themselves is insulting. People are furious about this gross error - and the Government's bungled handling of the issue is only going to make things worse.

This Agency messed up horrendously - their budget should be tapped for the resources to help put it right. HMRC should be paying for these phone calls, not the innocent victims of HMRC incompetence.

If we wanted to find some areas in the HMRC budget that could provide the funding, we could do worse than start by looking at the senior mangement. Eight HMRC senior staff members appeared in the TPA 2007 Public Sector Rich List at a total cost to the taxpayer of £1,212,350. Perhaps some room could be found in that sum to help finance a phone line?

If Government Departments knew that if they make errors, their budgets or bonuses will have to bear the costs of setting things right it would be a useful incentive to run things properly in the first place.

How the HMRC fiasco informs our campaigns

The Inland Revenue fiasco will go down in the history books as one of the most unbelievable acts of incompetence by a British government.  It does, though, give us a prime example to use in our campaigns on the merits of low taxes and smaller, better government.

Firstly, small government is necessary.  To those who think that government knows best, show them the level of incompetence it took to lose 25,000,000 private records full of sensitive information.  Now transfer this to public service delivery.  Can, or should, the government be the sole provider of services given that it is so prone to managerial mistakes and human error?  As the sole provider of a service, when the state fails, we suffer and a great majority live without the option of transferring our custom to another provider in health and education.  Therefore we can add the Inland Revenue failure to our list of reasons to support public service reform and liberalisation of state services.

Secondly, the government shouldn’t have so much information on us.  As George Osborne and others were quick to point out yesterday, this is a key reason why the ID Cards system should be scrapped before yet more sensitive information is handed over to the government and potentially lost in the post. 

Finally, this also gives us added impetus to call for reform of the benefits system.  In having to hand over our personal information in exchange for benefits, we run the risk of falling victim to benefit fraud.  Rather if the government raised the personal tax threshold and cut taxes on the individual, the worst off would be taken out of tax and therefore not have to apply for benefits or hand over their personal, private information.

Over the past ten years government has got bigger and sought to do more.  Usually we highlight instances and minor examples of waste when contrasted with the big picture.  The Inland Revenue debacle, however, allows us once again to make the big picture arguments, that small government is necessary; a government that works best because it does less.

Norfolk County Councillors' unforgivable pay rise

TPA activist Barbara Lockwood, who also organises a local campaign against council tax (known as FACT), has informed us that Norfolk’s county councillors are increasing their pay by a whopping 28%, roughly an extra £2,000 – of your money in their pockets - a year.  Just for comparison, the average rise in private sector pay has risen by around 4% and the government have pegged the rise in public sector pay to 2%.  Yet again there’s one rule for the politicians and another for taxpayers.

Yet it’s striking that Councillor Sue Whitaker says more money is needed to attract people into politics.   But that’s exactly what we don’t need; we don’t need more snouts in the trough and people motivated by the money in politics and not ideals!   Whatever happened to principle, civic pride and community service as being they key driver of political involvement, Councillor Whitaker?   

Please make your voices heard by holding these politicians to account.  Write to the leader of Norfolk County Council, Daniel Cox, at daniel.cox@norfolk.gov.uk and ask him why Norfolk County Council deserves more of our money and where they’re getting this money from.  If you get a response, let us know so we can publicise their excuses.

Further to this, kick off a public debate on Norfolk County Council’s councillor allowances.  Already we’ve seen Norwich City Council waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on its campaign to go to unitary status, now Norfolk County Council are taking more of our money to line their pockets.  Write to the Eastern Daily Press at:

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

Do be on the look out for more stories like this as councils begin to admit how much your council tax will have to go up next year to pay for their extravagancies.  It’s up to us to fight back and hold these over-spending politicians to account!

Two new TPA Organisers

This week, in the wake of the Public Sector Rich List and our growing grassroots campaigns, two new organisers have stepped forward looking to set up TaxPayers’ Alliance branches.

The first is Shipley MP Philip Davies.  He contacted me a week ago volunteering to become an organiser to help spread the low tax message and put his reasons for getting involved with the TPA fight for lower taxes as follows:

“I believe in lower taxes in principle because I fundamentally believe that people are better at spending their own money than the government are at spending it for them and that they should have the freedom to decide how to spend more of the money they earn.  Low taxes encourage and reward enterprise and hard work creating a dynamic and successful economy. Finally, the government have overcharged people spectacularly over the last 10 years and routinely wasted taxpayers’ money.  Enough is enough and the British people deserve some of their money back.”

You can help Philip set up a Shipley branch of the TaxPayers’ Alliance by contacting him at daviesp@parliament.uk or by calling me here on 0845 330 9554.  If emailing Philip please put as the subject ‘Shipley TPA’.

Our next organiser aiming to set up a Rickmansworth branch is Michael Rock.  He put to me the following as why he is joining up and supporting the TPA in fighting for lower taxes:

“As a UK taxpayer, I only have to look at my own net pay, my council tax, my petrol bills, my road-tax to see how totally out of hand the tax take of this government has become. The stark reality that strikes me is those who govern us have no idea just how much of a negative impact a decade of tax increases have had. The burden on the ordinary taxpayer has reached a level that is unsustainable, damaging to the economy and should now act as a galvanising point of reference for those who do not believe in big government but in the freedom and the liberty of the individual.

A low-tax economy has consistently proved to be the best way of increasing tax revenues, stimulating the economy and increasing wealth. Without a commitment to reducing taxes, we will lose our international competitiveness, our position as a leading nation for banking and financial services and an attractive proposition for foreign investors and business.

That any UK Government hasn't learnt from the reforms of the Eighties is a strong indictment of the blinkered, ignorant dogma certain sections of our political classes subscribe to. However, the TPA transcend party politics and the message they deliver is not only for people involved with politics directly: tax affects us all, whether it be direct or indirect taxation, and higher tax means lower personal wealth, particularly for those on the lower rungs of the ladder.

Everyday millions of pounds our money is frittered away on meaningless jobs, pointless arbitrary targets and negligent inefficiency. The one message I personally like to reiterate at every given opportunity is a simple one and I think we need to make that message heard: there is no such thing as Government money, just our earnings, taken by edict.”

If you would like to join in and help Michael set up a Rickmansworth branch of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, contact him at tpa@michaeldavidrock.com or by calling me on 0845 330 9554.

These are exciting times for the TPA.  We’ve won some victories on inheritance tax over the past months, but now as councils gather to increase your council tax next year, it’s time to rally again to fight against further tax hikes.  Do get involved and join our campaign. 

Have your say on council allowances

Our campaign director Mark Wallace noticed this from the BBC Website:

“A panel which reviews councillors' allowances in Lancashire is looking for two new people to sit on its board.

The independent remuneration panel monitors Lancaster City Council's members' allowance scheme and makes recommendations on potential changes.

Meetings take place on an average of two to three times a year at Lancaster Town Hall but are more frequent when a review of the scheme is to take place.

Anyone interested in applying should contact the council.

Reviews are undertaken every four years with the next review set to take place in 2011.”

You can find information of the role on the Lancaster City Council website.  If you would like to know more about the appointments, please telephone Lancaster City Council’s Corporate Director (Finance & Performance), Roger Muckle, on 01524 582022.

An application form, together with full details of the requirements of the appointment, the type of person we are seeking and additional background information, is available from: Democratic Services, Town Hall, Dalton Square, Lancaster, LA1 1PJ.  Telephone 01524 582096, email democracy@lancaster.gov.uk or download a form from the Council’s website www.lancaster.gov.uk

If you don't live in Lancaster but want to hold your elected local representatives to account on their expenses, contact your council and enquire about its remuneration panel and see if you can get on it.  As always, if you break through, do contact me so we can be kept up to date with the campaign on the ground.

Welcoming democracy in local government

The Conservatives have today laid out their new plans for giving people direct democratic control of Council Tax rises. The proposal is that any Council wishing to raise Council Tax by more than a nationally determined threshold would have to hold a referendum to get the electorate's permission to do so. A system like this would be a great step in the right direction - localising tax control, increasing democratic accountability and bringing a number of other benefits.

Local taxpayers have suffered astronomical rises in Council Tax in recent years, rightly making it one of the most objected-to taxes in the country. The sums involved and the speed of the inflation have made life extremely difficult for many households, and that is reflected in Council Tax's unpopularity. The thing that makes the recent trend seem especially unjust is that this is not one minority of taxpayers - smokers, motorists, drinkers, airline passengers - objecting that the majority is picking on them, it is a clear majority opinion that the tax is rising too fast and is already too high. Arms-length representative democracy has in this instance failed to respond to the electorate's concerns.

Part of the problem has been the lack of accountability in the system. When taken to task and seeking to excuse high Council Tax, Westminster blames local councils and local councils blame Westminster. Neither, however, often propose viable solutions and neither should be allowed to escape blame.

In this case, localism has to be the answer.

Instead of the everlasting blame game, or simply allowing councils to force higher taxes on their electorates without adequate explanation or consultation, let's do what democracy is about: ask the people.

It's our money, and it is us who will be receiving the services it pays for - on principle, taxpayers deserve the final say on whether Council Tax should rise.

In practice, this is a good idea, too.

For a start, what better way to reinvigorate local democracy?

Few things succeed more in getting even the most apolitical people going than the money in their pocket (or being taken from their pocket). It is no wonder that local election turnout is so low when people know that their vote counts for very little when it comes to one of the taxes that effects them most. Give people a referendum on that tax and I think turnout would be very different indeed. It would be further bolstered by people voting on the basis of the spending proposals that would go with the different suggested Council Tax levels.

There would also be a renewed emphasis on medium and long-term planning in local authorities. If Councils knew their tax proposals would have to be justified and sold to the public not just in broad-brush terms at elections, lumped in with other issues, but in very specific referenda, then there would be an added impetus for clear thinking, accurate costings and good communication. Budgets year-on-year would have to link up. Regular sources of waste would not only stick out like a sore thumb, but would swiftly become deeply unpopular both with those running the councils and other departments who would not want their efficiency undermined by failing colleagues. Councils would have a good, in-your-face, practical reason to stamp out waste and failure.

Interestingly, any Council approaching a referendum would also need to prepare a Plan B, just in case they lost. Writing and costing that Plan B might well be an enlightening experience for some. I suspect there are quite a number of local authorities who genuinely believe they could not provide services more cheaply than they do, but have never actually tried - or been forced by necessity to try - doing so. It has the potential to be a refreshing experience, and one that would be pretty hard to object to. The people's direct instruction can be quite politically difficult to dodge.

As well as being a good scheme for local democracy and local efficiency, it would be good from a taxcutter's perspective. We know that people dislike Council Tax, and it would be rare that those who currently preach a high-tax gospel in the name of the people would find themselves backed up by those they claim to speak for.

Opponents of the plans have already started arguing against the idea. First comes the patronising and bizarre claim from the Local Government Association that:


"Local authorities should have the power to determine, without interference, the appropriate levels of council tax for their areas."

Without interference, you’ll note, means without the involvement of those inconvenient little people we know as “the voters”. You know, the ones that whom the elected Councillors who make up the Local Government Association are meant to serve, rather than view as an irritation…

The second line of attack is scaremongering that this will mean the electorate choosing to hand over as little cash as possible.

First, we have to ask the question – “so what if they do?” That is meant to be the way democracy works, by which people decide what they do want done and what they don’t, and what kind of country they live in. If the politicians or the civil servants disagree with the people’s opinion, that’s just tough.

In practice, though, the people can – possibly to the amazement of the nannying political class – make perfectly balanced decisions on their own. A good example is Milton Keynes, where they held a tax referendum a few years ago and rather than choose the rock bottom option or the high tax option they made the Goldilocks choice (neither too hot nor too cold) and picked the one in the middle.

So the plans bring with them several benefits to local democracy and the taxpayer. There is always room for improvement, of course – true localism would want to see powers returned to local or even referendum-based control, and central Government would still guarantee local authorities the right to a minimum tax rise – but it is a good start.

£6000-plus on one set of annual reports

In a response to a tip off from a TPA activist, I issued a Freedom of Information request to the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust in the North West.  The issue was over their annual report, not so much the content of the report itself, but the brochure produced at the taxpayers’ expense. 

At a cost of £4 per copy, 1500 copies were produced, resulting in a bill to the taxpayer of £6000.  As you can see above, it's clearly an expensive, hefty report.  My source was sent 3 of these by post, at a cost of roughly £8 postage – odd seeing as the Trust could easily have emailed the report to our activist.

Seeing as the Trust didn’t send any by email, this resulted in a total postage bill for all posted reports of £21.20.  That doesn’t sound that bad, but factor in that the Trust only posted 40 sets of accounts, it raises an interesting question:

1. If the Trust was only planning to send out 40 annual reports, why did they order 1500 copies?

Part of the answer lies in the Trust’s response.  To distribute the remaining 1460 annual reports, they were “taken to events and distributed in the organisation”.  So, we have to ask,

2. Why did the Trust order 1500 copies of the annual report seeing as only 40 were sent them and/or actively asked for them?
3. Couldn’t the report have been internally emailed within the organisation?
4. How many people work for the Five Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust?

You can ask these questions by contacting the freedom of information officer at the Trust and asking these much needed questions.

£6021.20 may not seem like a lot of money in the total budget of an NHS Trust.  It seems even less compared to the budgets of whole government departments.  But when we compare it to the £4,539.60p maximum basic state pension for a single person this year and suddenly we see the money spent on these annual reports could have made a big difference elsewhere. This report should have been internally emailed and sent electronically where possible to save money – ordering 1500 hardcopies therefore amounts to a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.   

It is precisely this culture of waste we need to root out and expose.  If politicians and public servants think that wasting one penny of taxpayers’ money is a bad idea, then they’ll be less inclined to waste thousands and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.  Think of it as Broken Windows Policing on the state sector’s spending, if we stop the low level waste, there’ll be no wasters around to squander huge sums of taxpayers’ money.

Holding the EU to account...and new issues at home

Last week we blogged on how the EU has not signed off its own accounts for well over a decade and had sacked former accountant Marta Andreasen for saying the EU was rife with “slush funds and fraud”.

On urging our activists to ask their MEP’s why the EU hadn’t signed off their accounts and what they were going to do about it, TPA activist Graeme Pirie got this reply:

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding the EU accounts, to which I also reply on behalf of my two West Midlands Conservative MEP colleagues Philip Bradbourn and Malcolm Harbour.

There are two main problems with the accounts. One is that 80% of the expenditure is actually the responsibility of Member States, both to implement and then report back, and a number of countries are either late and/or inaccurate in their returns – knowing that it is always the Commission that will get the blame.

Another is that there is too much money sloshing around in too many separate budgets in the first place: Conservatives believe that the EU should do less and do it better.

Meanwhile, it is curious that while our own UK Audit Office has not signed off the UK Works and Pensions budget for any single year since Labour came to power, this never seems to hit any headlines. It is however a symptom of exactly the same problem as the EU: too much money in too many pots.

A change of UK Government could help address all these issues

Every good wish

Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP
Conservative - West Midlands Region”

The reply raises some interesting points:  Why hasn’t the DWP budget been signed off by the UK Audit Office for the last ten years?

It’s time we asked them!  Email me and I will send you our Freedom of Information template letter.  Then simply fill in the blanks with your request and ask the DWP when their departmental budget was last signed off by the UK Audit Office.  If it appears Mr. Bushill-Matthews is right and they haven't been cleared by the Audit Office in the last decade, we can then ask the DWP why they haven’t signed off the accounts for almost as long as the EU. Hopefully then we can expose the flaws in this government’s own accounting as well as keeping up the pressure on the EU. 

Contact: Charles Cushing
Department for Work and Pensions
Adjudication and Constitutional Issues Policy Division
Freedom of Information and Data Protection
2nd Floor, The Adelphi
1 - 11 John Adam Street
London
WC2N 6HT
Tel: 020 7962 8581
Fax: 020 7962 8725
e-mail: freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

Holding the rewards for failure to account

This year’s Public Sector Rich List includes a list of the top ten ‘Rewards for Failure’. But it’s not enough just to show how failure has been rewarded with taxpayers’ money; British taxpayers also have a right to complain. Even where people have left their job – as Rose Gibb has at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, for example – it’s still important to complain to ensure that failure on such a scale never happens again. Below are the contact details for five government bodies where failure has been rewarded. Do your bit today to hold these bodies to account.

Royal Mail

Chief Executive: Adam Crozier (No. 1 on Rich List: £1,256,000 per annum)

Managing Director: Ian Griffiths (No. 2: £970,000 p.a.)

To voice your concern about the Royal Mail executives who have overseen strikes, the abolition of the second post and increases in postal charges, send a message on their website or call them on 08457 740 740.

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

Former Chief Executive: Rose Gibb (No. 288 on Rich List: £150,000 p.a.)

Rose Gibb presided over an outbreak of C. Difficile which the Healthcare Commission say was directly responsible for 90 deaths and contributed to 331 more.  Her management style, described as "autocratic" and "difficult to challenge", was held to be partly responsible for the problems in the Trust by the Commission.  Although Rose Gibbs has left, please make the point that cleanliness in our hospitals should never face such neglect again, and overseeing such disastrous failure should never be rewarded. Please email or write to:

The Chief Executive
Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
Service Centre
Maidstone Hospital
Hermitage Lane
Maidstone
Kent
ME16 9QQ

Environment Agency

 
Chief Executive: Barbara Young (No. 87 on Rich List: £220,000 p.a.)

The Agency failed to meet its target of protecting an extra 31,000 homes from flooding and get at least 63 per cent of flood management systems up to the required standard. Floods this summer have cost £3.3 billion to insurers and £14 million in government support has been put in place.

You can complain to the Environment Agency for not reaching its targets to protect tens of thousands of homes from flooding by phone on 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6 calls are charged at a local rate), email or post. 

National Customer Contact Centre
Templeborough Office,
Bowridge Close,
Bradmarsh Business Park,
Templeborough,
Rotherham, S60 1BY

If you’re not happy with the response you get, then take the EA’s advice and contact the relevant Ombudsman:

The Local Government Ombudsman looks at complaints about flood defence and land drainage.  Contact them by phone on 0845 602 1983 or via the website about the Environment Agency’s failure to meet its target of protecting an extra 31,000 homes from flooding.

Olympic Delivery Authority

 
Chief Executive: David Higgins (No. 8 on Rich List: £631,000 p.a.)

Senior staff at the ODA have received substantial bonuses despite repeated increases in the budgets for the major venues. The aquatics centre doubled in cost to £150 million and the stadium budget rose from £280 million to £500 million just this October. David Higgins was awarded the largest bonus of £215,000.

You can hold the Olympic Delivery Authority to account for constantly running over budget by calling 0203 2012 000, by email or sending a letter to:

London 2012
One Churchill Place
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LN

Child Support Agency
Chief Executive: Stephen Geraghty (No. 110: £200,000 p.a.)

The Public Accounts Committee revealed that 333,000 cases - 22 per cent of the CSA's workload - are stuck in the system, more than half of its maintenance assessments are wrong and it costs the agency 70p for every £1 it collects in child maintenance. The CSA is now being replaced by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

You can complain to the CSA for failing families by commenting via the CSA website, by phone on 08457 133 133 or to local CSA offices.  You will be notified by call, letter or email within 2 days to acknowledge the receipt of your complaint.  They will let you know of the outcome of your complaint within 15 working days.

Do let us know how you get on by emailing tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com so we can publicise them on our website.  Hopefully if we keep up the pressure, such failure in our public services will never happen again.

How things have changed

In any campaign it's important to look not only at individual successes and the immediate future but to also consider the bigger picture. In the TPA's case that means asking whether victories on individual taxes and specific issues of waste and inefficiency are altering the overall tone of the tax debate.

Is the way our politicians and the media think about taxes changing?

Today has provided a very encouraging example of how the tone has shifted. It would have been unimaginable even two years ago that one day Gordon Brown would be spinning energetically to try to prove he thought of cutting Inheritance Tax before anyone else. How things have changed.

The EU accounting shambles continues

Marta Andreasen, the former chief accountant of the European Union, has lost her claim against the EU for wrongful dismissal.  She was sacked after alleging that EU book-keeping was riddled with “slush funds and fraud” and disclosing that there was a £130million discrepancy between two sets of EU accounts which, incidentally, haven’t been signed off for the past thirteen years. 

This is how accountability seems to work in the EU.  Andreasen has done an excellent service to British taxpayers by making a stand on the dodgy dealings in the EU.  Taxpayers put billions into EU coffers each year and for there to be massive differences - £130million is not small change – in accounts year on year show that the EU needs to be held to account. 

Contact your MEP and demand that the EU sort out its accounts.  It’s our money, tell your MEP to fight for it.

Peter Webb on the South West Surrey TPA Campaign

Peter Webb is branch organiser for the South West Surrey Branch of the TaxPayers' Alliance including STAG (the Surrey Tax Action Group).  Here he explains how he got involved in activism and offers some good tips as to how other activists can get involved and hold their authorities to account:

I have long believed that taxpayers have been badly served and under-represented.  It was good therefore to discover this small band calling themselves the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and early contact was made followed later by membership.

Before that the 2003/04 accumulating council tax increase of 19% hit us in Surrey as elsewhere. My co-founder Peter Jellfs (now retired) and I at art class said angrily “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE”. Then we went into Cpl Jones mode and wondered what. We believed it was a local issue and councillors must be strongly asked to explain. A letter of the week in the local paper brought support and local village meetings were held. High Street protesting and recruiting took place. A Committee was formed and bank account opened. The Internet produced contact with others outside Surrey.  We discovered that we were not alone. Christine Melsom of Isitfair was out there and would soon lead us into Trafalgar Square making a fighting speech. The TPA people were there too.

It wasn’t long before brains kicked in and we realised that the whole local funding system is flawed, council tax effectively a centrally controlled property based wealth tax, and councillors could claim ‘not my fault’.. But we did gain recognition from the big-spender, Surrey County Council Executive Committee who let us into the council chamber for consultation at budget time.  It has been our general aim to question them on several important issues. On occasions I e-mail all 81 county councillors to embarrass them or sting them into some kind of action. They do not like it up ‘em Sir but continue to be meekly silent. We had sport when they found themselves £50m short. Councillors were invited before a local “Select Committee” to suggest savings. More than one suggested stopping free biscuits with coffee at meetings. Wow!

My professional and industrial experience, with my personal turn of mind, has taken me into the reform debate and after submissions, early to DETR, Balance of Funding Group, appearance before the Bennett Committee and Lyons Inquiry (he consulted me in Guildford). My submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee may have contributed to a 2007 conclusion that it is time to stop faffing about on reform after 30 wasted years of getting it wrong. I am therefore pleased that the TPA is campaigning for Better Government.

We raise all and any issues in the local press or in letters emails to councillors. At the outset I met at length with certain local government people to hear their point of view and advice. One result was encouragement to attend County local meetings in the Boroughs. The first half hour is open to questions without notice in front of the press.

It has been my observation that campaigning is as much a function of the particular passions and interests of those fired-up as it is of subjects for protest. Undoubtedly my doings are personally driven.

With me have been Steve Bowers, with me disgusted of Guildford since long before STAG, who is an insurance broker and passionate and knowledgeable on pensions inequities and cost to taxpayers.

Ernie Hughes was instrumental in guiding us in a co-operative line with the County Council and trying to get them to help us say things up the line that they cannot.

Turlough Bamber a world-wide traveller and as a Civil Engineer has been able to look at local gullies and immediately sum up the technical and supervision failures in road repair that we pay for in taxes. I join him from experience of contracting with government. Together we have forensically attacked the Council for its management and financial control failures. The District Auditor is also on the case.

John Kettle, who has now had to leave us, majored on the ‘numbers’ attack on the County finances.

Barry Smith and Angela Mayer are also great people to have in the team for their support and contribution. Others not on the Committee have given welcome feedback and support. Gillian Young from Cranleigh came and spoke feelingly at a meeting with Minister Woolas in 2005 with our two MPs and myself.

And so we evolve and welcome our promotion into the South West Surrey TaxPayers’ Alliance (STAG and South West Surrey) and look forward to continuing the campaign for lower taxes and better government.

If you want to get involved in the South West Surrey TaxPayers' Alliance email Peter at peter@pgwebb.com.

The Bank Robber Bill

With the new practice of trailing the Queen's Speech in advance, and testing the water on various proposals, people could perhaps be forgiven for not getting as excited as is traditional about the Bills laid out yesterday. After all, the issues are all fairly recognisable and much-debated already, agree with them or not - apprenticeships, nuclear power, anti-terror laws, cutting carbon emissions, seizing money left in bank accounts from its rightful owners....

Hang on - what was that last one?

Yes, that's right, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill will give the Government powers to seize money left in bank accounts for 15 years or more. There are quite a number of grounds for objection to this, as you can imagine.

First off, labelling accounts as "dormant" just because the money has been left in them for some time is extremely disingenuous. After all, isn't it rather the point of bank accounts that money is left in them? It should not be a punishable offence to save money - an activity the Government regularly claims it wants to encourage.

Beyond that, even if it is money someone has forgotten about, what right has the taxman to it? I am sure there are a few coppers down the back of my sofa, and maybe even a fiver in an old jacket if I'm lucky, but even if I am neglecting those resources that in no way diminishes my ownership of them. Still less does it give Gordon the right to rummage down the back of the sofa or raid my bank accounts.

I may be wrong - and please correct me on this if I am - but this would, to my knowledge, be Britain's first 100% tax. All monies left in a bank account for 15 years would simply be forfeit.

Of course, the Government has already started attempting to make the idea more acceptable to the public. The money, we are told, will be spent on improving youth facilities. The fact is still inescapable, though, that ill-gotten gains remain ill-gotten no matter what one uses the money on.

More terrifying from the taxpayers' point of view is the safety net that will be written in to the Bill. If anyone has money seized and then wants it back, they will be able to apply to get it back from the Treasury. Whilst it is better to have a refund scheme than not, it is all too easy to envisage the large amount of money that will be spent on the complex admin of assessing claims. identifying claimants and refunding the huge amounts of money that people will - understandably and entirely predictably - want back when they find that the State has pilfered it.

As well as being a bad, unjustifiable idea, the scheme may well end up being more trouble - and more expense - than it's worth.

Two days, two new TPA organisers

It’s been an exciting two days for the TPA grassroots campaign.  Yesterday activists from Hatfield, St. Albans and Stevenage got together for another meeting to organise yet more campaign activities in Hertfordshire.  They have already handed out well over 400 leaflets in a month, with more on their way.  If you’d like to get involved, their next meeting is on Monday 3rd December at the Ramada Jarvis Hotel in Hatfield so please email TPA organiser Martin Thornhill at stalbandtaxpayersalliance@yahoo.co.uk for more information and to get involved in the one of our leading TPA grassroots campaigns.  Also visit their campaign site  for campaign news and developments in Hertfordshire.

As our branches get stuck in fighting to overturn the high-tax, nanny-state consensus we’ve had two new organisers step forward in the last two days.  TPA supporter Sue Brockbank is looking for fellow activists to help set up a campaign in Oxford.  This can be a crucial area for the TPA, Oxford City Council is dominated by Socialists and Greens meaning that if we score a breakthrough in Oxford, we can start to fight back against those who think it’s no bad thing to increase taxes year on year and show our message resonates everywhere.  If you want to get involved and build a strong TPA campaign to hold the high-spending council to account email Sue at suebrockbank@yahoo.co.uk and please put in the subject 'TaxPayers' Alliance'.

Today I have spoken to Cam Poulter in Wiltshire who wants to get in contact with fellow TPA members in Wiltshire to build a local TPA campaign.  In talking with Cam he’s determined to overturn the consensus and return some low-tax, better government principles to British politics.  If you want to join Cam in Wiltshire email him at cam_poulter@yahoo.co.uk to get involved in the campaign for lower taxes in the South West.

Over the past two days we’ve had campaign developments in three very different areas.  Middle-England Hertfordshire has an excellent, stable and growing TPA branch campaigning for taxpayers.  In Oxford, we’re about to become the dissenting voice for lower taxes in a City run by those who think high taxes are a good thing.  And in rural and suburban Wiltshire we have a determined campaigner willing and ready to hold the government to account. 

Very clearly, our activist base is growing.  In addition to our thousands of supporters, we now have hundreds of activists out there holding our overspending politicians to account.  But we need your help to continue the campaign.  You can donate to the TPA here to help us continue the full time campaign for better government or email me at tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com to join the campaign and become an activist to spread the low tax message.  Remember that every bit we do, no matter how much, helps the campaign and, as Ronald Reagan said: "There's no limit to what can be achieved if you don't care who takes the credit".

Oh Deer...

Oh Deer…

This is an actual job from the Scottish ‘Government’:

“Deer Officer

£21,292 - £28,520

This post is responsible for delivering Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) work across the Central Belt, the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Fife, and for helping to develop new policy, particularly relating to roe and sika deer, and public safety. Specifically leading DCS support for collaborative deer management in South Scotland through provision of advice to local deer management groups; Leading on the sustainable management of roe deer in South Scotland; Leading the further development of DCS policy on deer and public safety; Leading the development of new models for the management of deer through recreational stalking; Coordinating the development of DCS policy on the management of peri-urban deer.”

Bet you never thought Deer need public sector managers?

Keeping an eye on the cost of Identity Cards

One of the main reasons taxpayers are opposed to identity cards is the sheer cost of them and the potential spiralling cost to administer a scheme that may well not work as well as the politicians foresee. 

Is it any wonder we suspect the costs will grow when the Home Office advertises for an ‘Executive Director, Business Development and Marketing’ at a salary over £120,000 with £10,000 relocation pay, £2,000 London location allowance, final salary pension and no probationary period if you’re already a civil servant.  Not bad work if you can get it.

The other problem with this job, aside from the gross costs to the taxpayer, is that this role is essentially a political non-job.  Politicians are meant to sell and argue the merits of a policy, not civil servants.  Yet this £120k government job is to ‘market’ ID Cards, a policy already approved of in parliament.  Why the need to market it more?  It’s been voted on, the debate has been had.  If the people aren’t supportive of the idea, then the politicians need to rethink their policy or convince us more and not use our money to pay for more bureaucrats to tell us how good the government’s poorly-defended policies are.

Non-jobs in Hertfordshire

Hard-working activists in Hertfordshire have dug up some superb taxpayer-funded non-jobs in the area.  Just a few from their campaign site include:

£42,000 for a ‘Head of Community Empowerment’ at the Watford Community Housing Trust.  The job description reads:

“You will work with our tenant and leaseholder members to develop and deliver our Community Empowerment Strategy, ensuring tenants are involved in strategic decision making. Additionally, you and your team will be key players in devising and promoting community empowerment opportunities at a local level.”

This is £42,000 for a non-job pure and simple.  The Trust should be doing its job – housing people – and not going on an empowerment crusade with taxpayers’ money.

Added to this, our Hertfordshire activists found another community empowerment non-job, this time at a cost of £29,000 to the taxpayer at the same Housing Trust.  Similarly, this non-job is advertised to do exactly what the Head of Community Empowerment is tasked to do, “to empower tenants and leaseholders to participate in decision-making at both a strategic and local level”. 

In all this is £71,000 wasted on two non-jobs to ‘empower’ the community with ‘inclusive’ decision making.  So is this value for money or taxpayers’ money thrown down the drain?

South West Surrey TPA in the news

Congratulations to Peter Webb and the South West Surrey TPA branch.  TPA South West Surrey Organiser Peter Webb hit the front page of the Surrey Times with comment on his local MP’s expenses.  This is how our branches are expanding their campaigns.  Peter has been working to recruit taxpayers into the South West Surrey branch and is now called on by local media for comment on tax issues.  Hopefully we will have more of our organisers called on to do just the same – to be the local voice for taxpayers, holding over-spending politicians to account. 

If you’re a TPA organiser and not called on for comment, then call up your local newspaper and offer it.  If you want to do as Peter has done and set up a local TPA branch to campaign for lower taxes and better government, then email me at tim.aker@taxpayersalliance.com and we can start building up the grassroots campaign in your area.