The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

Standing up for crime mapping

The Today Programme had an interesting piece on crime mapping this morning, which you can listen to here. I've written before about the TPA's support for crime mapping - it's a great way to make the police more accountable to the public they are meant to protect and serve, and to involve the public in making neighbourhoods safer.

The BBC's Justin Webb presented an interesting and well-argued piece about his experience of crime mapping in Washington DC, where the map can inform personal decisions and business precautions. If you know particular crimes are common in particular places you can react accordingly. As Webb says, it does not necessarily address all of the root causes of crime but it does make you wise to potential threats.

Before I go on to address the criticisms that Evan Davis and Brian Paddick made of crime mapping on this morning's programme, there's an important question to ask: where on earth were the Conservatives?

Boris Johnson has pledged to introduce crime mapping in London, and the Conservatives have been supportive of the idea, so it beggars belief that they weren't willing to put anyone up for interview to promote or defend the idea on the BBC's flagship current affairs radio programme. By failing to put anyone up, they were empty chaired  and Paddick was given a free run at the idea, laying into it without anyone to argue in its defence. (It should be said that if Today are lacking someone to speak up for crime mapping in future, the TPA would be happy to stand in!)

The first query raised over the idea was the Information Commissioner's concerns that publishing where crimes happen could invade the privacy of the victims - concerns which, incidentally, I can't find online anywhere, but they were referred to by the presenter. This is easily solved by the methodology used. Where a mugging or assault happens outdoors you can map it precisely to the spot with no danger of identifying people. Where a particular house is burgled, damaged or invaded you map it within 100 yards or by street. Where there are extremely sensitive crimes you can map a wider distance if required.

Brian Paddick then raised the spectre of stigmatisation of particular areas. This is an odd argument - at the moment areas get bad reputations for crime levels simply by word of mouth, and such reputations are haphazard at best. Some areas get unfair reputations, which can stick for much longer than they are accurate. An accurate map recording the crimes actually committed means areas won't be at the mercy of rumour any more.

If an area has high crime, people deserve to know before choosing to move there - that's not stigmatisation, it's informing people so they can choose how and where to live their lives. Would Brian prefer we tricked people into living in areas where they might be at risk by keeping the crime rates secret?

Nor is there any basis to Paddick's suggestion that accurately reporting high levels of crime where it occurs leads to "victimisation". If anything, these maps will really drive home the seriousness of the crime problem in some areas and encourage people to demand that the police deal with it.

The former Lib Dem mayoral candidate also mentioned the success of the CompStat process in New York, which increased the internal individual accountability of different area police commands. He's right, but why do the Met use a softer version of it? Shockingly, he said that

It's not a very British thing to hold people publicly to account in front of their peers

It might not be very widespread in the Met, but that could explain why you are more likely to be stabbed in London than in New York, couldn't it? Most organisations do exactly that - and public bodies should also hold managers to account in front of the taxpaying public.

Crime mapping is a great idea that holds a number of benefits. It's just a pity that there was no-one on air this morning to give it a fair hearing.

Tax cuts riding high

Last Friday, Matthew Elliott wrote here about the events of the previous seven days as "The week that taxes took centre stage". Opinion polls, speeches from Cameron and Clegg and then the Crewe by-election, fought squarely on the issue of tax, had put taxation at the top of the political agenda.

The last week has seen that trend continue, with some remarkable developments.

Perhaps most remarkable was Denis MacShane's article in the Telegraph on Tuesday. The very fact that a Labour MP, and a former Minister at that, penned an article titled "The answer's obvious: cut taxes and spending" is a notable change. MacShane points out that tax cuts are not only popular they are absolutely achievable, and signs up to the argument that tax has a harmful impact on relatively low income workers who are now paying an unacceptable amount of their earnings to the Treasury.

The article is a signal that the label of taxcutters is one that the main parties are now fighting to have, rather than fighting to avoid as they were a few years ago. MacShane argues that it is a Left wing thing to save money, that it is a Gordon Brown principle to be prudent and that it is Labour who recognise the financial troubles of ordinary people and the power of letting people keep their money to spend as they wish.

Readers will not be surprised to note that this is not simply a pure, ideological debate - after all, MacShane didn't exactly display this taxcutting fervour when he was a Minister. There is of course a pragmatic motive, demonstrated in today's YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph. When asked

Taking all forms of taxation into account, do you think you pay too much in taxes, too little or about the right amount?

This was the result:

Too Much:  72%
Too Little: 2%
About right: 19%

That's a massive majority, which has risen sizeably, and explains why MacShane is touting these ideas publicly.

Anthony King's analysis in the Telegraph includes a remarkable figure, that 85% of people agree with the phrase

we have reached the limits of acceptable taxation and borrowing. With the rising cost of living, taxpayers can't take any more

which is taken from Cameron's speech of last week.

All this means that the message is clear: People want lower taxes and are willing to vote for them. For politicians, if they can tap that enthusiasm they will be well on the way to victory. For taxpayers, it can only be a good thing that the issue is riding so high and that the tide is flowing in the direction of tax cuts. Safe to say, we can expect to hear a lot more about tax cuts in the coming weeks.

The EU forces British taxpayers to fund NGOs campaigning for the abolition of Israel

The EU diplomatically supports a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict based on two democratic entities which have secure borders and are at peace with each other. An honourable objective we should all support. Given this objective it is strange that the EU funds groups diametrically opposed to this vision. NGOs which oppose a two state solution, advocate the abolition of Israel, equate Israeli Liberal Democracy with apartheid South Africa and advocate recognition of and engagement with Hamas receive EU grants. A report by NGO Monitor entitled “Europe’s Hidden Hand, EU Funding for Political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" details (in as much depth as the public can access) who we are funding and what the groups advocate. Its findings are pretty shocking.

NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict region receive funding by two main mechanisms. These are the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace (PfP). NGOs headquartered in the EU were financed under a third mechanism entitled co financing until 2008. As of 2008 these NGOs will be funded under a new program named “Non state actors and local authorities in development” which aims to pursue the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. It is too early to judge the success of this new program and given the change fruitless to assess the success of the previous program. Thus the NGO Monitor report mainly concentrates on assessing EU financing of NGOs active in the Arab- Israeli conflict region.

As one would expect of the EU – a body which has never had its financial accounts approved by auditors – it is difficult to ascertain accurate data on EU funding of NGOs. Finding out who is paid what, why, by whom and for what purpose is not easy to identify. Funding figures are displayed over different time periods making comparisons difficult. Requests to the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (the body responsible for distributing grants to projects executed by UN Agencies) for specific information and guidelines were not answered. NGO Monitor also notes “There are no mechanisms for the public (European, Israeli, or Palestinian) to follow or understand the process, applications are not available for the publics review, and no external party has access to the information necessary too challenge the EU’s judgment”.

Questions asked by MEP Paul Van Buitenen in December 2006 revealed what the EC are not prepared to tell us about its funding of NGOs. We are not entitled to a full list of the NGOs the EU funds (some don’t want to publicise their details). However, we are assured that grants are independently assessed. The identity of the ‘independent’ assessors chosen is not revealed. We do know the ‘independent assessors’ are chosen by the “headquarters” of the people they are assessing. An interesting fact this – these bodies choose who assesses them. I think if it was me and I was looking for a fair and impartial assessment of my actions I would choose my mum to do it. I reckon her assessment would be fair and unbiased. But then again under EU rules we would not be able to know the criteria under which she judged my decisions (detailed funding criteria are not revealed) nor would we know what mark she gave me (the results of these independent assessments are not open to public view). Given we are not told who is paid what, against what criteria and how successful they were in achieving their aims the value of this independent assessment is highly suspect.

The EU claims it funds projects in isolation on their merits. Indeed the authorizing officers cannot refuse an application based on a NGOs political stance. The EU does not fund the NGOs that operate these schemes they just fund the schemes. They do not consider the other political activities the NGO is engaged in. However, this distinction is false. Funding of specific projects raises the profile of an organisation. It supports its infrastructure paying for staff, equipment, office space, publicity for the organisation etc. It also frees up resources to spend on other activities. The report notes that organisations such as ICAHD and ARIJ which support boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel do not operate strict separation arrangements when they display the EU flag on many of their publications. Publications not part of the specific EU project funded.  The display of this EU flag essentially means these organisations are choosing to highlight their link with the EU and associate it with the publications that feature it and by implication their own organisation. In some quarters this may add credibility to their organisation.

However, even if the direct EU funding of NGOs was clear and transparent there would still be problems. This is because the report notes “NGOs are able to re-grant a portion of the funds they receive to other civil society organizations, yet NGO candidates are not required to identify the names of potential re-grant recipients when they submit their application”. Therefore, it seems you can make an application and gain funding for the Kids for peace and love campaign to provide starving kids with cookies. This money can then be given to the adults who hate kids program for general destruction.  We do not know the identity of third parties re-granted money by the NGOs we support or the amounts involved because the EC does not publish this information.

The report notes that non partisan organisations do exist which focus on implementing a positive agenda bringing communities together. Some receive EU funding. These include The Arava Institute which funds environmental projects, Bitterlemons.org an internet dialogue forum between Arabs and Israelis and Internews Europe which the report says has worked to increase the “quality, diversity and professionalism of Palestinian local radio”. Each of these organisations promotes the EUs stated aim of “demonstrating the advantages of working together for mutual benefit and tangible results”.

Unfortunately the EU also funds many groups whose activities seem designed to nurture the hatred which sustains this conflict and frustrate the development of a two state solution to which the EU is committed. Christian Aids statements are particularly disgraceful. The collapse of the Palestinian Unity government and the conflict between Hamas and the PA are apparently “the predictable result of prolonged Israeli blockade and political isolation by the International community”. The report notes that “Hamas’ radical ideology...corruption, and terror attacks against Israeli civilians are entirely missing”. Such statements are part of a broader campaign by Christian Aid to encourage “boycott, divestment and sanctions” against Israel. How much of the 850,000 Euro granted by the EU is diverted towards these disgraceful campaigns which hamper genuine efforts to build peace and understanding in the region we do not know.

The report concludes with a series of constructive recommendations to ensure transparency and accountability in EU funding of NGOs. These include a complete list of NGOs funded by the EU by country, region and activity. We should know who applied for funding, who was approved and on what basis they were approved. Any list of the successful applicants should contain relevant details such as the recipient, contact information, amount, project name and a description of that project. This should be obtainable in a standardised format to enable comparisons between different bodies. NGOs applying for funding should have to disclose which other third parties they will fund through re-granting in advance as part of the applications process. This information should be publically available. Professional consistent impact assessments should be done regularly in to each program. These programs should be assessed against whether the activities of the NGO as a whole support achievement of the EUs regional objectives as stated in the relevant EU guidelines. Red Lines need to be drawn to ensure that the EU is not funding any activities by groups which engage in unacceptable behaviour. This behaviour includes calling for the destruction of a state or calling for its delegitimisation. This would bring the EU in line with standards set by private bodies such as the Ford Foundation which ensures its recipients do not “promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities”.

The system of allocation is clearly a shambles with little accountability or assessment of the value of making these grants. However this crisis also presents us with an opportunity. The European Commission issues “Calls for Proposals” on the web sites of its offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. All you need is to found/find an NGO with a base in Israel/Palestine think of a specific project and detail how it will fulfil the objectives of the CfP. Then submit an application. In each cycle of applications the EC receives up to 200 applications I think we can increase this number. The quality of the current winner’s projects standards indicates that standards are not high. It may be worth making an application.

Until the EU reforms its processes for granting, administering and assessing it’s funding to NGOs and makes the information public such funding cannot be viewed as legitimate. These funds will appear to be little more than a slush fund for the EU to play both sides of the conflict. Diplomatic commitments to a two state solution mean little when the EU funds groups engaged in promoting policies which make such a solution much harder to achieve.

Daylight robbery

Can anyone tell me why this is anything other than a crime?

Some councils have earned hundreds of thousands of pounds by enforcing unlawful traffic and parking restrictions, the BBC has learned.

Fines are said to have been levied despite incorrect road markings and on parking bays which are too small.

Councils have been levying charges and fines that are simply not legal - and it looks as though the amount could run into the millions. Haringey, Sheffield and Camden alone have unlawfully taken at least £715,000.

You want to know the worst part? London Councils don't even seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

Nick Lester from London Councils, which represents authorities in the capital, argued that handing the cash back was not necessarily in the public interest.

He said: "Where there's only a technical error, a small issue, where no-one was genuinely misled, the council can take the view, is it really a good use of public money to repay the penalty?

"Is that really what they should be doing?"

Mr Lester* should take a swift lesson in the law. It's not "public money" being used to repay people, it's a question of giving back the money councils wrongly extorted from them. The distinction about it supposedly being "only a technical error" is also false; the law, especially when it comes to levying fines and road regulations, has to be specific and it has to be followed properly or else it means nothing. Something is either a crime or it's not - if it's not a crime then you can't fine them. Fining the innocent isn't a technical error, it's a total injustice.

If it's true that some councils continued charging fines even after they discovered they had no legal right, heads should roll and criminal investigations should follow.

The article is also very revealing about the flaws in the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). Instead of insisting councils go back through their records to repay every fine they illegally charged, they recommend motorists to appeal their fine if they think it was unjust. It's amazing that even the Chief Parking Adjudicator recognises that the system is weighted to deter people from appealing:

she said that many motorists would not want to take the risk of taking their case to tribunal because it would mean losing their 50% discount - and that the onus was on local authorities to put things right.

This has lifted the lid on a serious problem. Councils can't be allowed just to decide what should be a crime and what shouldn't, and they must not be allowed to just flout the law like this. It's completely wrong that there is a penalty for appealing, too - especially considering that 60% of appeals succeed, which suggests that wrongly levied fines are endemic.

*You can contact Nick Lester here to put him right, should you wish: nick.lester@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Plymouth City Council oversteps the mark

As reported in the Times and Mail today, Plymouth City Council is asking households to nominate a family member to be prosecuted should the wrong rubbish end up in the wrong bin.  In addition, Town Hall snoopers want to know all sorts of personal information about their residents, including details of medical conditions, personal habits and lifestyles. 

This amounts to a disgusting assault on the privacy of the individual and family as well as council-overreach.  They’re the ones with responsibility for cleaning the bins.  Residents do not pay their Council Tax to be taken to court because some kid walking by threw a used can in the wrong bin.  It’s sheer lunacy.

Councils are meant to be municipal stewards of open spaces and public places, bin collection and road maintenance.  Threatening people with court orders and ploughing the depths of individual personal information is so far beyond their remit it’s a dot on the horizon.  Sadly, this all has worrying echoes of a story back in December last year where Town Halls attempted to prise more information out of taxpayers.

These councillors must therefore be held to account.  The Leader of the Council is Vivien Pengelley.  When contacting her, be sure you receive a reply from her and not some officer reeled out to take the flak.  Michael Leaves is the Cabinet member for the environment who thought up this policy in the first place - so see that you get some answers from him and not the departmental officers.  We want the councillors’ views and justifications, not backroom bureaucratic apologia.

The following councillors sit on the cabinet – they have the power to stop this ridiculous policy so ask them:

• Will they overturn the policy to request residents’ personal information for bin collections?
• If they won’t overturn the policy, why do they want residents’ personal information?
• If they agree with this policy will they make their own personal medical information – as well as other information requested – public?  Or is it one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us?

Cabinet Members:
Cllr Vivien Pengelly - vivien.pengelly@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 304950
Cllr Ted Fry - ted.fry@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 298457
Cllr Ian Bowyer - ian.bowyer@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 784342
Cllr Peter Brookshaw - peter.brookshaw@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 703234
Cllr Glenn Jordan - glenn.jordan@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 492889
Cllr Michael Leaves - michael.leaves@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 304139
Cllr Grant Monahan - grant.monahan@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 560101
Cllr Steven Ricketts - steven.ricketts@plymouth.gov.uk / 07810 878491
Cllr Dr David Salter - david.salter@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 513605
Cllr Kevin Wigens - kevin.wigens@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 304139

It’s also worth lobbying the Full Council to urge them to bring this issue up at the next Council meeting and forward a motion against this clear breach of privacy and indefensible use of Council power.  Ask them:

• Whether they are for/against the current policy and why.
• Whether the Full Council was consulted and whether a vote was taken to ask people to provide medical information when they nominated a family member with responsibility for rubbish disposal.
• Whether they will move a motion at the next Council to strike down the policy.

Cllr Mary Aspinall - mary.aspinall@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 667585
Cllr Richard Ball - richard.ball@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 310682
Cllr Terri Beer - terri.beer@plymouth.gov.uk / 07919 284531
Cllr Peter Berrow - 01752 667966
Cllr Lynda Bowyer - lynda.bowyer@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 784342
Cllr Gloria Bragg - gloria.bragg@plymouth.gov.uk / 07747 710315
Cllr Thomas Browne - tom.browne@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 290627
Cllr Mark Coker - mark.coker@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 308313
Cllr Susan Dann - susan.dann@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 512939
Cllr Edward Delbridge - edward.delbridge@plymouth.gov.uk
Cllr Jill Dolan - jill.dolan@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 562339
Cllr Jonathan Drean - jonathan.drean@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 701394
Cllr Tudor Evans - tudor.evans@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 218314
Cllr Wendy Foster - wendy.foster@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 403297
Cllr Ken Foster - kenneth.foster@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 403297
Cllr Michael Foster - michael.foster@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 344107
Cllr Andy Fox - andy.fox@plymouth.gov.uk / 07816 527202
Cllr Ian Gordon - ian.gordon@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 331431
Cllr David James - david.j.james@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 343165
Cllr Andy Kerswell - andy.kerswell@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 269472
Cllr Mark King - mark.king@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 511571
Cllr Samantha Leaves - samantha.leaves@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 518765
Cllr Martin Leaves - martin.leaves@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 518765
Cllr Sally Letcher - sally.letcher@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 304139
Cllr John Lock - john.lock@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 331051
Cllr Mark Lowry - mark.lowry@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 299728
Cllr Dr John Mahony - john.mahony@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 565652
Cllr Susan McDonald - susan.mcdonald@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 668910
Cllr Bernard Miller - bernard.miller@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 776452
Cllr Jean Nelder - jean.nelder@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 227352
Cllr Patricia Nicholson - patricia.nicholson@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 348881
Cllr Patrick Nicholson - patrick.nicholson@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 347474
Cllr Christopher Pattison - christopher.pattison@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 341703
Cllr Pauline Purnell - pauline.purnell@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 562281
Cllr Eddie Rennie - eddie.rennie@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 603796
Cllr David Reynolds - david.reynolds2@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 312061
Cllr Brian Roberts - brian.roberts@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 776924
Cllr Peter Smith - peter.smith@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 345084
Cllr David Stark - david.stark@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 774331
Cllr Sally Stephens - sally.stephens@plymouth.gov.uk
Cllr Bill Stevens - william.stevens@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 251713
Cllr Jack Thompson - jack.thompson@plymouth.gov.uk / 07732 839515
Cllr Brian Vincent - brian.vincent@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 316902
Cllr David Viney - david.viney@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 402673
Cllr Joan Watkins - joan.watkins@plymouth.gov.uk / 01752 216849
Cllr George Wheeler - george.wheeler@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 362511
Cllr Nicky Wildy - nicky.wildy@plymouth.gov.uk / (01752) 556008

If you’re sat there seething at Plymouth City Council’s barking policy, then do something about it.  It’ll only take you 5 minutes to send some councillors an email asking them why they decided to trample over individual freedoms as British taxpayers give more and more of their hard earned money to Councils.  But we have to maintain a strong presence so politicians know we’re watching them, holding them to account and that we won’t let them abuse their power and waste our money.  If you do get any responses, please let me know by forwarding them to me at the regular email address.

The week that taxes took centre stage

The last seven days have seen a fundamental shift in the political debate - taxes have taken centre stage in politics, finally mirroring politically the importance that they have held domestically for some time in the lives of ordinary taxpayers struggling to make ends meet.

Last Friday, PoliticsHome's PHI5000 panel registered an important change in people's priority issues, with the economy taking top place and tax specifically overtaking law and order for the first time.

On Monday , David Cameron recognised the "pain" caused by the heavy burden of taxation and talked about the benefits of lower taxes. By targeting social problems, reducing waste and fundamentally reforming public services, he said, tax cuts could be delivered.

On Tuesday Nick Clegg followed suit, promising lower taxes on low and middle income families, and laying out the ambition of reducing the overall tax take.

That night, the strength of voters' feeling on the level of fuel duty, for example, was exemplified in the Newsnight debate and the gulf between politicians and the people on the issue was laid bare.

Wednesday saw the final day of a Conservative campaign that was founded on the issue of high taxes - Tory leaflets were replete with mentions of the 10p tax rate abolition and the high level of motoring taxes.

On Thursday night, having chalked up an overwhelming swing from Labour to Conservative, the victorious Edward Timpson MP told BBC News that the key issue in the election was "the 10p tax rate...[which] resonated time and time again on the doorstep".

Today we have a political landscape in which it is clear that people are suffering from the record level of taxation that all strata of society face. What's more, they are willing to vote for people who promise to reduce that burden and free people to spend their own money. The old idea that tax cuts were toxic because they supposedly meant worse services just isn't true any more. People have paid huge amounts more tax and have seen services get worse - they know that it's not the size of the bill, but what you do with it that counts.

The Tories have reaped the results of that change this week, but to continue doing so they have to move on with Cameron's priorities as laid out on Monday. Voters agree that taxes are too high and they are listening keenly for ways to reduce them. The stage is set for positive proposals for radical public sector reform to be put forward to deliver the lower taxes and better services that we all want and that are perfectly possible.

The really good news for taxpayers is that with Nick Clegg evidently aware of the potency of this issue, too, there is the competition factor to encourage a really radical set of ideas. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling to be the most radical, which can only be good in terms of producing better proposals.

This week has fired the starting gun - the crowd are roaring, the engines are screaming and the flag has just gone up. It'll be a race to remember.

Posted by Matthew Elliott

We've found out what quangos do

They write in to newspapers justifying their own existence, apparently. Guy Attenborough, the Head of Communications for the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has got a letter in today's Daily Express in response to Patrick O'Flynn's excellent article about our Unseen Government report.

Mr Attenborough correctly points out that the British Potato Council and the Milk Development Council are both funded by levies on their respective industries rather than from central taxpayer funds. That is rather a distinction without a difference, though - if I was a potato processor I would find it hard to take comfort in the knowledge that the BPC is funded not through central taxation but through an industry levy I am forced to pay. A levy that is exactly like a, erm, tax. 

Fundamentally these "levies" are taxes on selected industries, as the Government effectively runs a closed shop - pay your subs to the British Potato Council or your crinkle cutting days are over.

Beyond that, it's important to remember that the point of the report was not just the direct cost to the taxpayer, but the problems caused by the sheer quantity of these unaccountable bodies, and the chaotic structure of government in general. Even if, by some miracle, the British Potato Council was run with no overheads, or its bills were paid voluntarily by a potato-loving benefactor, it would still be a burden both in regulatory terms on its industry and especially in terms of the ministerial department which has to oversee it.

Government ministers are besieged by the range and number of different organisations that report to them on a myriad of different topics. It is not just the Potato Council's bills that we are concerned with, it is the snowstorm of paperwork, reports, consultations and other documents that they and their 1,161 fellow quangos produce. The essential services of this country are struggling at least in part because their are so many other calls on ministers' time. No matter what Mr Attenborough says, these quangos are a burden on taxpayers.

It's also worth noting that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, for which Mr Attenborough works, is a new quango covering the field broadly occupied by the Milk Development Council, British Potato Council etc. Excellent, you might think, they're scrapping little bodies and consolidating their responsibilities. Sadly, it's not so; the BPC, MDC and all the other little ones are still there, living inside the AHDB which is in fact just a whole new level of quango. And so it continues.

Wasting police time

Following a number of instances in which seemingly innocuous individuals have been stopped or even charged by police, there is growing concern that Section 5 of the Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a catch-all clause by overzealous police officers to disrupt perfectly legitimate protests. The latest case, that of a 15-year-old facing prosecution for holding a placard that labelled the Church of Scientology a "cult" is yet another example of this pointless practice. I've got no particular beef with Scientologists, but this is an opinion the person involved should be entitled to hold and express.

This is a serious problem. First, don't the police and the CPS have anything better to do? There are far more serious - and far more criminal - acts committed every day than someone expressing an opinion. Worse, it is this kind of shenanigans that makes the law look like an ass. If people lose their respect for law enforcement then it can only be harmful socially and in terms of detection, crime reporting and so on. Taxpayers want the police catching muggers and driving down assaults, not throwing their weight around in religious arguments.

We hear - quite rightly - from the police that far too many people are making spurious 999 calls and wasting police time, which squanders taxpayers' money and endangers those who really need the police to protect them from crime. Of course people should stop wasting police time - it would be nice if the police officer who nicked this individual would lead the way.

Fighting the elephant

Richard North over at EU Referendum has been discussing the importance of the EU in the tax debate - the "elephant in the room", as he puts it. It's definitely a problem, not only tax but in all areas, that the EU is often quietly left to one side by politicians too ashamed or deceitful to admit that they have in fact signed away vast swathes of Parliamentary power and by people fearful of being tarred as euro-obsessive. Doing so is a dis-service to the issue and most of all to the people of Britain who have to foot the bill for the EU and have to live under its undemocratic rules and regulations.

Richard reckons the British think tank world has dropped the ball on the EU, and there are certainly a lot of targets yet to be shot at. There has, though, been a shift recently with the UK MPs' expenses story and the accompanying new focus on transparency and accountability naturally leading the eyes of the media on to Brussels, undeniably one of the least transparent and accountable seats of Government in the Western world. The News of the World, for example, has just started a series of investigate reports into the EU Parliament, which is a good step.

The EU is a massively important issue for all sorts of reasons, many of which fall squarely under the remit of the TPA - and it's something we'll be taking a close look at very soon, so Richard should watch this space. The elephant had better watch its step...

The people speak - but who's going to listen?

Last night's Newsnight debate in Crewe ahead of the by-election produced a wonderful image that embodied the gulf between politicians and the public on motoring taxes. After a heated debate on fuel duty in which all of the main parties steered clear of promising a cut in the taxes on drivers, Jeremy Paxman asked the audience to raise their hands in a straw poll:

How many people think that the rate of duty on fuel should be cut?

The answer was stark:

As Paxman put it, that is "almost everyone" except, notably, for those two ladies in the front row - who are the Lib Dem and Labour candidates (it should be noted in the interests of balance that the Conservative candidate was for some reason absent, so we can't be sure how he would have voted - in the debate, Michael Gove criticised the cost of motoring but stopped short of promising a tax cut).

There is a severe divide between the views of ordinary people around the country on this issue, i.e. that taxes on motoring are exploitatively and unsustainably high, and those of the main political parties in the Westminster bubble - who are broadly signed up to a strategy of taxing motoring until the pips squeak. As Paxman demonstrated in the debate, even when the Conservatives are talking tough about the burden of fuel duty they have yet to acknowledge the need for a tax cut.

It cannot be healthy for the views of representatives to be so divorced from the views of the people. This is not simply timidity on behalf of the political class, it is in many cases a severe separation and fundamental disagreement over the issue. Punishing drivers with heavy taxation has become gospel in Westminster, whilst the idea of tax cuts on fuel is for far too many MPs a taboo. It is a symptom of the continuing failure of the political parties to connect with the experiences of ordinary taxpayers, and the tendency of some to turn a blind eye to things that challenge their belief in ever higher green taxation.

As our research on green taxes has shown, drivers already pay far more in tax than is necessary to offset even the worst-case estimates of their carbon emissions. There is no sound argument for pushing that cost up further. Electorally, we have also shown that fuel duty hits floating voters in marginal constituencies hardest, so there would be a real benefit to any Party that signed up to reducing fuel duty. You only need to look at the media and public reaction to Darling's unfair and ineffective - in environmental terms - Budget tax hike on Vehicle Excise Duty to see that this an area where votes can be won.

Dodging the buck

The Audit Commission's biennial National Fraud Initiative has made headlines today after uncovering £140m of fraud across England. Cross-referencing records from councils, public sector payrolls, GPs' surgeries and other bodies allows them to uncover fraud that had so far gone unnoticed, which is of course a welcome programme.

Time and again cases crop up of fraudsters who have conned taxpayers with scams that should have been picked up by the most feckless work experience staffer in the benefits office, but have somehow been allowed to continue for far too long.

For example, in this case Victoria Young was of course wrong to fraudulently claim child benefit for seven fictional children, but surely the authorities should have noticed something was up when she claimed to have had her sixth child only a week after the birth of her fifth? Next time you see a report of a benefits fraudster being sent down, check how much they stole - odds are it is in the thousands, as far too many people are getting away with it for far too long before being detected. If, of course, they are detected at all.

It's a certainty that some councils and agencies are better at this than others, and that some are really failing the public by their incompetence. The former deserve to be praised, and their successful anti-fraud techniques should be replciated, whilst the latter should be named and shamed to spur the improvement that is so sorely needed.

Why, then, have the Audit Commission refused to publish this information? The total figure alone is interesting, and certainly shocking, but it is of little use to man or beast in terms of solving the problem. By releasing the headline figures, it's evident that the Commission to recognise that the media and the public are interested in this issue, so they should take it one step further and harness that interest. Public opinion is a powerful tool, and people are annoyed that their money is being stolen from them - releasing a list of poor performers would be a great way to encourage improvement.

Speaking of wasting money...

Even though Michael Martin – the Speaker of the House of Commons – has given up the fight to keep MPs expenses secret, he’s found another avenue with which he can waste your money to keep you less involved in the political system.  According to this morning’s Today programme, Martin has intervened to oppose Stuart Wheeler’s court battle to give the British people a say on the Lisbon Treaty (read: European Constitution). 

Is there anything this complete shambles of a man won’t waste taxpayers’ money on?  It was bad enough using your money to prevent you knowing what your representatives are spending your money on in their homes.  But now Michael Martin is using his position – and your money, again – to prevent you having a say on a European Treaty that the government promised us at the last election.  Moreover, Martin is practically defending a Treaty that is self amending, ruling out any future debate and referenda on any amendments or changes to the Treaty-to-end-all-Treaties. 

What we see now is Martin using the power of the state funded by what he sees as the unlimited resources of the government (read: our money) to quash a legitimate protest by a taxpaying individual who seeks the government to honour its promise made to the British people. 

Clearly, with his continuing disregard for taxpayers’ money, it’s time for Mr Speaker to hang up his stockings and go!

Good news! Commons authorities defeated in court

It's great news that the High Court have thrown out the case brought at the taxpayers' expense by the House of Commons authorities to try to keep details of MPs' expenses secret. Having fought the case for years, the Commons authorities decided to try to overturn a ruling of the Information Tribunal, the expert body on Freedom of Information, by going to the High Court. It's great news that Heather Brooke, Ben Leapman and Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas have won their case. Now we'll have to hope Michael Martin knows when he's beaten and releases the information, rather than carrying on this costly struggle.

It's simple, really - it's our Parliament, they are our MPs and it's our money. Taxpayers have a right to know how their representatives are spending taxpayers' cash. Releasing this information would be a great step not only in terms of accountability and transparency but also for the standing of Parliament in the public's eyes.

The decision by Mr Martin to drag this out through the Courts was unnecessary, futile, costly for taxpayers who had to foot the lawyers' bill and ultimately harmful to Parliament's reputation. Most MPs probably don't do anything wrong with their expenses, and indeed a lot of MPs are happy for this information to be released, but the Speaker's blinkered determination to keep the facts secret just makes them look like they've got something to hide.

Even if Mr Martin had won his appeal, what would have been the result? The public would be outraged that they were being denied the right to see how their money is spent, whilst the suspicion of Parliamentarians that is currently riding high would be heightened further.

This verdict is a great victory for democracy, transparency and taxpayers. It should never have taken so long and cost so much, but at least the High Court have come out with right decision. Let us hope Mr Martin accepts he was in the wrong, acknowledges the public's right to know and publishes the information immediately. A further appeal would do even more damage to the people's faith in Parliament, and would be utterly unjustified - the Speaker should rule it out immediately.

Snouts in the Trough: Nick Clegg MP

The headlines in the paper should read: ‘Multimillionaire claims taxpayer money for house renovation’. 

It was revealed yesterday that the multimillionare leader of the Liberal Democrats – Nick Clegg, the MP for Sheffield Hallam – claimed just over £7,000 of parliamentary expenses to renovate his Sheffield home, installing new curtains and other upgrades.  This marks the culmination of a strong campaign by the blogger Guido Fawkes and rightly exposes the snouts-in-the-trough mentality of our political class. 

When was the last time you were given £7k for your home improvements?  While the rest of the country works, earns and saves to make their home their castle, Clegg and other politicians fleece you for their own home improvements.  As always it’s one rule for them, one for the rest of us.

So we now do what we do best – hold him to account.  Ask him why he decided to hand us the bill for his home improvements.  Furthermore, if you live in his constituency go and see him.  Here are the contact details for Nick Clegg as well as the contact number for you to book an appointment at his surgery.

Nick Clegg M.P. 85 Nethergreen Road, Sheffield S11 7EH
Tel: 0114 230 9002 Fax: 0114 230 9614
Email: nickclegg@sheffieldhallam.org.uk
Nick holds regular advice surgeries for constituents. To make an appointment please contact the constituency office on 0114 230 9002

Government to pass the buck on sentencing

One of the measures announced in the draft Queens Speech by the Prime Minister yesterday should leave taxpayers seething with rage.  The announcement of a ‘Sentencing Commission’ to set “prison sentences…depending on the amount of space in jails” shows the government have lost the plot on crime and cynically move to shift the blame to an unaccountable quango.

To award a sentence based on the lack of prison places risks pathetically lenient sentences for the most heinous criminals.  Because the government failed to build new prisons they can see the storm coming and – if the Sentencing Commission comes into force – they will put their hands up and say “I’m not to blame for lenient sentences, the Sentencing Commission is”. 

Although they give assurances that ‘serious criminals’ won’t receive community orders, I think we can take this with a pinch of salt.  For example:

• Yassin Nassari, a dangerous extremist convicted of smuggling missile blueprints into the UK was released early from prison in March. 
• David Tiley, a convicted rapist, was released early from prison and went on to murder his disabled fiancée and her carer in 2007. 
• Lloyd Edwards, a convicted burgler released from a ‘detention centre’ went on to kill a mother in her home in 2006.

This was all done on the government’s watch.  While the above avoid prison or are released early, Steven Peers, Josephine Rooney and Richard Fitzmaurice were all sent to prison for non-payment of Council Tax.  It’s there that you can see the government’s appalling prison priorities, pensioners and fathers sent to prison for not handing over £1,000-odd to their local Council compared to early release for rapists and terrorists.

To dodge tough sentencing by disgracefully attempting to pass the buck on an issue the public feel passionately about shows an abrogation of responsibility the government owes to us.  The most serious criminals should be locked away for a long time to express the seriousness of their crimes against individuals and society.  The severity of the crime should determine the sentence.  To use any other criteria shows a complete disregard for people’s safety and a lack of respect for the victims of serious crime.  Creating yet another quango won't solve the problems of the government's own making.

South West Surrey TPA in the News

TPA Organiser for South West Surrey – Peter Webb – was yet again quoted in the Surrey Advertiser last week, commenting on our 10% Challenge to councils.   He scored another hit with a letter about the NHS, fitting in nicely with our Better Government campaign.

You can read the letter and the article by clicking below on each below.

Shocking contempt

The News of the World ran an expose yesterday on MEPs taking advantage of their allowances. It's common knowledge that MEPs, faced with even less scrutiny than MPs in Westminster, have a sizeable gravy train at their disposal. What was really shocking about the story, other than the sheer amount of taxpayers' money sloshing around without proper controls, was the arrogance of one MEP the NOTW interviewed.

Faced with a series of questions about the amount he pays to his wife and formerly to his son, gave this as his answer to the British public, Sir Robert Atkins answered:

"It's very complicated and I don't suppose any of your readers would understand it."

Well, if there was a question as to whether he is out of touch or contemptuous of the British public, I think that settles it, don't you?

Should you wish to put him right about the cognitive capacity of the voting, taxpaying public, his UK Office number and email address are:
01995 602225
ratsmep@sir-robertatkins.org

Steve Peers on Brown's stealth taxes

If you take the Sunday Times, you’d have noticed senior TPA Campaigner Steve Peers and his family in the Money section being interviewed on the damage government stealth taxes are doing to families all over the country.

You can read Steve's comments in the article here.

This is just one of the ways where, by being a TPA Activist, you can get involved in our national media campaign, putting the point across that big government and high taxes are damaging your and your family.  It’s your money we’re campaigning to save, it’s your campaign.  So what are you waiting for – get involved today!

Army: Be Neglected

The Independent on Sunday had a shocking report yesterday on an internal MoD document revealing the truly awful conditions our Armed Forces are forced to endure. It has emerged that not only are our soldiers housed in disgraceful slum conditions and sent to war with insufficient or unsuitable equipment, now growing numbers are having to borrow money from the Ministry of Defence just to be able to eat.

The Ministry of Defence has a large budget - not as large in terms of GDP share as many other countries or even compared to our own country a few years ago, but enough to set right the basic problem of low pay and provisioning for those at the sharp end.

That won't be set right, though, as long as the MoD's priorities and practices are so twisted. This is an organisation that spent £2.3 billion on its own office refurbishment, including £1,000-a-pop chairs, at a time when barracks' ceilings were falling in.

The Ministry's most monumental failure is in procurement, where time and again projects come in late, over budget and - worst of all - useless. One example is the Bowman digital radio system. Initially commissioned from one company, which proved unable to deliver on the contract, it was shifted to another. The second company found itself taking on a project someone else had agreed and thus asked for even more money and to remove various requirements from the contract. The eventual product was 10 years late, vastly over budget at a cost of £2.4 billion and too heavy for an ordinary soldier to carry. It was also too expensive to fit it in aircraft, despite ground to air communication being more essential than ever in our current engagements.

The problems our soldiers face is that whilst they themselves are extremely efficient, organised, professional and disciplined on the battlefield, the legions of civil servants who are supposed to support them are anything but. That those civil servants are pigging out in their refurbished cafeteria in between bouts of bungling billion pound supply contracts while soldiers literally can't afford to eat is disgusting.

Here be criminals

As we laid out when revealing the Cost of Crime in London last month, the TPA believes strongly in the principle and the practical benefits of giving people as much information as possible about the (mal)functioning of our public services. Crime mapping, widely used to great effect in the USA, is a particularly good example of that, so it's encouraging to read that Boris has been offered a chance to put it in place in London.

Crime is undeniably the top concern of Londoners. The Government can harp on all they like about the amount of recorded crime falling (although violent recorded crime has risen), but people know that their experience is contrary to that. Between a growing feeling that there is no point reporting crime to the police and a shameful raft of administrative measures introduced by the police to reduce the number of crimes that are recorded.

Fundamentally, people feel that they are not being listened to, that the authorities do not care about their suffering and that once a crime is reported it all too often disappears beneath a pile of paperwork, never to be seen again.

Crime mapping is one powerful tool to correct those failings. By publicly mapping reported crimes by type, date, time and location, not only do the victims have solid evidence their crime is on record, but the police are made more accountable to the people they are meant to protect and serve.

If there are particular blackspots for crime, taxpayers will notice them and raise them with the police. Politicians can be put on the spot about any failure to deal with ongoing problems (though that would be even easier if we had directly elected police chiefs, of course). Some cities, such as Austin, Texas, also map arrests, so you can see justice being done, too. The above map shows a current US crime map, where the blue men represent thefts, the masked faces are burglaries, the guns are assaults and the handcuffs are arrests.

It's all grounded in one fundamental principle: we pay for policing and we rely on policing so we should have the right to see whether it's working and to demand improvement if it falls short of expectations.

There are naturally worries that police forces might not want to give up the information, but tough - this is not a private commerical data source, it is a record of crucial events in the lives of the individuals and communities whose security is the police's raison d'etre. We pay the Bill's bills, and if they don't do their job properly it is us who suffer, not them, so there can be no room for petty hogging of data.

This is a great opportunity to harness the popularity, ease of use and intuitive design of services like Google Maps and bring it to public service delivery. At the moment the police are too difficult to engage with and bogged down in bureaucracy and political meddling. This technology provides an opportunity to sweep that away and replace it with an accessible way for the public to hold the police accountable and for the police to demonstrate their work to the public.

It's encouraging to hear, then, that Colin Drane, founder of American crime mapping website Spotcrime.com has offered to do a London crime map for free, which chimes in well, naturally, with our budget-controlling instincts. Whether Boris takes Drane up on his offer or uses another platform, it's imperative that he grabs Crime mapping with both hands. It would be the first step to a safer city, more effective policing and a happier populace.

Time for Nanny to retire

There is a must-read article from Patrick O’Flynn in today’s Daily Express that reinforces our arguments in favour of small government and that there is a point at which government must realise it has to get out of civil society. 

O'Flynn writes that rather than admitting he was wrong over the abolition of the 10p tax band on the lowest paid, biting the bullet and looking at ways he could save £7billion from government to pay for its return, Premier Brown has fallen into the ‘government knows best' mindset and set about having government compensate [read: intervene in the lives of] those hit hardest.  The killer line from O’Flynn:

“Despite the urgency of the task [of government creating a way out of the debacle], whole phalanxes of Oxbridge Firsts have failed to come up with a workable compensation package”

Zing!  No matter how many of the smartest technocrats and civil servants you hire to plan, government can only do so much, which it often doesn’t do well enough to the satisfaction of the taxpayer.  Our problem in Britain is that politicians and bureaucrats don’t know when to leave alone.  Their own arrogance and hubris compels them to intervene further, either from a paternalistic ‘noblesse oblige’ to the poor or a Socialistic belief in planning and redistribution, no matter whether their acts make matters worse. 

O'Flynn is right, the government should cut £7billion of spending to reinstate the tax band whilst keeping the 2% reduction on the former basic 22% rate.  Then, shock, horror, you have a 2% tax cut that could improve people's lives and - if only marginally - prevent government doing more because it's docked its own allowance.

But alas, big government has created a strait-jacketed society - people simply can’t escape blundering politicians making matters worse with our money because they think they know best.  It can be Brown trying to create another costly, bureaucratic scheme to 'compensate' the poorest hit by a tax hike or your local Town Hall using anti-terrorist legislation to send armies of bureaucrats to snoop on dog walkers. 

The political ramifications of the 10p tax band, however, give us the best arguments for raising the income tax threshold to remove the poorest from income tax as well as providing greater incentives to work.  In the long run, it should sit as a stark reminder to any government that, when in doubt, leave the people alone. 

SW Surrey TPA April Campaign Diary

South West Surrey Organiser Peter Webb updates us on the SW Surrey TPA Campaign for April.

2nd: PW letter to MP Jeremy Hunt pointing out lack of answers to 13th Feb 5 questions and challenging his letter of 31st March with its unsubstantiated “clear policies”..This ended up with a time-limited meeting on 19th April with PW and Barry Smith concentrating on County Council shortcomings, unclear MP support for it, and need for better government ideas from Conservatives. Little achieved. Our Mike Hutchinson of Shere reported sightings of Guildford BC white vans with CCTV cameras aboard. Need to get ‘official’ position re privacy issue.

10th:  Barry Smith writes MP Jeremy Hunt, cc David Cameron, re uncollected council tax etc and need for Conservatives to plan for replacement of council tax.

11th:  PW letter published “keep up pressure” for reform and linked to earlier letters from others. 
Published letter from Nevill Shearman protesting at County spending and precept increase. Intends to pay last year plus 2% only.

16th: Response from David Cameron’s office to Barry Smith demolished in annotated return of message shown also to Jeremy Hunt

17th: Jeremy Hunt replies to Barry Smithand, says will forward concern to Hazel Blears.

18th: PW quoted in Surrey Ad news report on residents falling value for money belief, one third from two thirds 2 years ago.  Another hard-hitting published letter from Steve Bowers following County Leader Nick Skellett’s failure to answer calls to explain 5% precept increase.

19th: Meeting with Jeremy Hunt MP (see above)

21st: Submitted statement to Audit Commission carrying out quinquennial corporate assessment of County Council to study whether the council has a clear ambition and priorities, how it delivers and whether objectives achieved. Evidenced summary that Council makes no effort to ‘woo’ resident taxpayers with a shareholder interest, is sluggish and top-heavy.

23rd: Answer received  to FOI question to County Council about costs and failure associated with change of contractor for Suretime bus stop information system. Answer incomplete and evasive.  CCllr (mine) Chris Slyfield has been active re Police precept rise of 9.7%, its cap and appeal. It turns out that nobody attended public meetings (The Surrey Police Authority didn’t visibly tell anybody ). He asked for SW Surrey TPA to be put on Police list of stakeholders for possible input for or against precept. I made direct contact.

30th: TPA 10% challenge: commented at length to Vita of Surrey Advertiser.

A tale of two crimes

The front page of the Metro newspaper today reveals that police guidance instructs rank and file police not to register car vandalism as a crime.  In sharp contrast, Gwynneth Lester is fleeing the country because she faces arrest over £1,200 of unpaid Council Tax.  According to local newspapers, the 59-year-old disabled war widow was due to be arrested last Monday but the police failed to turn up, giving her enough time to escape.

This wouldn’t be the first time Mrs Lester had been persecuted by the authorities.  She spent 28 days in jail last year for not paying the tax.  She made the stand after being burgled eight times in two years. 

What sort of country is it where the government and police crack down harder on a disabled pensioner than those who commit vandalism?  Are the government’s priorities that skewed that crimes against the state are more ‘serious’ than crimes against the person or property?  What a nation…