The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

Mark Wallace talks to Friction TV about the 10 per cent tax rate

From Friction TV:

(if the video does not display try clicking the link to go and watch it on Friction TV's website)

Thoughts on the Conservative Party conference

This week’s Conservative Party conference marks a very important shift in the Tory strategy on tax.

Two years ago, a number of the “über-modernisers” were suggesting that the Conservatives may even have to support tax increases to win the trust of the electorate to get back into power.  This strategy fortunately never became official policy, but last year the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne pledged to put economic stability before tax cuts, and promised that there would be no upfront, unfunded tax reductions before the next election.

During this week’s conference, the Shadow Treasury team still talked about “putting economic stability first”, but came round to offering two important tax cuts:

• The Inheritance Tax threshold would rise from £300,000 to £1 million, taking ordinary families out of the tax altogether.
• The Stamp Duty threshold for first-time buyers would double from £125,000 to £250,000, taking most first-time buyers out of stamp duty altogether. 

This shift towards reducing taxes helped to unite the Party conference in Blackpool.  It should also lead to a post-conference bounce for the Conservatives in the opinion polls.  The most recent TPA poll of 2,000 adults, conducted by YouGov, showed that:

• Inheritance tax is perceived as the most unfair tax of all. 
• Inheritance tax is the third most popular tax to be reduced, marginally behind lowering council tax and raising the tax-free personal allowance.
• 44 per cent think that the party they support should pledge to reduce taxes, compared with just 6 per cent who think they should pledge to increase taxes and 38 per cent who think they should pledge to hold taxes at the current level.

The TaxPayers' Alliance heartily welcomes this change of emphasis from the Conservative Party.  The Times has also reported that there may be more to follow, which we look forward to.  There are, however, a few points to be made on some of the details of the Tory policy.

1. George Osborne also announced on Monday a new tax of £25,000 for all non-domiciled individuals, which would offset the revenue lost from the Inheritance Tax and Stamp Duty reductions.  This may not work as the Shadow Treasury team hopes.  As Fraser Nelson points out in The Business, non-doms are highly mobile internationally, and a proportion of them may decide to leave Britain as a result.  The Treasury has also said that there are fewer non-doms than projected by the Tories.  Both these factors could mean a revenue shortfall in the Tory plans.  Two observations are worth making here:

• It does not matter if revenue from the new tax on non-doms is less than the £3.5 billion projected by the Conservatives.  £3.5 billion is less than half a per cent of total government revenue – not far greater than a rounding error and certainly less than the forecasting errors that have repeatedly been made by the Treasury in recent years.  In any case, a reduction in the tax burden is something to be welcomed.
• It does matter if a large number of non-doms leave London as a result of the Conservative plans.  This could threaten the global leadership of the City – the mobility of international finance should not be underestimated.  There may be a good reason why Gordon Brown has so far left non-doms largely alone. 

2. The Conservative tax plans, like those of the Lib Dems, are revenue-neutral.  But Britain urgently needs a reduction in the overall burden of tax.  Hard-pressed families are over-taxed, and businesses in Britain are loosing out to those in more competitive economies overseas.  In the globalised economy, there can be no economic stability in the long term without overall tax reductions.

3. One of the main reasons why the Conservatives are not able to reduce the overall burden of tax is that they are committed to spending the same amount as Gordon Brown.  Over the next three years, public spending will grow by 2 per cent in real terms each year under both main parties.  This leaves little room to reduce taxes:

• If the economy grows at its trend rate of 2.5 per cent per annum, then increasing spending at 2 per cent would free up around £3 billion a year to reduce taxes. 
• This, however, is now unlikely.  The credit crisis is unfortunately likely to spill over into the real economy.  Economic forecasters are now predicting that growth will be less than 2 per cent in 2008.  ING forecast 1.7 per cent growth, while the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicts that growth will fall to just 1.4 per cent next year.  If so, growing spending at 2 per cent would mean higher taxes overall, or more borrowing, or a bit of both.  The Conservative plans could lead to an expansion in the size of government, with tax rises in the middle of an economic slowdown – the worst possible policy which really would threaten economic stability.
• From conversations with members of the Shadow Treasury team during the conference, it is clear that they would get round this problem by basing policy around the economic cycle, rather than annually.  To avoid the problems of the political manipulation of the economic cycle, as has occurred under Gordon Brown, definition of when an economic cycle begins and ends would be outsourced to an independent body.  Assuming that growth averages out at around 2.5 per cent over the economic cycle, it would therefore be possible to reduce the overall burden of tax by the end of the cycle.
• But, it is still not clear what would happen if the Conservatives win an election this autumn and are then faced with a commitment to grow spending by faster than the economy for the first year, or two, or three, (depending on the duration of the slowdown) of their time in office.  In that scenario, would they increase taxes – a crazy thing to do in the middle of a slowdown – or allow borrowing to increase – which would allow Gordon Brown to throw their “stability first” platform back at them and make their criticisms of Gordon Brown’s borrowing seem like hot air?  It would be very difficult to say: “We’re raising taxes/borrowing this year, but don’t worry, tax/borrowing will come down in five years’ time”.  Given that borrowing would be starting from a high baseline, it could also mean that much of the proceeds of growth in the later years of the cycle would have to be devoted to reducing the extra borrowing of the first few years of the cycle, leaving little room to reduce taxes. 
• Regardless of whether policy is based upon the economic cycle or not, if the Tories win an election and are faced with a slowdown next year, they will still have to decide what to do in that year – allow borrowing to increase, or raise taxes.  Both are unpalatable choices.  If the Conservatives had not pledged to spend the same as Labour, they would not have to potentially make that choice. 
• The Conservatives used the stability argument to justify their refusal to make upfront commitments to reduce the overall burden of tax, saying that they couldn’t know what the state of the economy would be when they came to power.  By the same logic, they should not have made upfront spending commitments. 

Overall, though, three cheers for George Osborne and David Cameron.  They have come a long way towards meeting the concerns of taxpayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Taser debate heats up...

                            

                             

                                     

                                        A "reasonable force" tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest from the TPA...

CAMPAIGN UPDATE

4 September 2007

New Research

The Case Against Further Green Taxes

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

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

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

The main conclusions of the report are:

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

NEW TPA YOUGOV POLL – Public distrust politicians on the environment

Most believe politicians are not sincere on green taxes

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

Huge number oppose new council recycling charges

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

Fuel Duty and Air Passenger Duty seen as unfair taxes

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

Trebling Air Passenger Duty would not stop people flying

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

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

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

Public split on further green taxes

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

Coverage

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

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

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

- Calls for tax breaks to fight climate change

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

- Green Greed

"But politicians do no favours to the save-the-Earth campaign with "green taxes" that voters reckon are a con to grab more of their hard-earned cash." - Sun

- Green taxes 'are making billions'

"Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, northern manufacturers and the NHS.  Green taxes in the UK are already well in excess of the level they need to be to meet the academic estimates of the social costs of carbon emissions. Every household is paying more than £400 extra in tax every year because green taxes are set too high.  UK taxpayers are already more than doing their bit to pay for the costs of pollution and additional green taxes would be completely unjustified." - BBC News 

Web Update

Recent highlights on the new TPA website

• Campaign: TPA fisk of George Osborne in the Times - why the Conservatives are wrong to pledge to match Labour spending plans...
• Burning Our Money: Weekly Waste Round-Up 72 - £251,000,000 wasted this week...
• Burning Our Money: Politics of Envy Meets Winter of Discontent - unions in denial that the City keeps the whole show on the road...
• Better Government: Corporation Tax Too Complex For HMRC - the taxmen struggle with the complexity they have created...
• Economics 101: One-third of Biggest Businesses Pay No Tax - why cutting corporation tax would raise more revenue, not less...
• Burning Our Money: Another Bonus Farce - the unearned bumper bonus for the head of the wasteful Learning & Skills Council...
• Better Government: Direct Evidence That Science Exams Are Being Made Easier - teaching to the test is a growth industry...
• Burning Our Money: Non-job of the week - this week's job is a "Community Safety Officer" at Hackney council...
• Campaign: Council Tax Protest in Barnet - the TPA hastily organised this magistrates court demo in support of a TPA member...
• Economics 101: Conservatives Plan to Cut £14bn Off Red Tape Burden - TPA's response to John Redwood's proposals...

Office Update

The TPA's Campaign Director, Blair Gibbs is moving on to a new job at the end of September.  Blair said:

"I've had an incredibly enjoyable time at one of the highest-profile and most energetic campaigns in Britain.  We have achieved an enormous amount and are now a permanent presence in the UK political debate. Thank you to everyone who has helped the TPA grow and increase its profile over the last year, and special thanks to all the ordinary TPA supporters I have met and spoken to. It has been a real pleasure working daily for a cause I believe in and I wish the campaign all the best for the future."

Matthew Elliott, the TPA’s Chief Executive, said:

“It’s been a privilege to work with Blair over the past year. Without his help, we wouldn’t have become the most highly-quoted non-partisan group in the UK. The 215 media hits we got in August are a testimony to his hard work in generating media coverage for the campaign. We wish him all the best for his new job.” 

Anyone who is interested in joining the TPA's Campaign Team, in a full-time, salaried role, should contact Matthew at matthew.elliott@taxpayersalliance.com. We are also keen to hear from anyone who would like to join us for any period up to a month between now and Christmas as an intern. Please email Matthew for further details.

TPA fisk of George Osborne in the Times today

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne writes an op-ed in the Times today in which he sets out overall Tory spending plans for the next three years.  Below is a fisk of his article setting out the strengths and weaknesses in his arguments.

"Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies

The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and General Election Campaign Coordinator reveals his party's new spending pledges

By George Osborne

This summer we have seen again just how interconnected our world economy has become, as mortgage defaults in America have sent shock waves through financial markets in London. It is a reminder of just how important economic stability is."

TPA Research comment: It’s more a reminder that Britain is a small open economy that is sensitive to global capital flows. 

TPA Campaign comment: In uncertain times, voters are more inclined to stick with what they’ve got, rather than risk bringing in untested people on the back of election promises.  Gordon Brown already has significant leads over David Cameron on strength and trust in time of crisis.  The difference on “economic competence” is negligible, and certainly within the margins of error.  Nothing suggests this will change.  If the ship of state is going to hit stormy waters, you do best to keep with the Captain you’ve got.  If the ship actually capsizes then all bets are off anyway.

"That is why the Conservative priority is to put stability first and keep interest rates low. But stability by itself is not enough – after all, graveyards are pretty stable places."

TPA Campaign comment: Stability does resonate with people.  But the same reason people like fixed-rate mortgages is the same reason they prefer fixed-governments when times feel less stable and prosperous.

"In this age of intense international competition we also need to be competitive. That means simpler taxes and lower tax rates. It means an education system that gives more of our fellow citizens the skills they need to share in the world’s prosperity."

TPA Research comment: He’s right here.

TPA Campaign comment: Competition is going to become a big issue, as more and more people are affected by outsourcing (a potentially massive crisis for Western economies that has only just emerged as a mainstream political issue in the States). 

"Gordon Brown believes that you can either have good public services or lower taxes, but you cannot have both. As a result, his Government has achieved neither."

TPA Research comment: Not sure how the second sentence logically follows on from the first, but it’s true of course.

"We have the highest tax burden in our peacetime history and yet our cancer survival rates are the lowest in Western Europe and four out of ten 11-year-olds cannot read, write and add up properly."

TPA Research comment: Right again. But the point is that this is an inevitable result of education and health care systems that are centrally run by politicians who lack management experience and subject knowledge, and are in their posts for too short a period. Not to mention the lack of true patient/parent power.  A handicap that only some form of voucher system can correct for and something the Conservatives are not advocating.

"This record of failure shames us all and demands a different approach. Government should share the proceeds of economic growth between the funding our public services need and the competitive lower taxes our economy demands."

TPA Research comment: Sharing the proceeds of growth is not a different approach.  Brown followed it in his first few years as Chancellor by adopting Clarke’s spending plans.

TPA Campaign comment: Politicians are all the same. 

"When David Cameron and I first said this two years ago, Mr Brown trotted out the tired old attack that we would cut services. The irony is that he has now been forced to adopt our approach to spending. For in this year’s Budget he committed the Government to sharing the proceeds of growth over the next three years."

TPA Research comment: Again this is completely untrue.  It’s been clear for years that spending growth would slow to below the trend rate of economic growth from 2008 onwards.  For example, the 2004 Budget projected Total Managed Expenditure to increase by 4.5 per cent in nominal terms (around 2 per cent after inflation) between 2007-08 and 2008-09.  The 2005 Budget (before Osborne became Shadow Chancellor) projected Total Managed Expenditure to increase in nominal terms by 4.5 per cent between 2007-08 and 2008-09 and by 4.8 per cent between 2008-09 and 2009-10.  The 2007 Budget projects Total Managed Expenditure to increase in nominal terms by 4.9 per cent between 2007-08 and 2008-09, by 4.7 per cent between 2008-09 and 2009-10 and by 4.5 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11.  In other words, there has been virtually no change to Brown’s post-2008 spending projections since 2004 – it has been consistently clear that spending growth in real terms would be below the trend rate of economic growth from 2008 onwards.

TPA Campaign comment: There is no evidence that “We told you so…” is (or has ever been) an appealing campaign message. 

"The spending totals for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 show public spending growing by 2 per cent in real terms, significantly below the 2.75 per cent trend growth rate of the economy."

TPA Research comment: It is true that GDP growth is forecast by the Treasury to be between 2.5 and 3 per cent in 2008 and 2009, but Table C3 in Budget 2007 (“Economic assumptions for the public finance projections”) shows that GDP is forecast to increase by 2.5 per cent annually between 2008-09 and 2011-12 for the purposes of forecasting the future state of the public finances. Given that room for reducing taxes will come from improved public finances, it would make more sense to compare Osborne’s spending plans with these public finance assumptions.  Looked at this way, 2 per cent annual growth in spending is not “significantly below” economic growth.

TPA Campaign comment: Try explaining the “significant” difference between 2.75 per cent and 2 per cent on the doorstep of a marginal voter in the West Midlands. 

"As Mr Cameron quickly pointed out to Mr Brown when he replied to the Budget: 'He has spent all year attacking our policy and making ludicrous figures for cuts in public spending, but now he is introducing it.'"

TPA Research comment: See above – Brown is not implementing Cameron’s policy because the decision to slow the growth in public spending to below economic growth was taken a long time before Cameron became Tory leader.

"Today I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative Government will adopt these spending totals. Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £615 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010-11. Like Labour, we will review the final year’s total in a spending review in 2009."

TPA Research comment: The above spending numbers are exactly the same as in Budget 2007, and so are liable to minor revision, as Brown’s spending totals have been, nearer the time.  That said, Osborne has always said that he’s not going to write his first budget before the election.  Budgets have an expenditure side and a revenue side.  By writing the expenditure side today, Osborne has written half of his first budget.

"The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative Government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year. The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."

TPA Campaign comment: "Transparently false" yes, but not necessarily any less convincing (and certainly not any less arguable – see below).  Since when in politics has the objective truth of a given policy always trumped attempts to misrepresent that policy by your opponents? What about failed campaigns? The risk for the Conservatives now becomes that the Labour allegations continue (as they surely will – though resonating less than they did in 2001), the Tories get increasingly frustrated, and get into the habit of noisily “rebutting” the charge by singing from the rooftops about how much they are going to be spending (and how much they enjoy it).  This will probably not convince swing voters (see below), but definitely will rile the Tory grassroots no end and is exactly the kind of thing that will keep their core vote at home on polling day.

"At the same time the share of national income taken by the State will start to fall, as the economy grows faster than the government does. Pursuing this approach over an economic cycle creates the headroom for sustainably lower taxes."

TPA Campaign comment: It might give Brown some room to cut taxes over the next three years…(see below)

"We have come to our position by conviction, believing all along in a policy of sharing the proceeds of growth. Mr Brown has been driven here by necessity, thanks to his own fiscal imprudence. For the rapid increases in public spending over the last decade have – as we consistently cautioned – turned out to be unsustainable."

TPA Campaign comment: Convictions are based on moral absolutes, not triangulation and technocratic platitudes.  Voters will not be inspired by politicians whose convictions amount to “I am a convinced sharing-the-proceeds of growth-er”.  Growth rules are a fiscal practice and response to a specific political and economic context, not an unchanging principle of government.  John Howard in Australia has convictions (he believes in lower taxes - and says so), and he has delivered lower taxes (and more public spending incidentally) by following a growth rule.  But he chose this policy route in government based on his convictions.  Growing public spending at a slower rate than the economy is just what a good Conservative government does in office – it isn’t what an opposition party commits to in order to win an election. And it isn't a conviction.

"Even with successive stealth tax rises, Gordon Brown has still managed to bequeath to his successor the largest budget deficit of any leading European country this year. It is quite something as a Chancellor to make Italy look like a beacon of fiscal prudence."

TPA Campaign comment: Fiscal conservatives have always had a bizarre aversion to government debt, despite the fact that debt as a concept has been normalised in the last decade.  People naturally understand that governments (like families) have to borrow.  Why borrowing to fund spending (as a Conservative Chancellor would do) is ok, but borrowing to invest in supply-side tax reforms that pay for themselves later is not, is completely beyond us.  Reducing government debt only becomes a campaign plus point if you can do a John Howard and eliminate the budget deficit entirely (as Australia achieved in 2006 but not possible in Britain under any scenario this side of 2020).  It makes no material difference to the average voter whether total government borrowing goes up or down.  It matters a lot of difference if a government chooses to raise taxes to reduce the deficit (especially when they promised not to raise taxes at the preceding election, ala Ken Clarke in 1995).

TPA Research comment: What’s really important here is not so much the fact that Brown is running a large deficit at the point in the economic cycle where he should be running a surplus, but all the debt hidden off-balance-sheet.  The single largest debt problem Britain faces is not net debt, which is relatively low at less than 40 per cent of GDP, but unfunded public sector pension liabilities, potentially at close to 100 per cent of GDP.  Two years ago, the Government backed away from a plan to raise the public sector retirement age for existing workers to the state pension age in the face of union strike threats.  If Osborne is serious about economic stability in the future, he should pledge to reform the generous public sector pension arrangements when in office.  Now that would be a fiscally responsible thing to do.

"Faced with this budget deficit, Gordon Brown took two characteristic courses of action. First, he spent the 2005 general election accusing his opponents of lying about the “black hole” in the public finances and then, without blushing, increased taxes after the election on business, oil production and air passengers by £6 billion."

TPA Campaign comment: In other words, we oppose Brown because he is a hypocrite (and beat us in an argument during the last election campaign); not because of what he actually did (would the Conservatives had rather he didn’t increase taxes and went on spending so the deficit got larger?  Yet more muddled criticisms).

TPA Research comment: Yes, he did.  Taxpayers would therefore benefit if those rises were reversed.

"Secondly, he delayed the inevitable slowdown in public expenditure growth by delaying the spending review by a year, until his succession to the premiership was assured."

TPA Research comment: Delaying the spending review is irrelevant since it covers the same years 2008-09 to 2010-11.  And, as mentioned above, previous budgets showed than overall spending growth would slow from 2008 onwards. 

"Adopting these 2 per cent a year spending plans has implications for the manifesto that we will offer the country at the next election. It means we will not be offering unfunded spending commitments. Additional spending in one area will be matched by a spending reduction in another."

TPA Campaign comment: Does it work the other way round?  If wasteful spending that can’t be justified on any basis is uncovered and has to be rooted out, do the Conservatives pledge only to do so if they can find a way of increasing spending by the same amount somewhere else?

TPA Research comment: If tax revenues come in less than forecast, then, by giving overall spending numbers, unfunded spending commitments is precisely what Osborne has done!  It’s pretty meaningless to say that additional spending in one area will be matched by spending reductions elsewhere – overall spending will simply be equal to the numbers Osborne has set out.

"There will also be no election promises of up-front, unfunded tax cuts. Any reduction we offer in one tax will have to be matched by a tax rise elsewhere. I made this clear more than a year ago, and said that we would focus on the crucial job of simplifying our taxes and on shifting the burden away from taxes on income and savings and towards taxes on pollution."

TPA Research comment: If spending grows by 2 per cent and the economy (for the purposes of the public finance projections) grows at 2.5 per cent, then 0.5 per cent of public spending (around £2.75 billion) would be available for cuts in the overall tax burden.  Over three years, that’s around £10 billion for tax reductions.  Or it’s £10 billion to reduce the deficit, almost enough to halve it from the current baseline.  So, clearly, it would be entirely possible to offer tax reductions at the next election without increasing borrowing relative to the current baseline.  It’s nonsense to say that these tax reductions would be “unfunded”.  By committing not to commit to reduced taxes at the next election, Osborne is committing to share the proceeds of growth between higher public spending and lower borrowing, not between higher public spending and lower taxes.

"The public are rightly cynical of promises to cut taxes produced like rabbits out of a hat at election time. Gordon Brown’s preelection budgets have made them wise to that trick."

TPA Campaign comment: Unfortunately, the TaxPayers’ Alliance's new YouGov poll suggests that voters are also rightly cynical of politicians’ motives on green taxes as well, with 63 per cent agreeing that “politicians are not sincere about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes”.  This is true now, so applies whether tax cuts (or green tax increases to pay for other tax cuts) are laid out in advance or rushed out shortly before an election.  Michael Howard (and others) said that low-taxes were not a “Silver Bullet” for the Conservative Party.  As we have said before, this is obviously right.  However, there aren’t any “Silver Bullets” in politics at all.  That does not mean that lower taxes cannot be sold.  Over the long-term (no hats and no rabbits) you just have to decide whether you want to make the case or not.  Ultimately, this will depend on whether the Conservative Party still genuinely believes that lower taxes are a prerequisite for a healthy economy and society, and consequently, whether it is worth spending serious amounts of time and money on making the case. 

"What people want to know is whether you have a long-term sustainable plan to reduce the tax burden on families and on businesses – so that taxes cut one year are not then followed by tax increases a year later."

TPA Research comment: Given his spending plans, Brown could cut taxes overall by around £2.75 billion a year from next year onwards.  Brown could therefore also manage sustainable tax reductions. 

"That is exactly what the Conservatives now have in place. First, it will be done by sharing the proceeds of growth over a cycle so that the economy grows faster than the government. A 2 per cent growth in spending is consistent with that approach; indeed, it is less than the growth in the first Thatcher Government."

TPA Research comment: Perhaps a second and third term Tory government, as in the 1980s, will seriously bring taxes and spending down as a share of GDP but, as yet, taxpayers have little reason to be convinced.

"Secondly, it will be achieved by doing the serious policy work that ensures we get much more for the money we do spend – so that the ever-growing demands on government do not lead to an ever-growing tax bill."

TPA Research comment: “Ever-growing demands on government” sounds like an excuse to increase spending.  What are these ever-growing demands exactly?

"That is what our policy review is doing, as the innovative ideas in this week’s report on education show. At the centre of this approach is moving away from Labour’s top-down, statist methods that have seen hospital wards closing even as NHS spending doubles, and instead trusting people and communities to decide how their tax money is spent.

The objective is a government that is less intrusive, promotes social responsibility and so gives its citizens greater control of their lives. The result is a stronger society and a competitive, low-tax economy. That will never come from this particular Labour Prime Minister."

TPA Campaign comment: More mixed messages.  Ultimately, this remains the fundamental handicap of the Opposition's fiscal policy.  The fact that senior Conservatives – despite numerous attempts and lots of media goodwill in the early days – still cannot explain in a single sentence what their tax policy amounts to in language ordinary voters understand is a serious problem.  Even a 1,000-word article in The Times is not good enough (just think of the chances for a 300-word Sun article).  Of course, fiscal policy is complicated, but you can make these things more difficult for yourself at the same time as making your argument less attractive. 

Voters will most likely do two things in response to the current policy: 1. Conclude “You’re all the same” and vote on other issues as they were perhaps going to anyway, or as is more likely, abstain entirely as increasing numbers already do, convinced that if they really want lower taxes there is no-one they physically can vote for. 2. Conclude, “The Tories are trying to con us … and/or I don’t understand what sharing the proceeds of growth means, I smell a rat”.  Large numbers of these swing voters will then revert to their former default instincts ("Tories want tax cuts more than they want higher spending") and vote Labour or someone else accordingly, in broadly similar proportions as they did in 2005.

Unfortunately, despite the arrival of Brown in No.10, the essential Conservative Party motive has not changed.  Tories are desperate, absolutely desperate, to take tax and spend out of play at the next election, and this is their attempt to do just that.  They think that they can win an election without talking about spending almost as much as they believe they cannot win an election by talking about immigration.  This is not just wrong in itself, it is also music to the ears of Gordon Brown.  All he has to do between now and the election (the date of which will be chosen by him, not George Osborne), is to cut a tax or two and the election is in the bag.  The sort of small, affordable and tokenistic tax cut – like doubling the inheritance tax threshold (would need about £2.75bn...) – that could be pulled out of the hat a month before the election.  Just enough to delight the Daily Mail readers in the Labour marginals in the South and send the Tories into a complete panic. 

Would such a move then be condemned by George Osborne as causing damaging economic instability, or would they pledge to “match Gordon Brown’s tax-cutting proposals”?  The latter would just be formal recognition that the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition has been out-sourced to the office of Ed Balls MP.

"The fight for the lasting change that achieves this vision has only just begun."

TPA Campaign Comment: By committing the Conservative Party to Labour’s spending plans, the fight is over before it has even begun.

Attacking Inheritance Tax on Friction TV

Via Friction TV

It’s all about crime

There is usually an increase in coverage of crime and criminal justice matters during the Parliamentary recess when political news dries up in August and non-home affairs reporters take their holidays, and this year has been no different.  But even keen crime-watchers might have got a sense that there seems to be noticeably more “shock” cases around at the moment (unprovoked stabbings, people murdered on their own driveway in Kent at 8.20am, teenagers being shot in their own beds, etc.).  And with this in mind, it is no surprise that the popular assumption is that crime is too high, and violent crime in particular is getting worse.

This has been confirmed by a large opinion poll, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and undertaken every five years.  The really important question asked respondents, without prompting, to name what issues they thought the Government should be dealing with.  The results, including responses from three earlier surveys starting in 1993 are as follows:

                  

At first glance, these results may not look that interesting.  As the DEFRA press release itself states, the top four issues (Crime, Health, Education, Environment) are the same as five years ago.  However, looking in more detail, there are a number of conclusions to draw from this poll. 

The first and most obvious is that crime is the most important issue in Britain today - period.  Not only is it mentioned by one in every two people as the biggest issue the Government should be dealing with, but it has massively increased over the last decade – up almost 20 points since 2001 (to 49 per cent), and more than doubling since 1996-97.  What is striking about this result is that its in direct opposition to the trend in crime rates as recorded by the British Crime Survey (the Government’s preferred measure). 

This divergence is now too great to be dismissed and most would suggest it is the authorities – not the public – who are underestimating this problem.  It is now simply academic (and the smug attitude of too many academics) to try and argue that public “fear of crime” does not relate to actual rates of crime in our society. The police and the Home Office clearly have a big problem when it comes to measuring crime accurately and public faith in the annual crime statistics has sunk very low.  People overwhelmingly think we have a serious crime problem in Britain today and that is all that matters.

Just on the politics of this reality, three thoughts come to mind.  Firstly, those politicians who think this issue is not relevant (because the crime figures are robust and the public have an irrational fear that cannot be assuaged) need to question their faith in the figures.  They should also ask themselves whether their personal experience of crime as a politician is truly representative – in the vast majority of cases, their lifestyle, where they live and their high income will suggest it isn’t.

Secondly, those politicians who think crime is an important issue but support the dated progressive policies espoused by the prison reform lobby and liberal criminologists that emphasis societal explanations and favour “long-term solutions” and “better education” need to ask themselves whether at this rate, as members of our already mistrusted political class, they have the luxury of time? If they want to tackle high crime by spending more money on education and welfare while cutting back on prison places and expanding community sentences, just how many more years of the highest crime rate in Europe do they think the taxpaying British public are willing to tolerate?  If this issue doesn’t deserve effective responses in the present to contain the problem with conventional (and proven) deterrent-based criminal justice responses, most effectively through tougher sentencing, then we can all expect the situation to get worse, and the next poll in 2012 to show an even bigger increase. And this is on the very generous assumption that all other things – especially the health of the economy – will be equal.

Thirdly, certain Conservative politicians and commentators who think “crime” is akin to tax and the EU – a core vote issue that turns people off – couldn’t be more wrong.  Treating it like a fringe issue by not mentioning it, or worse, allowing it to be over-intellectualised and therefore made to look like an interesting social problem for London dinner parties, rather than a daily nightmare for millions of people, will meet with a predictable response.  The figures in this poll should tell Conservatives all they need to know about why David Cameron’s “hug a hoodie” speech (as it was widely reported in the press – even if he didn’t use those actual words) was such a disaster.  When crime is so high in people’s list of priorities, these things cut through and people don’t forget them easily.

Other insights from this poll highlighted some other fascinating shifts in public opinion – and not in the direction you’d necessarily expect.

1. Despite local protests over NHS reorganisation and the closure of some district hospitals, this remains an issue of local controversy not a national political handicap.  After almost 15 years, for the first time the general view in the country has finally shown a fall in those saying that “health / social services” should be the Government’s top priority.  There has been a similar (though less marked) decline since 2001 in education. 

2. Those saying tax should be a top priority has increased every year since 1993, in line with the rising tax burden, and has tripled since 1993.  Unemployment has predictably fallen very significantly since 1993, and is no longer in the top five. In 1993, 46 per cent of people mentioned unemployment but only 9 per cent did so in 2007. This could be partly the result of unemployment becoming less visible.

3. Immigration has exploded as a political priority in the minds of voters.  Not statistically significant in 1993, 1996 or even 2001 (despite notable rows at the general election around breaches of asylum rules), it has now registered as one of the top six issues and is mentioned as a subject the Government should be dealing with by one in every five people.  This has occurred at the same time as mass immigration has accelerated, and particularly following EU enlargement.

4. Despite the current political obsession with climate change and the environment, and saturation coverage of green issues in the media at a level never seen before, the proportions of people mentioning the environment has actually fallen from 25 per cent since 2001.  This would seem to suggest that when compared alongside the “bread-and-butter” issues of health, education and crime, the limits of public concern about the environment is roughly no more than one quarter in these types of poll, and has already peaked.   The rest of the DEFRA poll is largely focused on the environment, with the survey showing that public attitudes to green issues right across the board are far from the metropolitan BBC mainstream.  The Guardian was one of the only papers to report the poll incidentally, and has a fairly accurate write-up of the main environmental questions.

5. On other results, pensions remain an important issue (though down from 2001), and housing has risen in people’s sense of priorities.  The European Union has declined at every poll since 1996, despite the country as a whole becoming progressively more eurosceptic. Europe is now a minority concern.   

Hypocrisy at the BBC

                     

  BBC News Magazine, June 2007 - what they really think...

There is an internal spat going on at our beloved British Broadcasting Corporation over advertising.  A smug bunch of deputy-assistant tv producers, sound engineers, production assistants and the odd artistic director have teamed up to start a “No Ads Campaign” in opposition to moves by the BBC Board to allow their international services to run adverts for the first time.

We can safely ignore the arguments of the anti-capitalist campaigners whose own ideological hang-ups and vested interest mean they would never countenance any funding for the Corporation other than the compulsory licence fee.  But the most interesting angle comes from the management themselves. 

In the June edition of the BBC’s in-house magazine (very glossy and judging by the piles on display, of barely any interest to the staff), Sian Kevill, BBC World’s Editorial Director, has a full page to answer the campaigners and put forward the view that publishing ads would be a good thing.  What follows, is an attempt to assuage the concerns of the campaigners (“There will be commercial pressures on editorial content” / “Why change the current system when it works so well” / “A commercially funded model will erode the BBC brand” etc.).  However, in doing so, Ms Kevill essentially makes all the necessary arguments for allowing advertising within domestic BBC services and therefore, by implication, argues against the licence fee.

The debate surrounds whether certain international BBC services – especially BBC.com and BBC World television – which are watched by a non-UK audience who do not pay a licence fee should be allowed to run adverts to generate revenue for investment.  There are currently proposals to go this way and the management are attempting to head off accusations of “thin-end-of-the-wedge”.  But Ms Kevill makes a number of striking statements that highlight the hypocrisy of the BBC's attitude to its funding and audience:

1. Advertising won’t influence content

“BBC Worldwide will have no editorial input into bbc.co.uk so in essence, BBC.com is public service journalism, distributed in a commercial way.”

If this is achievable for BBC.com, a simple editorial division would prevent commercial pressures influencing UK content in a setup that was funded by advertising – like all other national news agencies – and not the BBC licence fee, which has all the essential characteristics of a poll tax.

2. The BBC already takes ads, so a few more won’t hurt

“In the UK, BBC Worldwide is the third largest magazine publisher, has a 50% stake in the 10 UKTV channels [on Sky and Freeview] and has a global entertainment channel on YouTube; all these services carry ads.  Internationally, through BBC World, ads are already sold around BBC news content on the TV channel, the recently-launched news channel on YouTube, through Yahoo, Real Networks and ABCNewsNow in the US and the soon-to-be launched news AV player.”

In other words, we have already conceded the principle (if it ever was that), so this is no great departure and nothing to be worried about.  A more diversified BBC family - as the new media and the internet make inevitable - means that new innovation will always go alongside advertising, and in addition, becomes dependent on it as advertising becomes more lucrative and big companies see these new channels as a more bespoke means of reaching their target audience.  The BBC shouldn't be left behind, so long as we don't see it as a alternative future for funding the BBC in the UK (even if this new media is viewable in Britain already)

3. Our services that carry ads are vital

“All these services are vital if the BBC is to reach new audiences, while generating revenues which can be invested in BBC content.”

In other words, international BBC services have been competing with other broadcasters and news agencies in developing markets by running adverts already.  This is crucial to keeping the BBC at the forefront and ensures that new audiences can be reached.  The adverts also provide extra investment to invest back into quality programming that would suffer if we just had to rely on a gradually eroding share of a central subsidy.  So far from turning people off, the BBC management now admit that it helps attract new audiences.  If that applies in Africa, then it should apply in the UK as well.

4. No evidence from our expensive opinion research that adverts turn people off

“Internationally, the BBC undertook detailed quantitative research among more than 4,000 international, current users of the news pages….  This research has shown there are significant revenues to be gained with little or no impact on the brand in the countries we are targeting.  The majority of respondents were neutral of would not change their behaviour in response to the introduction of advertising.”

And just to reiterate the point, Ms Kevill describes the lengths they have gone to consult the world’s viewing masses about what they think about adverts on the BBC.  God knows how much that cost.  Perhaps they could repeat the exercise in the UK, unless they thought they wouldn’t get a supportive response (“I love the opportunity to pop out during a period drama to make a cupper and if it saves me £120 a year then hell yes – give me adverts!”).  If this is an argument in favour of adverts that doesn’t apply in Britain, it must only be because the BBC management think that the brand is so universally respected that any advertising would erode it in the eyes of the British public and so couldn’t be allowed (unlike premeditated attempts to misrepresent our Head of State in a documentary and dodgy habits of conning 8-year-olds on Blue Peter phone-ins…).  The BBC is no longer the revered institution it once was – here or overseas - and their own polling shows that people don’t care if they run adverts, so drop the pretence that this doesn’t apply in the UK.

5. We can’t ask BBC licence fee payers to fund services they don’t receive

“[U]sing UK licence fee payers’ money to fund international traffic is not acceptable.”

We couldn’t agree more.  For the same reasons using a poll tax to collect a guaranteed source of revenue from every television viewer whether they watch the BBC or not is just as unfair and it shouldn’t matter where they live.  If I don’t choose to watch the BBC, it is not acceptable that I am forced to pay for it – whether I’m watching tv in Cairo or Corby.  The licence fee is essentially a subsidy from people who don’t watch the BBC in Britain, to people who do watch it (in Britain or elsewhere).  Bring on the advertising (and subscriptions), and then we can all only pay for the services we use (as millions do already on top of the licence fee by paying for Sky or cable).  Presumably, the anti-ad campaigners in the BBC would prefer an international BBC licence fee, levied on all tv viewers in the whole world, so no advertising would ever be necessary (because all advertising is evil - according to the sociology textbook they read in 1977).  Or perhaps this would be too much of a burden on the poor in the Third World and so they'd like universal penetration with the BBC in every Chinese apartment, African shanty town and Brazilian slum, so long as the licence fee increased every year in the UK to pay for it.  £250 a year anyone?

6. We can run ads on our international services because UK taxpayers won’t see them

“BBC.com will use robust Geo-IP technology to show advertising to selected international traffic.  The technology has been externally audited and has a 99.96% accuracy rate.  In addition, for the remaining 0.04%, with ambiguous IP addresses, there would be systems in place to alert BBC Worldwide in order to rectify this situation.”

That’s right.  Us poor licence fee-paying trolls on our small island cannot be subjected to advertising on the BBC under any circumstances, and the management can give firm assurances that expensive technology and safeguards will be in place to guarantee this disgrace will never occur, or if it does, we will have devices (alarm bells, sirens?) to “alert” us. 

All this means that the BBC management is pursuing – under force of financial necessity and market reality – a commercial funding model for the BBC, but only outside of this country, while actively seeking support for this by guaranteeing to its own staff and other vested interests that no such benefits will be applied to the millions of UK licence fee payers, less that raise questions over the funding settlement guaranteed by their annual £3 billion subsidy.  And furthermore, we will invest in cutting-edge internet safeguards to keep it this way - a BBC v-chip by any other name. 

So there we have it.  We have to remain stuck in a country with a 1950s-sytle national broadcaster and a collectivist funding model because without it the whole cosy monopoly of the BBC would be exposed, but if you’re watching the BBC news from a hotel room in Cape Town, then the BBC treats you as a intelligent consumer who can handle a few adverts for Lynx aftershave.  Adverts abroad are not just an inevitable development – they are a good thing that the BBC should embrace.  Adverts on BBC content in Britain – now that would be a shameful catastrophe.

In one sense of course, they are right.  It would be a catastrophe – for them.  Adverts on the BBC would fatally undermine the case of the licence fee and the privileged position that the BBC holds.  If you were Ms Kevill or any of the other BBC directors on six-figure salaries, what would you say?  Faced with an internal rebellion of hard-core BBC campaigners it is no surprise that the BBC has once again fudged the issue.  Arguing for its own interest and shamelessly applying one rule for British taxpayers who fund them, and another for everyone else.  If this is what they really believe, perhaps they should all come clean and make this argument in public, rather than burying it on p.23 of an internal staff magazine.  That would at least treat us - the British taxpayers - as the valued audience they keep saying we are.

We're all going to get sent to Climate Camp...

...if we don't sign up to big new taxes on hard-up manufacturing industry and good old family holidays.

I saw this flyer at the Prince Charles cinema off London's Leicester Square; at first I thought it was a macabre joke:

Looking at the reverse it appears it is a protest against Heathrow expansion:

All these moralistic attacks on flying can't be justified even under the analysis of a 'green' like Stern.  As Fraser Nelson noted on the Spectator's CoffeeHouse blog yesterday:

"If anyone is thinking of cancelling a trip to a developing country where livelihoods depend on tourism, can I put into perspective the impact of air travel with some other polluters identified on page 199 of the Stern Review.

World Greenhouse Gas Emissions (from World Resources Institute)

Road transport 9.9%.
Agriculture soils 6.0%
Livestock (ie, bovine flatulence or farting and burping cows) & manure 5.1%
Cement 3.8%
Rail and ship and “other” transport 2.3%
Landfills 2.0%
Air transport 1.6%
Rice cultivation 1.5%
Food & tobacco 1.0%"

The causes of political disengagement