The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Daily Star: Taxes up 51%

BRITAIN'S tax bill under Labour has gone up more than 50% in the past 10 years.

A report by the Taxpayers' Alliance said it now stood at £517billion a year compared with £223bn in 1997-98 when Labour came to power . . . a 51% increase after inflation is taken into account.

Much of the rise was accounted for by little-noticed "stealth taxes" like Stamp Duty, which brings in £14.3bn.

Report author Mike Denham said the Government had used "every trick in the book" to drive up tax.

Liverpool Daily Post: Taxation burden 'rising all the time'

BRITAIN'S tax bill has increased by more than 50% in the past ten years under Labour, it was claimed today.

A report by the Tax- Payers' Alliance said the total tax burden now stood at £517m a year - the equivalent of £20,700 per household.

That compared with a tax take of £223bn in 1997-98 when Labour came to power, representing a 76% increase in cash terms over the decade, or 51% if inflation is taken into account.

The TPA said much of the increase was accounted for by littlenoticed "stealth taxes" or by "fiscal drag" - failing to raise tax thresholds in line with earnings - which the TPA now estimates accounts for £14bn of the annual tax take.

The fastest growing tax was said to be stamp duty, which now brings in £14.3bn compared to a take of £3.5bn tens years ago - an increase of more than 300%.

Hartlepool Mail: Millions spent on NHS compensation

By Mark Payne
HOSPITAL bosses have come under fire after NHS figures revealed millions of pounds are spent on compensation cases.

The North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, which runs the town's University Hospital, paid out more than £7.8 million in claims between 2006 and 2007 – the second highest for the whole of the North East and North Yorkshire.

In total, £7,873,814 was paid as a result of claims brought against the trust, including £978,479 in legal fees.

The biggest pay-out was by County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, with a £9,388,118 total including £1.4 million in legal fees.

The NHS says compensation costs have risen over the last few years due to above inflation increases in legal fees and the knock-on effects of court judgements.

Martin Callanan, Conservative Euro MP for the North East, called for an urgent overhaul of the compensation system.

He said: "I am very disappointed that so much cash is being wasted paying exorbitant legal fees."

Pressure group The Taxpayers' Alliance said hospital managers should make sure mistakes do not happen in the first place.

Mark Wallace, campaign director for the TPA, said: "So many NHS budgets are being increasingly used up in compensation claims.

"The NHS has got to be alive to the fact we live in an age of compensation.

"If trusts were doing their jobs properly and not making mistakes there wouldn't be any money to pay out at all."

Almost £36 million in NHS payments was made as a result of cases brought against hospitals across the North between 2006 and 2007, according to the figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

It includes claims for medical negligence and a range of compensation cases which are handled by the NHS Litigation Authority body. Carole Pearson, acting director of clinical governance at North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, said: "The NHS Litigation Authority acts as a type of insurance company for the NHS.

"We pay premiums according to how much we have done to minimise risk in the same way people do when they insure their house or car.

"We have achieved level two in the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts in maternity care and level two in the general risk management standards which cover all other aspects of hospital care which demonstrates we have good systems in place to minimise risk to patients.

"This means the money paid out in legal fees and compensation is covered in our premium and are not a separate cost to the trust. The important thing is that people receive compensation when something has gone wrong."

A Department of Health spokesperson added: "It is right that NHS patients who are injured, as a result of clinical negligence, should be able to obtain correct and full compensation.

"There are a number of reasons costs may have increased over the past few years, such as the cost of legal fees rising significantly above average inflation, and the effects of judgements that set legal precedents on how particulars of settlements, such as the calculation of damages and future care, should be assessed.

"Our aim is to ensure NHS money goes on benefitting patients with less spent on legal costs. The NHS Redress Act means fairness for patients, not fees for lawyers."

Daily Express: Right-wing thinking is going to rescue our living standards

Patrick O'Flynn Chief political commentator

THERE are two years until the next general election is likely to be held, but I've some news for Labour, Tory and Lib Dem supporters alike: the result is already a foregone conclusion.

I do not mean I know for certain who will be occupying 10 Downing Street afterwards.

But what is surely beyond doubt is that Right-wing ideas will be in the ascendant in British politics for the next 10 years or more.

The next decade is going to be all about a quest by the State to provide better value for money and enhanced consumer choice in public services.

And, though no leading politician will yet say so, it is also going to be about delivering tax cuts. I can be sure of this because it is what the voters will demand. Powerful economic trends dictate it and any politician who does not respond to them is sunk.

Major changes in the terms of trade of British politics occur very seldom. Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979 was obviously one, the coming to power of New Labour in 1997 another. Thatcher was elected to save the British economy from the debilitating impact of excessive trade union power, New Labour to ensure that the private affluence engineered by the Tories was not accompanied by public squalor.

Labour's extra public spending ticked all the boxes for voters because they could afford it. The Asian manufacturing miracle meant Britain was awash with cheap goods.

Global commodity prices stayed low. British wages could go up without igniting inflation.

Disposable incomes and house prices rose strongly every year.

WHEN Right-wingers pointed to the rising tax burden, people failed to become alarmed because they felt no financial pain. Instead, Labour politicians won elections by running scare stories about the terrible things that would happen to public services if the Tories came in with their "cuts".

None of this is true any more.

That Asian economic miracle has changed China and India.

Their populations now have the buying power to demand all the trappings of a consumer lifestyle. As a result commodity prices are running out of control. Oil, gas, foodstuffs and mineral prices are high and going higher. And mortgage rates have gone up as well. The impact on the cost of living in Britain has been devastating.

Everybody is feeling the pinch.

As Bank of England Governor Mervyn King puts it: "The higher level of energy and food prices is a genuine reduction in our standard of living."

Most of us have managed to make savings. But with gas, electricity, petrol and food bills carrying on upwards, soon there will be no more fat to be trimmed. Progressive impoverishment beckons. A study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research shows this is already happening, with disposable incomes falling by 3.2 per cent in 2007.

We can do almost nothing to counter the global commodities price boom. Fortunately, there is one area of domestic spending ripe for radical pruning: the £600billion public sector.

A new survey by the TaxPayers' Alliance shows that families are now paying an average £20,700 a year to support the activities of the State . . .

a 51 per cent real terms rise over the past 11 years. Voters are now painfully aware that most of this extra spending of £8,500 per year per household has been wasted.

GROUPS of workers, including doctors and teachers, have been paid much more to do much less.

Armies of pen-pushers have been recruited by local authorities. Private sector pension funds have been plundered by the taxman but excruciatingly expensive public sector schemes have been left intact.

Last week Terence Grange, the 58-year-old former chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, was reported to be on an annual pension of £80,000. If he lives another 20 years that's a bill of £1.6million for just one retired public servant.

In almost every major public service, from health to education and the police, provision remains organised around the wishes of the workforce rather than the needs of consumers.

Days lost to strikes are massively higher than in the private sector, as are absentee rates.

Projects such as the Olympics spend money like water.

The output of the public sector is, in addition, recklessly shared out among layabouts and freeloading foreigners rather than being limited to the taxpayers who fund it.

A sector that accounts for 40 per cent of everybody's income is crying out to be reformed. As far as enhancing British living standards goes, this task will be the biggest show in town for many years ahead.

Gordon Brown's Labour Party is sinking in the polls because it fails to recognise this. Bankrolled by the public sector unions, it has become the protector of a vested interest rather than a vehicle for pursuing the national interest.

Every week in Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Brown still boasts about how much more of our money he is spending. Last week he bragged: "We have allocated over the next three years £1.7billion for infrastructure in growth areas and new growth points, " as if that settled an argument about town planning.

The new breed of successful British politician will understand that the era of regarding aggregate public spending as a virility test is at an end.

It will not be easy. There are unions to be faced down and strikes to be broken, but the future belongs to whoever can deliver a cut-price public sector and put money back in the pockets of the British people.

Wales on Sunday: POLICE COLLECT PAY AS THEY SIT AT HOME

By JAMES McCARTHY

SUSPENDED police are taking home hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Welsh taxpayer.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal 20 bobbies across Wales are off on full pay-so-called "gardening leave".

As of January 1 this year, one South Wales police officer had been off for three years while another at Gwent police was away from work for 2 1/2 years. In North Wales one was off for almost six months.

Since earnings for police average £30,000 the total cost in Wales could be as much as £600,000.

The suspended officers include 14 constables, one detective constable, three sergeants, a temporary inspector and a chief inspector.

Twelve serve with South Wales Police, four with Gwent Police, two with the North Wales force and two in Dyfed-Powys.

Howard Casey, Police Federation deputy secretary and disciplinary liaison officer at South Wales Police, said the reason South Wales Police had the largest number off is because it is the biggest force in Wales.

He said: "While we have the largest number(off)we are probably two or three times the size of some of the smaller forces.

"While plenty of officers are suspended from duty the longer they are away from the workplace the more difficult it is to come back."

He said the figures were not helped by the fact that it took so long for disciplinary cases to be dealt with, "There seem to be inordinate delays in these issues coming to a head, whether that means no further action is taken or a misconduct hearing," he said.

"I have tried to address these matters but the machinations of headquarters move very slowly.

"I would like to think that someone can be found a role away from the public(rather than be suspended) but still provide a service and assist in the smooth efficiency of the force."

Taxpayers Alliance chief Matthew Elliot said: "With rising crime we need every policeman we can get. Suspending them left, right and centre must stop."

South Wales Police Chief Superintendent, Bob McAlister, said the numbers suspended from the force were far lower than in the past.

"We have a total of 10 officers and staff currently suspended," he said. "This is the lowest number for some time. Every suspension is considered thoroughly for its necessity.

"We have new national disciplinary procedures coming in from November 1 which will allow us to deal with matters even more speedily and often at a local level."

Across the UK 262 police were suspended as of January 1. One in Northern Ireland had been off for more than seven years.

Ipswich Evening Star: The £220,000 watershed in British politics

What do Suffolk's chief executive and the Prime Minister have in common? Certainly it is not their salary, as Andrea Hill's £220,000 package dwarfs the £187,000 of the PM. Today I reveal why voters are becoming increasing divorced from their political leaders, both here in Suffolk and in Whitehall.

WHEN new Suffolk chief executive Andrea Hill went on her “charm offensive” with the region's media at the end of last week, it was clear this was not an experience she enjoyed.

I had not expected her to welcome The Evening Star with opened arms - more than anyone else we have reflected the anger felt in the county about her £220,000 (sorry, £218,000) salary.

But having talked to other journalists who interviewed her - and seeing her television interviews as well - it was clear that she treated all the media in the same way.

In her media interviews, Mrs Hill provided a perfect example of “stonewalling” questions. She had prepared the answers she was going to give - and when follow-up questions were asked she merely repeated her original answers.

Her insistence that she is worth the salary and she could earn three times as much in the private sector does not stand up to examination - neither does her claim that £218,000 is the “going rate” for county council chiefs.

New Norfolk chief executive David White, appointed last year, gets about £200,000 - but Norfolk is a much larger county than Suffolk.

Cambridgeshire's chief gets £195,000 and in Essex the top official gets £176,000 according to figures obtained by the Taxpayers' Alliance.

Further afield the chiefs of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire county councils get £153,000 and £155,000 respectively - much more in line with former chief Mike More's final salary which was in the region of £150,000.

The county council is keen to point out it is the biggest employer in the county with a budget approaching £1bn - but it is not a business so it is wrong for managers to compare their salaries with those in the private sector.

The county council is immune from competition. If a householder doesn't like the way it provides services or the rate of council tax, they cannot refuse to pay.

You can't decide you like the look of the way Essex or Norfolk County Council operates and opt to buy in council services from them instead of Suffolk!

But what came across was a total disengagement with the anger her salary has provoked, especially in Ipswich where it was the major issue in the local elections and was blamed for losing the Tories a number of seats.

“I could earn more in the private sector,” might be a truthful answer - but it doesn't go down well with pensioners worried about whether their day centre will close!

Of course the question of Mrs Hill's salary isn't really a matter for her to answer for. It is for the administration who agreed to pay her £218,000 a year.

Many people would like their job to pay 45 per cent more than it did last year, but only a few have employers who will agree to that demand.

But the only response we have had from leader Jeremy Pembroke is: “We wanted the best person and had to pay for the best.” Again that shows total disengagement from the ordinary people in the county.

The people of Ipswich gave him their answer - but will the administration at Endeavour House listen to the people of Ipswich? Don't bet on it!

They certain didn't listen to concerns about where she was planning to live.

Mrs Hill lives in south Cambridgeshire, and says that while she would love to move to Suffolk she is not able to make any commitment to such a move because of her family.

Are Suffolk schools not good enough for her family? How much commitment can she make to the county if she travels 50 miles to get out of it every night?

A final point on the administration's handling of the salary issue: When Mrs Hill was appointed senior figures were quick to say that her salary was “in the range between £170,000 and £220,000,” hinting that it was much less than the top figure.

Few people believed it was much less than the top scale - and Mrs Hill finally confirmed that it was £218,000, less than one per cent less than the maximum.

For the administration to suggest it was much below the maximum level was, at best, extremely disingenuous.

THERE is a similar disengagement, on a national scale, from the politicians running the government - from Gordon Brown downwards.

Last week the Labour Party were decimated in local elections across the country (except in Ipswich) yet at the weekend the Prime Minister had little to offer hard-pressed voters.

Mr Brown told Andrew Marr: “I understand people's pain,” but in truth he is cocooned from the real hurt faced by families across the country.

The Labour Party is in trouble because those in government find themselves separated from “real people” by civil servants and advisors.

After 11 years in power, ministers are detached from the concerns of real people - that is one of the reasons governments naturally have a “sell-by” date after three terms.

The Conservatives bucked this trend in 1992 partly because people were so relieved to have a new Prime Minister that it felt like a new government, and partly because they had not quite forgiven the Labour Party for its years of turmoil in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Put bluntly, when the chips were down they preferred the devil they knew - Major, Heseltine, and Clarke - to the devil they didn't: Kinnock, Smith and Brown.

How the voters will feel in 2010 (and the next general election isn't likely to be until then) remains to be seen.

I WAS just three votes out of getting a nap hand at last week's borough council elections in Ipswich.

I said that on a good night for Labour (which it was in Ipswich thanks to you-know-who), the party could gain up to four seats - Bridge, St John's, Rushmere, and Whitehouse.

I was told several times that I was well wide of the mark, especially about Rushmere and Whitehouse.

In the event three of the four did go to Labour, who missed out on St John's by only three votes.

But what was interesting was that there was no real pattern to the voting - looking at last year's results you would not have expected Labour to win Rushmere if they missed out on St John's.

And the Tories saw their majority soar in Stoke Park which is now one of their safest seats.

In fact the Conservatives did out-poll Labour across the borough - even though they won fewer seats on the night.

A curious result overall!

Yorkshire Post: Tax burden 'up by 50pc in 10 years'

Britain's tax bill has increased by more than 50 per cent in the past ten years under Labour, it was claimed today.

A report by the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group said that the total tax burden now stood at £517bn a year - the equivalent of £20,700 per household.

That compared with a tax take of £223bn in 1997-98 when Labour came to power, representing a 76 per cent increase in cash terms over the decade or 51 per cent if inflation is taken into account.

The TPA said much of the increase was accounted for by little-noticed "stealth taxes" or failing to raise tax thresholds in line with earnings - which the TPA now estimates accounts for £14bn of the annual tax take.

The fastest growing tax was said to be stamp duty, which brings in £14.3bn compared with a take of £3.5bn 10 years ago.

At the same time, the TPA said that fees and charges by local authorities and other public bodies had been "ratcheted up".

It said that school dinners charges had risen 50 per cent over the decade to £1b a year, parking charges and fines had risen to over £1bn, while charges for hospital car parks now raise £100m in England alone.

Daily Post (North Wales): Tax burden rises 50%

BRITAIN'S tax bill has increased by more than 50% in the past ten years under Labour, it was claimed today.

A report by the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group said the total tax burden now stood at £517m a year - the equivalent of £20,700 per household.

That compared with a tax take of £223bn in 1997-98, a 76% increase or 51% if inflation is taken into account.

The TPA said much of the increase was accounted for by little-noticed "stealth taxes" or "fiscal drag" - failing to raise tax thresholds in line with earnings.

The fastest growing tax was stamp duty which now brings in £14.3bn compared to a take of £3.5bn tens years ago - an increase of more than 300%.

Huddersfield Examiner: Tax burden 'up by 50%

BRITAIN'S tax bill has increased by more than 50% in the past ten years under Labour, it was claimed today.

A report by the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group said that the total tax burden now stood at £517 billion a year - the equivalent of £20,700 per household.

That compared with a tax take of £223 billion in 1997-98 when Labour came to power, representing a 76% increase in cash terms or 51% if inflation is taken into account.

24dash: Council criticised by watchdog over chief executive's £220,000 salary

A council paying its chief executive £220,000 a year was today criticised by a watchdog.

The Audit Commission said there were "deficiencies" in the way Suffolk County Council had appointed Andrea Hill.

Commission officials, who are responsible for ensuring that public money is spent properly, said auditor Robert Davies who investigated after concerns were raised about Mrs Hill's appointment.

"I have identified areas for improvement," said Mr Davies.

"Whilst they do not mean the appointment process was fundamentally flawed or that unlawful decisions were made by the council, they do indicate that action is required by the council to address the deficiencies that were identified during my review."

But he said Mrs Hill's salary - more than £30,000 higher than Prime Minister Gordon Brown's - was not unreasonable.

"The decision to increase the top of the salary range for the post may be considered by others to be generous, but it is not my role as auditor to substitute my judgment for that of an elected body in the lawful exercise of its discretion," added Mr Davies.

"Based on comparative information from elsewhere, the revised maximum salary range is not so high as to be considered unreasonable."

Earlier this year campaign group The Taxpayers' Alliance said the council's decision to pay Mr Hill so much "totally unjustifiable".

It said the award put Mrs Hill near the top of its local government rich list - and pointed out that she was being paid £70,000 more than the man she replaced.

An alliance spokesman said most people would be "surprised to hear that the person in charge of Suffolk earns more than the person in charge of Britain".

Suffolk's Conservative leader Jeremy Pembroke defended the appointment, saying: "The people who live in Suffolk need and deserve the very best."

Mr Pembroke said the Audit Commission report confirmed that the council's appointment policy was "robust and thorough".

He added: "Labour and the Lib Dems can play politics with this if they like, but the Conservatives will continue working hard on behalf of the people in this county."