Jonathan Isaby: Stop increasing tax on our pints of beer!

Jonathan Isaby is Political Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, which has today launched a new campaign at www.MashBeerTax.org.

When George Osborne stands up to deliver his Budget on March 20th, he will surely be hoping for better reviews than he got last year.

ConHome readers doubtless have many ideas as to what they would like him to announce. We at the TPA certainly do, but right now I'd like to focus on one particular measure which would surely provide a good news story from the Budget.

Quite simply, we are asking for the Chancellor to call time on the hated "Beer Duty Escalator" and freeze Beer Duty this year.

The level of Beer Duty has increased by no less than 42% in just four years, which means that when you buy a pint of beer in your local pub today, around one third of the price of a pint is going straight to the taxman. This gives the UK the dubious honour of having the second highest level of beer tax of any country in the European Union, equating to ten times the level seen in Germany, for example.

Jonathan Isaby: This Conservative-led Government has raised tax more than twice as often as it has cut it

Jonathan Isaby is Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance

I suspect John Redwood was articulating the views of many ConHome readers when he said, in 1995: “The Conservative Party is a tax-cutting party or it is nothing”. It surely ought to be the basic aim of any right-thinking government to minimise the burden it imposes on taxpayers, on the basis that lower taxes increase personal freedom, giving people more power to spend their own money as they see fit for themselves and their families.

Lower taxes also promote entrepreneurship, helping to create jobs and the conditions for economic growth – something for which we are all crying out right now. There is a whole host of reasons – economic, moral and political – why cutting taxes is the right thing to do. Indeed, David Cameron still professes to share that view, declaring just last week in his speech at Davos: “I believe in low taxes”.

Jonathan Isaby: When you discover how much the Government taxes your petrol, you’ll want to support the campaign to FreezeFuelTax.com

Jonathan Isaby is the Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Follow Jonathan and the TPA on Twitter.

The Government is working to try and make the tax system more transparent. At the last Budget, George Osborne announced the introduction of annual tax statements after a successful campaign by Ipswich MP, Ben Gummer. Those statements still need some improvement: they leave out Employers’ National Insurance, for example, and that means they understate the amount people are paying in direct taxes, let alone indirect taxes. But they are a big step in the right direction.

Treasury minister David Gauke has also released a tax app that allows people to work out the amount they are paying in direct taxes – a move which won him the accolade of TPA Pin-Up of the Month in May.

Jonathan Isaby: The subsidy from the taxpayer to the unions is at least £113 million. This has to stop.

Jonathan Isaby is Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

Anyone who watched the adjournment debate initiated by Cannock Chase MP Aidan Burley last month on the subject of taxpayer funding of trade unions will be aware that it is a subject which arouses passion in politicians on all sides of the House. So much so, that after that debate Mr Burley reportedly faced a “barrage” of four-lettered abuse from those who disagreed with his take on the issue.

So there will be doubtless be intense interest again today as the TaxPayers’ Alliance publishes new figures (pdf) which show that even more of our cash is being channelled to trade unions as compared with our research this time last year – all based on information provided in response to our Freedom of Information requests.

There are, of course, two ways in which taxpayers’ money is given to trade unions.

Firstly, there are the payments made directly to unions from government departments, agencies, councils and other offshoots of the state. This includes the staggering £21.4 million emanating from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which is given to the TUC for what is known as the Union Learning Fund. That is the same cash sum as reported last year. Likewise, the Department for International Development is also still giving an annual £1.2 million to the TUC.

Jonathan Isaby: Call it what it is: The Government should merge income tax and National Insurance

Jonathan Isaby is the Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance 

Last month I wrote here on ConservativeHome about the TaxPayers' Alliance's proposals to merge National Insurance with Income Tax, as contained in our report, Abolish National Insurance. 

Yesterday, as I covered on the TPA's blog here, the Government made some highly encouraging noises about tax transparency and looking at how to enable people to see far more easily just what the tax man is taking from them each month and each year.

However, whilst the Government reckon that in the coming five years it may be able to work towards merging the operation of income tax and NICs, it regrettably still wants National Insurance to “retain an identity distinguishable from income tax".

The TPA is still of the view that the most transparent and least burdensome solution is to merge the two entirely, and to this end we have today released a short video to make the point:

Jonathan Isaby: TaxPayers’ Alliance proposes merging National Insurance with Income Tax

Jonathan Isaby is the Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance 

The UK tax system is, by all accounts, hugely complicated and in serious need of simplification. As if evidence were needed for this, look no further than the news this week that seven million taxpayers are each about to receive a letter from HMRC informing them that they paid the wrong amount of tax last year due to calculation blunders.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has long believed that simplifying the tax system will play a vital role in contributing towards reducing the overall tax burden. To his credit, George Osborne , launched the Office of Tax Simplification last summer and in the Budget back in March announced a consultation on merging National Insurance with Income Tax, saying:

“We have for decades forced businesses large and small to operate independent NIC and income tax. This is an unnecessary cost and complexity on employers.”

Amen to that – and our latest report out today, Abolish National Insurance, examines that very issue of how to merge National Insurance and Income Tax.

National Insurance is virtually indistinguishable from Income Tax both in terms of its function of raising revenue for the Government from earned income and in the way it affects incentives for employees. Yet despite performing essentially the same task, it operates in a different manner in eight key ways (such as the collection period and definition of earnings) which adds unnecessary and expensive complexity.

Jonathan Isaby: John Bercow was wrong to attack the Daily Mail as "a sexist, racist, bigoted, comic cartoon strip"

As most readers will know, I have long been a friend and supporter of the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, and have generally sprung to his defence when his detractors have carped and criticised.

So it is somewhat unusual for the words "John Bercow was wrong" to pass my lips, but today I have cause to utter them.

Last night, he was interviewed on stage by the Independent's Steve Richards in the latest of the latter's Rock and Roll Politics series.

Judging by the account I have read from Sam Macrory of The House Magazine/ePolitix, the event sounded rather fun, and I'm sorry to have missed it.

However, I am also sorry that the Speaker chose to launch an attack on the Daily Mail. Macrory explains that Bercow described the Daily Mail

as a “sexist, racist, bigoted, comic cartoon strip”, with Bercow apologising for breaking the trade descriptions act for describing the Mail as a “newspaper.”

The newspaper - and its sketchwriter, Quentin Letts, in particular - has long had it in for him, and he and his family have found themselves under fire in print on a regular basis. So I understand why he would privately bear the publication ill will.

But I fear his public comments last night not only went too far in criticising the political worldview of the paper (albeit in grossly hyperbolic terms), but they will also merely encourage the paper to lambast him whenever an opportunity arises with added gusto. I would rather he had pleaded the fifth.

PS The Independent website now carries some video clips of the evening here.

Jonathan Isaby: If you've ever wanted to tell the BBC what you think of its news coverage, here's your chance

The BBC's news and political coverage occasions much comment from ConHome readers, generally from a less-than-positive perspective.

Personally I am not of the school of thought that the BBC is a pro-Labour conspiracy; I think a fairer criticism is that something of a statist mentality collectively exists inside the corporation - which is not entirely unsurprising given that it is to all intents and purposes state-funded.

Certainly BBC interviewers tend to interview from the left, generally asking why government is not doing more or why ministers are not spending more money, rather than questioning why government is interfering in something and spending hard pressed taxpayers' money on some scheme or other. Additionally, the BBC's coverage of European matters has historically been rather communautaire, although that has improved somewhat in the last few years and eurosceptic/anti-EU voices have been getting more of a hearing.

Anyhow, what I think does not matter right now. My reason for writing is that I have discovered that the BBC Trust is currently undertaking a review of what viewers think of the output of both the BBC News Channel and BBC Parliament and you have the opportunity to tell them what you think.

So click here to take part in the consultation, which closes on July 19th.

Declaration of interest: I am a former BBC employee who occasionally appears on its programmes as a commentator.

Jonathan Isaby: Next time an academic or student talks about education cuts, remind them of the university which is recruiting a Carbon and Sustainability Manager...

We know there have to be cuts across the public sector and clearly the relevant authorities are going to be seeking to minimise the impact on frontline services.

University academics are often among the first to threaten strikes over funding in their jurisdiction, with student "activists" being similarly quick to riotprotest.

But are all Higher Education institutions really making the cuts in the most sensible places?

I ask, since my attention has been drawn to this advert for a job, for which applications close today, on the Guardian website (where else?):

Carbon and Sustainability Manager at University College Falmouth

The successful candidate will:

"lead on the delivery of our ambitious carbon management plan and our wide reaching sustainability agenda. Managing a small team you will promote the sustainability agenda and ensure that the Tremough and Woodlane campus meets or exceeds the Government and Higher Education carbon emission reduction targets. You will be responsible for providing specialist advice and support on carbon reduction, including utilities purchasing, monitoring and targeting. You will also lead our environmental, green travel, waste and biodiversity strategies, developing targets and plans for achieving them."

The salary is £29,498 to £32,063 per annum, along with membership of a final salary pension scheme and access to subsidised transport.

UCF is recruiting for this post, despite its funding being cut by 6.6%.

Can this educational institution not think of a better use for the taxpayers' money it has been granted?

Jonathan Isaby: A day when most right-thinking people will find themselves in agreement with Ed Balls

As we learned from the video clip I posted earlier, Sharon Shoesmith, the former director of children's services at Haringey today saw the Court of Appeal rule that she was unlawfully sacked in 2008 over the Baby P tragedy, which occurred on her watch.

Michael Gove, now Education Secretary, is set to appeal against the judgement, but Ed Balls, who held the post at the time, has today said that he would make the same decision again.

Below is Balls' reaction to the judgement - and I can't see most right-thinking people doing anything but instinctively agreeing with him (for once).

Jonathan Isaby: If Nick Clegg venerates Shirley Williams so much, why couldn't he remember voting for her?

By Jonathan Isaby

With the Queen having just turned 85, this week's Spectator contains tributes to a number of the country's "most inspiring and influential over-80s".

Peter Hoskin reproduced two of the political tributes on Coffee House yesterday: David Cameron pays tribute to Margaret Thatcher, whilst Nick Clegg writes in praise of Shirley Williams.

Williams, at the moment, looks like causing the Deputy PM more than a headache or two from the red benches of the House of Lords, yet here's what he has written about in the Spectator: 

"Shirley Williams is a Liberal Democrat legend. She is that rare thing in politics: both an intellectual and a force to be reckoned with. It is extraordinary to think that she has reached octogenarian status, that she can talk of her childhood experience as a wartime evacuee — and still cause a stir today. No one would deny that she remains a formidable figure in the politics of 2011, from European affairs to education and NHS reform. Thirty years ago, she wrote that the old politics was dying. She was right. It has taken a while, but the battle to decide what the new politics will be like is beginning — and, at 80, Shirley is still firmly on the front line."  

That's all very well, but is he really as long-standing an admirer of hers as he would have us believe?

Jonathan Isaby: Let's get on and change the rules on Royal succession

By Jonathan Isaby

As Royal Wedding fever increases by the day, the Daily Telegraph splashes this morning on the story that Nick Clegg is "actively pursuing" a plan to alter the law relating to Royal succession which currently gives a Monarch's younger son precedence over an elder daughter.

At present, the rules of male primogeniture apply so that a Monarch can give birth to numerous daughters, but their first son to be born automatically leapfrogs the line of succession.

This is an historical anomaly and needlessly discriminatory towards women and I fully favour changing the law on the matter.

Although this would obviously change the current line of succession to bring the Princess Royal into fourth place (from tenth), this is an issue which is realistically only going to become relevant if WiIliam and Catherine's first-born is a daughter.

Jonathan Isaby: The questionable political judgement of Eddie Izzard

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday saw the official launch of the Yes to AV campaign, fronted by comedian Eddie Izzard (because, lest we forget, the country's two leading Yes campaigners, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg refuse to share a platform with each other).

I'll put to one side the fact that celebrity endorsements ought to be a cosmetic add-on for a campaign rather than their very basis.

But let's just take a moment to look at Izzard's political record.

This is the same Eddie Izzard who went up and down the country last year calling on the public to vote Labour and keep a discredited Gordon Brown in office as Prime Minister.

Moreover, this is also the same Eddie Izzard who a decade ago was the celebrity fronting another campaign, urging British membership of the euro.

Jonathan Isaby reviews the first biography of Commons Speaker, John Bercow

Jonathan Isaby reviews Bercow: Rowdy Living in the Tory Party by Bobby Friedman, which is published on April 14th by Gibson Square books at £17.99.

If you were hoping that this first, unauthorised biography of the Speaker of the House of Commons would be full of shocking, never-before-told revelations from his past, I fear you will be somewhat disappointed.

But as an exercise in pulling together everything we know about Bercow's life story in one place, reminding the reader of events and incidents that may have long slipped from their memory, it is an extremely readable 244 pages.

To Friedman's credit, he has uncovered some details about Bercow's Romanian-born grandfather which have never been published before; and I was particularly impressed that he has also tracked down footage of several early TV appearances by the youthful Bercow. These include his first ever TV appearance, in the audience on BBC1's Question Time in January 1981 (aged 18), when he publicly berated Barbara Castle; and another from 1989 when he and a certain Sally Illman (the future Mrs B and then an avowed Tory) stood alongside one another previewing Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party conference speech for the BBC's coverage of the event.

In the main, however, the book is based on information about events which is already in the public domain, albeit with added commentary from friends and foes alike along the way, and (like the biographical works of his BBC colleague Michael Crick, from whom there is an approving quote on the dust jacket), there are hundreds of footnotes and references.

Jonathan Isaby: Now Lib Dems blast their party leadership over "dismal" Barnsley campaign

Nick Clegg already has quite a lot on his plate, what with activists likely to pass unhelpful motions (£) at their spring conference this weekend and angry students reportedly threatening to kidnap him.

But to add to his woes, his members - once the past masters at by-election campaigns - are raising serious questions about the party's less than impressive effort in the recent Barnsley Central by-election.

In today's new edition of Liberal Democrat News, Colchester MP Bob Russell writes:

"I think the party membership deserves an explanation as to why such a dismal effort was put into the Barnsley by-election which, not surprisingly, gave us such as dismal result and consequent damage to the party's image as we prepare for the local elections in May... Winning Barnsley was never an option. But then, nor was winning Norwich North - but great effort was put into that by-election to hold our position."

And Surrey party member Jamie Sharpley adds:

"I thought it odd that during the period of the Oldham by-election I received regular requests for help, while for the Barnsley by-election there was a long silence. It clearly had been decided to treat the two campaigns differently... The press was bound to look at the entrails of any by-election, in order to be able to write that the party had performed disastrously. In Barnsley we had been second and came sixth... The lesson probably is that for the time being we should attempt to commit the resources for every Westminster by-election that are needed to have at least as good a result as the last time the seat was contested, rather than determining how hard to fight on the basis of whether a seat is a good prospect."

If they're to do that, they may need to go on something of a fundraising drive, after this week's news that the Lib Dems are in the red for the first time in history and having to abandon their party HQ for something smaller and cheaper...