Uk politics

When it comes to personality, Boris will always win 

The fight for London Mayor election has well and truly descended into a clash of personalities. Policies have all but disappeared while candidates trade attacks in the press. The Guardian, duly unimpressed, has written a scathing leader attacking both sides for this strategy: ‘The early days of the London campaign have fallen well short of what the voters are entitled to expect. Almost everything has been focused on the egos, lifestyles and personalities of the two main candidates, Boris Johnson of the Conservatives and Ken Livingstone for Labour. Mr Johnson, arguably a better mayor than some feared but evasive and woolly on the detail as ever, has run a deliberately

Motorman returns

  Guido Fawkes has caused a stir this morning by releasing a section of the Operation Motorman files, naming those News International journalists thought to have paid for private information. But so far, Guido’s splash tells us little that we didn’t already know: he has lots of information, but has only released the names of News International journalists. Back in July, Peter Oborne wrote a cover piece on the extent of all this for The Spectator entitled ‘What the papers won’t say’, in which he said: ‘The truth is that very few newspapers can declare themselves entirely innocent of buying illegal information from private detectives. A 2006 report by the

James Forsyth

The teachers’ unions take on Ofsted, Osborne and Gove

I counted five issues which the NUT conference suggested that teachers might strike over. But in a conference full of the usual bluster, the most noteworthy threat was not to cooperate with Ofsted inspections. Ever since the new chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw — who was hugely successful as the head of Mossbourne academy — announced that a merely satisfactory grade would no longer be regarded as good enough, the teaching unions have taken agin him. But not cooperating with Oftsed would be unlawful. Anyone who tried to block an inspection would be liable to prosecution and a fine. Another issue exercising the unions is George Osborne’s proposals for regional

Osborne’s tax avoidance clampdown

So, George Osborne has taken a look at the tax arrangements of some of the UK’s wealthiest people. And his reaction? ‘Shocked’, apparently — or so he’s told the Telegraph: ‘I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right. I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people

The Tory leadership is still fighting John Major’s battles

Bruce Anderson has written a typically trenchant piece today describing the Tory party’s treatment of John Major as ‘the most unworthy, the most shameful, period in Tory history.’ Based on both how close Bruce is to those around David Cameron and my own conversations, I would say that this is a verdict that many in the Tory leadership would agree with. Indeed, the way in which Major was treated by some Tory backbenches has informed — often with calamitous consequences — Cameron’s approach to party management. Take, for instance, Cameron’s effort straight after the election to neuter the 1922 Committee and turn it into the Conservative Parliamentary Party. This move was

Rod Liddle

A few Easter questions

Apologies for my absence from this area: I took my two boys away for an uplifting week of cycling on a windswept and pretty Dutch island. I suppose they might have burned off a few more calories if I’d let them loose in the Rossebuurt for a few hours, but I’m getting respectable and middle class in old age. We flew back into Southend Airport, which was was an absolute joy: four minutes from disembarking we were out of the airport building. This may be the best use yet that anyone has thought of for Essex. A few questions about puzzling news stories which occurred whilst I was away: 1.)

We need a crack down on tax avoidance

After the Budget there was a lot of anger over the pasty tax and the granny tax. Another big rise — in tobacco taxes — didn’t make as many headlines, because it wasn’t much of a surprise. But for someone smoking a pack a day it almost wiped out the entire value of the rise in the Personal Allowance. Given that most smokers earn relatively low incomes, it was probably the most regressive measure in the Budget. The idea is that smokers are supposed to be grateful for this impetus to give up. Many will keep smoking though, and this will just be yet another strain on their household budgets.

The coalition split draws nearer

Why did Nick Clegg change his mind on the snooping bill? Because he can’t afford to back something that his party rejects — like the NHS Bill. Over the next few weeks, we will see Clegg impaled on the horns of yet another policy dillema as the government decides what to put in the surveillance bill. The president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, has laid out his position in the Times (£) this morning: ‘I am prepared to recognise that there is obviously a need in modern society with new technology to have a look at what needs to be given to the security services but only if it

Sadly, the 47p tax rate is here to stay

Nothing is more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government tax, as George Osborne is reminding us. When Alistair Darling proposed a 45p rate in 2008, even the Institute of Fiscal Studies said it would lose money – but Darling said it would be ‘temporary’. Brown upped it to 50p, Osborne took it back down to 45p but the ‘temporary’ status has been revoked. The Sunday Times has today splashed on Osborne’s interview with Robert Winnett of The Daily Telegraph, where the Chancellor said ‘I’m very happy with the 45p rate of tax. We’ve got it to a good place where it’s competitive.’ Britain had the highest top rate of tax in the

James Forsyth

Mr Cameron goes to Leveson

One of the media’s vices is to assume that the public are as interested in stories about journalism as journalists are. This always makes me slightly reluctant to write about the Leveson inquiry – more fascinating for my trade than to anybody else. But the Leveson inquiry is about to enter its political phase which, I think, makes it more relevant. Politicians will start appearing before it from towards the end of next month and, as I say in the Mail on Sunday, David Cameron is scheduled to face the inquiry which he created in mid-June. Six other Cabinet ministers are expected to be summoned before the inquiry. For Cameron,

Has Osborne fully considered his transparency promise?

Will Osborne come to regret his new-found transparency zeal? This week’s saga from the London Mayoral candidates highlights how financial disclosures can not be all they seem. For Osborne to fulfil his promise, we need full details of not just income and tax returns, but also assets in which they are stakeholders and companies through which they work. Brian Paddick’s release is an excellent model to follow, as opposed to Ken Livingstone’s decision to release just a few summary figures. If Team Miliband happened to be on the ball, there is also a great opportunity to pip the government with a universal full disclosure. This would be following Osborne’s own

James Forsyth

Osborne’s Easter gift to Boris

George Osborne indicating that he is open to him and other ministers having to publish their tax returns is testament to two things. First, the Tory leadership, who know how crucial a Boris victory in London is to the Cameron project regaining momentum, is keen to keep the pressure on Ken Livingstone over his tax affairs. They have no desire to let a row over whether they’ll publish theirs distract attention from the problems of Labour’s mayoral candidate. As Osborne himself stresses in the Telegraph interview, “The reason we are talking about this now is that this is a smokescreen for Ken Livingstone’s tax affairs. Let’s not take the focus

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Tax Evader

Rather than respond to CoffeeHousers in the comment thread of my blog earlier, I thought I’d do it in a post (and also take in some of the comments from Twitter and my Telegraph piece). I’ve been accused of “starting to sound like a leftie” – and for what it’s worth, I don’t sign up to the David Davis civil liberties agenda. Not all of it, anyway. I’m all for snooping if it helps catch murderers or jihadis. But what I don’t like is this age-old politicians trick of pushing a whole load of powers through in the name of ‘national security’ then, next thing you know, the council is trawling

James Forsyth

The importance of sacking bad teachers

The opposition of the National Union of Teachers to the government’s plans to make it easier to fire bad teachers is entirely predictable. The NUT has long placed the interests of the worst of its members above those of the children being educated in the state system. Given what we know about just how crucial good teaching is to a child’s educational achievement then it is absolutely vital that the coalition does push these changes through. One of the most important parts of these changes is ending the process by which bad teachers are simply shuffled around the system. Academy schools already have the power to vary pay. But, sadly,

Fraser Nelson

What is being done in the name of ‘national security’?

The liberty versus security debate has returned to Westminster, and it’s just like old times. David Davis is having great fun beating up the government, except this time it’s a Tory-led one. And as so often, Davis has a point. Much rot is spoken in the name of ‘national security,’ which can be used by the right as ‘health and safety’ is used by the left: a verbal trump card, to win any debate and justify any policy. So it has proved with this bun fight over the snooping powers about to go through parliament. It has split the coalition, and even the Tory party. In my Telegraph column today,

The implications of today’s tax releases

I suspect that three important consequences will flow from the release today of the London mayoral candidates tax returns. First, voters will see that Boris Johnson’s rage at Ken Livingstone on Tuesday as being thoroughly justified. Second, they’ll see that Ken Livingstone, despite all his left-wing rhetoric, is the only one of the four main candidates to have tried to make his affairs tax efficient. The third consequence is that a precedent has now been set that politicians running for office should publish their tax returns. I’ll be shocked if one of the three party leaders doesn’t try and steal a march at the next election by volunteering to publish

How much tax do the mayoral candidates pay?

So, Ken has now released his tax details. He hasn’t gone as far as Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick, who’s published his full tax returns for the past three years. And there are also questions about what income Ken might not have included in his release. It’s also not clear whether or not he’s including National Insurance contributions, as the other two candidates are. But, based just on the figures each candidate has declared, here are the effective tax rates they’ve been paying: UPDATE: It seems Ken’s campaign is trying to use our chart as proof that he isn’t avoiding tax. But our figures for Ken are simply the amount

Is Ken done for?

Last night, during their television debate, all four London Mayoral candidates declared they would fully disclose their tax returns. This morning, Boris, Brian Paddick and Jenny Jones have duly done so — but Ken? Nothing so far. The Labour team has put out an unpersuasive statement explaining his silence:   ‘We believe household publication is necessary for full disclosure as the question of Ken’s income and his wife’s income and their tax has been central the coverage of this issue. Publication of Ken’s returns alone will not address many of the questions that have been raised. The only way to answer all the questions about this issue and to move

Balls goes on the attack over tax credits

After all the commotion about various policies in last month’s Budget, the focus this morning has shifted to measures announced back in 2010. Why? Because they take effect tomorrow. So Ed Balls is taking the opportunity to hit the government hard on what he calls its ‘tax credit bombshell’ for those on middle and low incomes. Labour are pointing to figures from the IFS, which show that changes to child and working tax credits will outweigh the rise in the £630 personal allowance. In their Budget briefing a fortnight ago, the IFS calculated that the net effect of all the changes coming into force tomorrow would be an average loss