Tory Booze Tax

In case any libertarians had forgotten the dark side of the Tories, Chris Grayling has made a speech reminding you all:-

The cost of a four-pack of high-strength lager would rise by £1.33 and a large bottle of alcopop would increase by £1.50, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said.

Firstly, there's no definition anywhere in the law for an "alcopop". Any definition will put Bacardi Breezers and Pimms & lemonade together.

He told the Conservative party conference in Manchester the tax rises would not hit "responsible drinkers".

Bullshit. More like "not hit you and your friends". I've drank Bacardi Breezers a few times. Nice refreshing drink on a summers day, and done so responsibly. I drink very strong Belgian beers and do so responsibly.

He said: "The ordinary pint in the pub will not be affected and there'll be exemptions for some local traditional products. But we'll call time on the drinks that fuel anti-social behaviour.

There's the problem, though. As soon as you start taxing one form of liquid for getting shitfaced with, people will switch to another. They might even discover that local 8% scrumpy doesn't taste bad and is normally a bit cheaper than all those branded alcopops.

Mr Grayling also pledged to ban supermarkets from selling alcohol below cost price, warning that this "fuelled Britain's binge drinking culture".

No it doesn't, and Grayling's got no evidence to back that up.

He said that under Labour's "lax" licensing system, "virtually anyone" could get a licence to sell alcohol.

Which is exactly how the licensing system should be. The only requirements for getting a license should be that you aren't going to serve kids or people who are already too drunk.

"We even have all night takeaways selling more drink to people as they stagger home from the pub," he said.

And what's wrong with that?

"We will change that. Local councils will have the power to stop town centres being taken over by pubs, clubs and off-licences."

So, you prefer ghost towns with properties falling down instead?

Look, we already have far too much retail space in town centres as it is. Kicking out the pubs won't suddenly give us lots of independent butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. You'll have the even more unsightly charity shops, empty shops and pound shops.

George Osborne's Speech

OK, I'm really not at all impressed with this.

He started out quite well, talking about how deep the problems were, but then went off and talked about across the board pay cuts (in real terms) in the public sector.

If the Conservatives truly believe in localism, they'd consider this as none of their business, devolve budget cuts (in real terms) to local management and let them work things out.

A blanket pay cut (in real terms) is a stupid idea. It doesn't deal with the real problems which are about inefficiency, lack of discipline, poor processes and the scope creep which has occurred over the past 10 years.

Such a thing may signal to people that they should leave the public sector. This is fine if we're talking about terrible managers or 5-a-day co-ordinators, but the problem is that they won't be the people to leave. They know they've got a good deal and will stay until they're pushed out of the door with a generous redundancy package. It will be staff who know they can make it in the public sector who will go, who are generally the better staff.

I was also glad to see the end of breeding bonds.

BBC Presenter Tax Avoidance

From the Telegraph:-

They are saving thousands of pounds by using the avoidance tactic – at the expense of the rest of the public.

Insiders say the BBC has advised them to set up 'service companies' so that they can convince the tax man they are legitimately working as freelancers.

Those that have done so include Fiona Bruce, the 10 O'Clock News presenter who also fronts Antiques Roadshow; Emily Maitlis and Jeremy Paxman from Newsnight.

Bruce has set up a company called Paradox Productions; Maitlis has Mouse Inc. and Paxman Out in the Dark.

There's a regulation known as IR35 which was designed to stop this sort of thing going on, what was known as "Friday to Monday" where you leave your desk on Friday as an employee and return on Monday as a freelancer which was only done to avoid tax.

Two of the tests are the time you've been with a client and the number of clients that you service. Paxman and Bruce are really going to struggle to get past that if the HMRC investigate.

A BBC spokesman said: "We are not going to discuss individuals tax arrangements. Clearly how people organise their tax status is something that they would need to take their own personal advice on.

"Some individuals working as freelancers in broadcasting, and a range of other sectors, like IT, set up service companies which deal with their tax arrangements and this is perfectly lawful."

The difference is that most freelance IT people don't spend 2 decades working at the same place, and mid way through set up a limited company (Companies House has all the details on these companies) to work as the contractual arrangement. Or, not if they don't want a visit from the taxman.

What Kind of Fuckwittery Is This?

From The Conservatives:-

The Shadow Universities and Skills Secretary explained that the new places would be paid for by introducing an early repayment bonus for existing graduates repaying their debts to the taxpayer ahead of schedule.

OK... can someone explain the sums of this? People already pay interest on their student loans once they reach a certain salary. If you give people a bonus, that will not only cost money, but you'll lose the interest (which I think is at the rate of inflation). Not sure how it adds up, but I can't see it making much money. Sounds more like a giveaway to people with rich parents to me: borrow money for tuition, do your course, mum and dad pay it off and get an early bonus.

"With one in six young people not in work or education or training, it is vital that we prevent a similar crisis next year. Our plan to give graduates a discount for repaying loans ahead of schedule will give thousands more young people the opportunity to go to university, rather than staying on the dole."

If you're a young person and unemployed, it's either because you've got NO qualifications, are lazy, or are too picky. Universities aren't going to take people with no GCSEs, so how this cuts unemployment I don't know.

h/t Mark Wadsworth

The Lisbon Treaty

There's something nagging me about Cameron's "well, we can't really undo international treaties" line that he's been selling. Does this mean that a future Labour government could just sign a treaty with various Labour friendly governments like Cuba or Venezuela to send them a couple of billion per annum to each, and the Conservatives would just accept it and not be able to undo it?

Then again, Cameron and most of the Conservatives refused to wait and vote for Bill Cash's sovereignty amendment, so we know how much they really care about this matter.

An Excellent Paragraph from Tim Worstall

From his blog:-

This is perhaps the saddest thing about ASH and all the rest: they’ve poisoned the well. Someone as achingly liberal (classically so) as myself, one who believes fiercely in the power of voluntary cooperation to solve human problems, finds that he can no longer trust those who make claims to be part of the little platoons.

I'd have to agree with this. Any time I read a pronouncement from a charity, I'm off to the Charity Commission web site to read their accounts and see the sources of their funding (although the Iron Rule on this is if they're on the BBC making statements, they're probably a fake).

A Guardian Post about Cuts in Doncaster

From a Guardian Journalist:-

But when community services are assessed, let us think of Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, who came to Britain without English as a first language. He benefited from funding– in his case, section 11 money that was channelled towards the education of young people from ethnic minorities and. Today, he is leader of the Labour group on Watford borough council and is chair of the National Association of Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Councillors. If that doesn't represent best value for him and the wider community, what does?

Well, how about not bringing him in to the UK? If the result of this spending is to get yet another politician, then I'd say that burning the money is probably a better idea.