Amazing what is not reported in the news.

In my last blog earlier today I noted the results of the British Attitudes Survey in relation to taxation.  Very helpfully can read all about it here on the BBC web site. “British Attitudes Survey: More Britons 'back higher taxes.”

It interesting the media has focused on this 48%.    

By the time the EU referendum was over, the same study explains that, post voting to the leave the EU, Britain is more Eurosceptic than ever.  Indeed, the number of people who think we should leave the EU has nearly doubled and as many as three in four voters (75%) felt that Britain should either leave the EU or that if it stayed the institution’s powers should be reduced. 

That really is an extraordinary finding.

Funny that the BBC so prominently reports one part of the findings of the British Attitudes Survey but not others.  Wonder why?

The unintended consequences of raising taxes.

According to a survey published today, most Britons back more taxation and more spending.  Well, there is a surprise. 

But there we have demonstrated the failure in our education system, bold and stark. These people appear not to have been taught or learned that there are always consequences.

A child earns £1 pocket money.  But the parents say, “Well, hold on, you have earned your money, but we need to pay for your food. And clothes.  And school trips.  And all the other things.  Let’s call it a contribution to costs”. 

So the parents take 30p from the child who wail’s “that means I’ve only got 70p spend now rather than £1”.   

After a while the parents decide that things they have taken on, like the bigger car, the dearer holidays, the SKY subscription, the mobile phone bill, they have all added up and they need more money.  So they say to the child “cost have gone up, I’m afraid your contribution to costs will have to go up too.  That will be 40p.”

The poor child will have to now decide what he will have to give up.  Ten pence less a week is a big hit. 

Actually, that’s exactly what happens in the world of taxation.  Over the years governments of all colours have spent spent spent and spent.  Thinking, "we can always get the money from the taxpayer".  And they can.   

But the consequence will always be the public will have less money to spend.  They will not be able to spend that money in the clothes and food shops, car showrooms, the coffee shops, the bike shops.   

The owners of these shops will say, “Sorry workers, we’re not getting so many people though the door these days, I am closing the business”.  Result?  More unemployed.  More charity shops.  And exactly the wrong outcome.

So why do they keep telling us that it’s a solution when it’s actually contributing to the problem. 

Here is one solution.  One conservative estimate suggests that £120billion of your money that governments takes in taxation is wasted in the UK every year.  That £120billion effectively wipes out the UK’s budget deficit – without closing a single hospital, firing a single teacher.

The waste we are talking about here is not on important things. It’s on things that any normal business would say, “No, we can’t afford that just now.  We will redecorate the office next year instead.”

Common sense clearly leaves you once you are in the position of being able to take other people’s money from them.

It's your choice. Vote wisely.

Well, tomorrow is the day.  Will it be May or Corbyn that ends up in No 10?   

You know the strange thing is, on specific issues like Trident replacement I’m with Corbyn.  No sensible person would ever authorise their use, even if we had been attacked.   But I guess that’s why it is called a deterrent.  To stop someone attacking us in the first place, they won’t know how we will react.  We might just send them our nuclear warheads.  Personally I would rather we used all the Trident replacement money on a far broader range of non-nuclear weaponry.  I’d rather have 1,000 cruise missiles for every one nuclear missile.   But Labour are not proposing that.   

How about more “investment” in the NHS?  Well, amen to that we all say.  But when Labour and Corbyn (and the SNP) talk about investment, achieved by borrowing, they are talking in the same breath about employing more doctors and nurses.  Which is insane.  Borrowing money to pay for the weekly shopping bill was never a sensible option.  Yet that is exactly what they propose.   

Or policing numbers.  In the current climate it is so easy to say we need more police.  Bobbies on the beat.  But while that sounds good, is it?  Apart from being an employment generation scheme, which labour governments are expert at doing without at the same time ensuring there was enough revenue from existing taxation to pay for it.   No, policing is changing.  It’s getting smarter.  It’s about using analytics. Diane Abbots 10,000 community police officers actually doesn’t solve the problem.  The answer to that is Mosques should be “outing” anyone who has shown an interest in the view that if you aren’t a Muslim you should be killed.   

And the economy? Yes, we would all like to spend more on "good" things the State decides are good for us.  But we also know that research show that lower corporation tax really does produce more tax revenue.  But Labours obsession with the idea that tax has to go up will actually harm the economy.   This range of policies would destroy the British economy as we know it. It starts by attacking the very concept of private ownership: “The predominance of private property ownership has led to a lack of long-term investment and declining rates of productivity, undermined democracy, left regions of the country economically forgotten, and contributed to increasing levels inequality and financial insecurity. Alternative forms of ownership can fundamentally address these problems.” It then goes on to extol the virtues of nationalisation, seemingly forgetting the appalling levels of consumer service, investment and productivity of the old nationalised industries (think British Telecom, British Rail and British Gas):“National ownership of certain industries promotes long-term planning of the economy, helps to provide modernising infrastructure, quality health and social care, and to combat climate change.”   I think those of you who didn't live under Labour in the 1970s may not quite get that point.  We had three-day weeks.  No electricty two days a week. You couldn't even bury the dead.

But the reality is, it’s not these single issues that are the decisive factors.   

The real question is do you want to vote for a Marxist who has dedicated his life to overthrowing democracy or a Democrat who has, all be it with decisions not everyone will agree with, supported a parliament democracy.   You pay your money, you pick your choice.    

For what it is worth, my forecast is a 57 seat Conservative majority.