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.

Expats healthcare conundrum.

There is a report today that suggests tens of thousands of expat pensioners living in the EU may return to the UK to use the NHS after Brexit - unless a deal can be done to let them keep receiving care abroad, paid for by the UK taxpayer.  So far so good.  If they have paid their taxes, why not. 

But here is where the story goes a bit awry.  The Nuffield Trust estimates the cost to the UK taxpayer of treating them on home soil, rather than abroad, could double the £500m the UK gives a year to EU countries that care for Brits who have retired abroad, to £1bn.  And Brexit will be to blame.  There’s a surprise.  

But doesn’t that all strike you as a bit odd?  It is going to cost double what it costs to have them treated abroad?  Why will it cost double?   Why will it cost so much more to treat the same people with the same issues back here inthe UK?

There really are only two alternatives.  Either the healthcare they are treated to in other EU countries is so poor it only costs half what it does in the UK which as we know is not true.  The French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Spanish healthcare systems are just as good as ours, if not better in some cases.  Or our UK health service is so inefficient that it costs double to deliver the same healthcare that these EU nations healthcare systems provide.  

Ah, but wait a minute.  Is this just another story made up to try to undermine the Brexit negotiations? 

Tucked in at the bottom of the BBC item it noted the Nuffield Trust said there could be gains too post-Brexit.  When the UK leaves the EU it could stop paying EU membership fees.  Money from this saving could be used by the NHS.  Nuffield Trust spokesman Mark Dayan said: "It is possible that extra funds could be found for the NHS from any cancellation of Britain's EU membership fees". 

So why does the BBC lead with the negative angle rather than the positive angle?

Answers on a postcard…..

Plus ça change.

Labour economics.   

Back in the 60’s it was Harold Wilson with his 35% pay rise for coal miners that started the decline, not just of the mines but the economy.  The end result?  A 22% increase in the cost of domestic fuel, which was ok for the miners, they got a free coal allowance.  The price of coal for industrial use rose by over 7%, to generate the extra £370m in revenue to pay for the wage increases.  The increase in wages had to be paid for somehow.  At a stroke it became cheaper to import coal than to produce it at home.  Welcome to Old Labour economics.   

During Thatchers premiership the gap between rich and poor narrowed (it grew again under New Labour) and real poverty in the UK was virtually eliminated, hence the idiotic Labour introduction of relative poverty. The standard of living of the poorest grew more and faster under Thatcher than in other period in British history.   Under New Labour, it fell.  Welcome to New Labour economics.   

And the Corbyn/ MacDonald version?  A mix of the two failed economic strategies of the past.   

Plus ça change.

Tim should have said "I'm out".

“We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states.”   

The first sentence is a fact; it’s what we voted for in the biggest popular vote the UK has ever seen.   The second sentence is an aspiration; it’s what all reasonable people want us to work towards.  

And how about “the United Kingdom will be a global champion for an open economy, free trade, and the free flow of investment, ideas and information.”  Again, an aspirational statement.  And one applauded by Remainers and Leavers alike.  Well, not all Remainers.   

But the recent YouGov poll shows that now a total of 68 per cent of respondents would like to see Britain withdraw from the EU.  According to YouGov some 45 per cent said they were Eurosceptic, while 22 per cent said they wanted the Government to ignore June's election result.  The 22% democrats?  I think not!   

The interesting thing is, a total of 23 per cent - described as “Re-Leavers” - said that they voted Remain last year, but now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.  They are Democrats.  Not just acknowledging the decision of the people of the UK as the LibDems are doing, but accepting it.   

This leaves Tim Farron being in the unenviable position of having a manifesto that, according to YouGov, advocates a position that many people who voted Remain simply don’t associate with.   

Which is a shame because Farron, a person most outrageously maligned in recent days by people who should know better, was as an individual head and shoulders above those he shared the ITV Leaders debate stage with last night.   

He must have wondered why he didn’t say before the rather unspring debate, “I’m with Theresa and Jeremy on this, I’m out”.

Which country has the best maternity leave provision? Guess.

Here’s a puzzle for you.  Which country has a statutory 52 weeks maternity leave?  The UK or the EU?  Well?  The EU?  Don’t think so.   

But you would never know that reading the Liberal Democratic Party manifesto. The suggestion is that "the right to 52 weeks’ maternity leave" is "based on EU law".  Really?    

The EU’s statutory minimum period for maternity leave is actually just 14 weeks.  The UKs is 52 weeks.  And people like the LibDems the Greens and the SNP keep wanting us to retain EU rules when they are inferior to ours in the UK.   

One wonders what other untruths are in the document.   

Democratic is an odd word for the Lib Dems to have in their party name for they are anything but.   

Yesterday's manifesto refuses even to accept last year's referendum result, preferring instead just to "acknowledge" it.  So if the Lib Dems win the general election we don’t need to accept it, we just need to acknowledge it.

£46.8b is a lot to take away from spending in local shops.

So Labour has unveiled its pledges for the General Election.  They will cost £48.6bn - to be funded from extra tax revenue - in its election manifesto.   

Now, taking any money out of the consumer economy and handing it to the government of the day to spend is a pretty serious thing to do.   

Every £1 the government takes from you is a £1 you no longer have to spend.  In local food shops.  In clothes shops.  Shoe shops. Bike shops. Car showrooms. DIY stores.  Yes, Labour are proposing that we will have £48.6b less available to spend in the UK economy.  Which might seem good news for those that think that governments know how to spend best our money, but is a disaster for the economy that you and I live in.  How many jobs will be lost by the government taking that £48.6b out of our pockets?   

And of course, the £46.8b doesn’t include buying back the assets that were sold under privatisations or purchased by private investors since they were liberated from state control.  They talk of nationalising the railways.  That includes the trains.  And the trains are owned by a private company that our pensions invest in.  So if Labour decides just to take them into government ownership without paying the market rate, which John McDonnell very noticeably didn't deny could happen, that’s a chunk out of your pension. Indeed, Labour clearly said that a future Labour government would determine what the market price would be.  That one statement shows how out of touch they are.  Logically, it wouldn't be a market price if the government decided what the price was.  Sadly, Labour are still living in an idealistic fantasy student politics land.    

If they did get into power, be sure that the only beneficiaries would be lawyers who would trouser very large sums as the government would have to fight water, rail and other nationalisations through the courts.  

Nice ideas Jeremy.  But utterly unworkable.

When in Rome....

Have another look at these images.  What do you notice?  Every time you see an Italian flag it is always accompanied by a flag of the European Union.  Contrast that with the last picture.  This is one of our embassy in Rome.  A Union Jack flies, all be it without much breeze to show the red white and blue.  But notice, it stands alone.   

And that is what I noticed around Rome these past few days.  Italy is not a nation anymore. It’s always now seen as being a part of something else.  And the prominence of the blue flag with gold stars being flown over all the city just acts as a reminder of that.  Indeed, it’s really propaganda.  Little wonder that they don't understand why the UK voted to leave the EU.  

It even carries on to Italian car number plates where all that is reflected of Italy is the letter “I”, above which the blue is and gold of the EU flag.  The message? The EU is in control.  And given that message is constantly in your face it is little wonder the people of Italy see the EU as a saviour.  Never mind it is the EU that has caused the bankruptcy of this once proud nation.   

All of this is thrown into sharp relief when you go round the ruins of an earlier European empire.  But there is one big difference, that empire actually lasted 507 years and was successful because of two things, good leadership in people like Hadrian and innovation.  Just look a the engineerring and arts of the period.

Unfortunately the EU we see today has neither of these qualities.

Hard brexit? Not as bad as some would have you believe.

So, what is hard Brexit?  It’s a term thrown around a lot by people like Scotland’s First Minister.  The word "hard" makes it all sound rather uncomfortable.   

But where is the evidence behind the rhetoric?  Well for a start, when we leave the EU we will still be trading with rEU.  To put it simply all that will happen is, assuming there is no agreement with rEU, we will do exactly what the rest of the world does when trading with the EU, use WTO rules.  Why wouldn’t we be doing the same?   

So those who say we will fall off a cliff are talking palpable nonsense.  One even said we would fall into the clutches of the WTO.  Really, the clutches?   

Now some people conjure up ideas that WTO rules are somehow bad or at least not good.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  They are a set of rules matured and developed over time for global trade.  And we should know, we virtually wrote the rules!  And we should also know because our trade outside the EU is under WTO rules.  China, USA, India, Brazil, Singapore.  

Some basic numbers to help us here.  About 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2016 £240 billion out of £550 billion total exports.  So 56% of our trade already is on WTO.  And I don’t hear many businesses complaining.   

There really are only two categories for those who talk about hard brexit with cliff edges and falling into the clutches.  They are either genuine ignorant of world trade or they are of malicious intent and don't want negotiations to succeed.

If it’s the former we can forgive them, though they need to get learning about international trade quickly.  If it’s the latter, well, you decide whose side they are on in this negotiation with rEU. 

We're not stupid, Nicola.

Scotland’s First Minister is either incredibly naïve or she is somewhat disingenuous.  Which do you think?   

Today she suggested that the claims made by Prime Minister May that the EU is trying to interfere with the General Election were simply part of a ploy to get hard Brexit.  Hard Brexit is pretty vacuous term when you spend more than a nano second thinking about it, but let's park that for today.  

But hang on a second.  What did Guy Verhofstadt chief Brexit negotiator for the EU, say today in relation to the presidential election of Macron in France?  “We supported him from the start”.  Er Mr Verhofstadt, you did what?   

Didn’t Nicola notice that the key people in the EU, her new best friends, are indeed seeking to influence the result of elections in different countries?   

Make no mistake, they have track record in getting their way. Ireland, (forced re run of a referendum) Italy, (they forced the replacement of the democratically elected PM with a Brussels appointment) France, (see Ireland), Netherlands, Greece, (read Adults In The Room.  My Battle With Europe’s Deep Establishment by Yanis Varoufakis, at all good booksellers now.)   Really, you couldn't make up the way the elite in the EC have interfered in elections around Europe.

Naïve or disingenuous?  Nicola, naïve ?  Aye, right.

Be careful what you wish for, President Macron.

I was chatting with one of my neighbours earlier today.  She is French.  She voted for Macron so was happy this morning.  

One of the many interesting observations she made was that she liked Macron because he was pro EU and the EU has kept the peace.  And she knows about what war does to a country and its people, her grandfather having been dismissed as Mayor in the French town where she grew up by the Nazis in the 2^nd World War.  So her family knows what suffering political tyranny can bring.   

And this is what I find a bit odd.  We know it was political tyranny that brought about WW2.  And just about any other war you can think of for that matter.  Politicians start wars.  Think Blair and Bush.

I disagree with the notion that the EU and its predecessors are the things that kept the peace over these past 70 years.  Trade has.  NATO too has a strong case for being part of the peace too, much stronger than the EUs case.   

But for me primarily it is trade.  Nations that let trade flourish between them are nations that have respect for each other.  They have a common goal of making things better.  Prosperity.  Freedom.   

You will see few nations who have gone to war that have had excellent trading relationships with those they are now fighting.  It just doesn’t happen.   

My fear with people like Macron is they are so wedded to the idea that the EU really is the great magician that will solve everything by political means that they really don’t see that harmonious trading relations trump everything else if you want peace.  History suggests that solving things by political means by elite rather than by trading brings conflict.  Not peace.     

If people like Macron are serious about making trading difficult between rEU and the UK, the consequences may be a lot worse than French car workers or wine producers losing business and jobs.  He should be very careful what he wishes for.  He and his ilk will be to blame for the consequences if trade is marginalised to the role of being nothing more than a diplomatic tool for politicians to wield.

Warped logic.

Ever wondered if you did the right thing voting to leave the EU?  You should be under no illusion now.  It’s becoming very clear that leaving is a very wise thing to do.   

Just imagine you resigned from your golf club.  After your subscription ended you received a letter saying, “We know you are not a member here now, but we must ask that you continue to pay a contribution to the cost of maintaining the fairways and a similar sum towards the upkeep of the club house”. 

Welcome to the warped logic of those in power in the EU.

What rEU don't understand. We have a choice.

How many times have we heard the ill-informed comment saying we won’t be able to trade with the rEU (remainder EU) after we have left.

Staying is not a democratic option, we took that vote last year.   

All that is left is to ask, do we want to do a deal with the rEU or don’t we.  WTO is one of the options we have, which is fine for us in the UK because 60% of the UKs export trade already uses WTO with no problem.  And if there is no deal with rEU we will just deal with the rEU on these terms.  We will still trade with rEU and the rEU will still trade with us, on WTO terms.   

When you think about it, WTO is the easiest option.  We know the rules.  We use WTO all the time in the UK.  Or do we do a deal with the rEU who will constantly try to make life difficult for us?    

Theresa May is right, WTO is better than a bad rEU deal.  Much better. 

The Nasty Party. Not who you thought it was.

I really hadn’t noticed that the legal system we have in Scotland had changed.  But apparently it has.  

Why else would the first minister launch an outspoken attack of allegations of Tory election fraud during the 2015 campaign, suggesting they could have bought the contest and claiming Theresa May had called a snap election before criminal prosecutions could be brought.   She knew full well that those whe was attacking could not answer back. 

And there was me thinking that the basis of our law in Scotland was presumed innocence until being found guilty.   

Not for Nicola it seems.  Her speech today at the TUC conference in Aviemore was pretty explicit.   

She said: “Whatever else happens in this election we should not allow the Tory party to escape the accountability for any misdemeanours that may have led to them buying the last general election.”   

Yes, she added the word “may” to keep her out of the liable courts.   

But it really was pretty desperate and nasty stuff.