The UKIP manifesto continues to be the Government's mother lode

It's amazing really, given the millions of pounds thousands of hours and hundreds of advisers in the Government's orbit that they seem to be finding the UKIP manifesto such a productive seam for policy development.

Last week we had the IDS pension ideas, lifted nearly wholesale from our Welfare policy. Today we learn from Alison Little in the Daily Express that their brand new Quango, the Office of Tax Simplificationis advising the Chancellor to bring in another of our policies in the forthcoming budget.

THE biggest tax shake-up for ­decades which would merge income tax and National Insurance under a single rate is being considered by Chancellor George Osborne.
It could save companies and the Government hundreds of millions of pounds a year, say experts.
The plan emerged after the Chancellor appointed experts last year to dramatically simplify Britain’s complicated tax system.
His response to the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) report will be made in his Budget on March 23.

Lets see what the UKIP policy states,

A flat tax system for Britain
...
- and merging existing income tax bands and employee’s National
Insurance contributions into a single flat income tax at a rate of 33%.

This of course is from our policies as they stood for the General election in 2005, that is the one before the last, so the numbers are a tad out of date,

UKIP’s proposal
recognises that national insurance payments (and self-employed NI) are essentially an
additional income tax rather than contributions to a social fund. We would combine
income tax and employee’s NI contributions into an income tax at the single rate of
33% for all income above a raised personal allowance of £9,000 per year.

But we are in the process of a full scale policy review and new figures and details will be available shortly.
Of course we are delighted with these proposals from the Treasury Quango, and only hope that the Chancellor will take them on board.

While he is at it he should look the rest of the document, it could save him and his experts a great deal of time, and the country a great deal of money.

How about no income tax on the minimum wage? Or transferable tax allowances. Just remember people. UKIP is only about the EU 'n Immigration, so you best not trouble your little heads about the rest of the manifesto.

Give and take

Richard North has highlighted something that seems to have been missed in the whole Spending Review, that is what is being cut is not spending, but the unreal expectations created by the profligate promises of the previous Government. As he points out,

There are no cuts. I say again, there are no cuts. What the Cleggerons are talking about is a reduction in the rate of increase in public expenditure as compared with the June budget. This is helpfully summarised here and the source is here.

You will see that the current financial year expenditure is £696.8 billion. By 2014-15, the projected expenditure was to rise to £757.5 billion. Little George is now proposing that this increase is limited £739.8 billion. This now becomes a 17.7 percent "cut", albeit that expenditure is still increasing.

Thus, the language of public expenditure has been redefined. A reduction in the rate of increase is deemed to be a "cut". In fact, by 2014-15, annual expenditure will have increased by £43 billion, up 6.2 percent (not nine, as originally stated). By such sophistry, "cuts" are not actual reductions. They are lower than projected rates of increase.

What he has missed is that the round tatal figure being bandied about by the Treasury over 5 years is £81 billion. A big figure for reducing expectations, but one that has an interesting mirror.

Nigel Farage has just pointed this out,

"Currently Britain is paying £45 million to Brussels as subscriptions to the EU club", he said, "multiply that by 365, then again by 5 and the figure is £82 billion".


"If we were to leave and if we were to continue to reduce spending expectations then we as a nation could clear our deficit in double quick time. This would of course create significant private sector confidence and cause a massive boost to investments and jobs".

Instead of that this Government continues to beggar us by membership of the sclerotic spendthrift European Union, rather than giving this country the freedom to grow."

Of course I have not included the 5.9% increase in EU funding so immorally voted for yesterday in Strasbourg, nor indeed the loss of our rebate, so in reality the figures may become even more stark",

These figures are rough and ball park, true, but they do point to a very serious blind spot at the heart of Treasury thnking. What we sime to have is the Treasury taking money from the taxpayer, whislt giving it it straight to Brussels.

(NB. Some money of course does come back, but only where and how other people want to spend it)

What was that I said about straw men?

Yesterday I suggested that the proposal to block the UK's rebate was a straw man, a proposal taken up by Mr North.

I suggested that by giving the government a chance to show its Eurosceptic credentials it would allow then to accept a whole raft of other intergrationist measures.

And yes we had the Government and its homunculae stating that they would fight against those ghastly Europeans,

Tonight Downing Street said David Cameron would defend the British rebate
in the forthcoming negotiations on the EU's budget.

Of course it will, because it doesn't have to, the EU has no intention of pushing on this. here is Little Timothy in Strasbourg having a fit of the vapours,

But his remarks brought an angry response from UK MEP Timothy Kirkhope, Conservative leader in parliament, who said, "The rebate is still completely justified.

"We cannot afford to give away our taxpayers' money in exchange for a vague promise of agricultural reform in the future. Tony Blair gave away seven billion pounds in 2005 and got absolutely nothing in return.

"Commissioner Lewandowski will find he is in for a tough negotiation if he starts from the assumption that the UK will budge on this issue.

"Instead of focusing on scrapping the rebate perhaps the commissioner should put all of his efforts into reducing the EU budget so that we achieve better value for taxpayers' money."

So far, so predictable.

So how about the other opart of my prediction? Was there any other EU news yesterday? Oh here it is on PA,

Chancellor George Osborne will today endorse sweeping European supervisory powers over banks and financial institutions in response to the economic crisis.

EU finance ministers meeting in Brussels are set to approve three new pan-European watchdog bodies to oversee the banking, insurance and securities markets across Europe.The aim is better coordination of national financial services watchdogs as an early warning signal of any future economic disasters.

Mr Osborne has backed the move since taking office, insisting that the new system will still leave day-to-day financial supervision within the UK in the hands of national authorities

And here is the Tory Euro homunculae Vicky Ford telling us not to worry, Nothing happening here, everything is fine,

Conservative MEP Vicky Ford also insisted the outcome would give added protection to consumers - who bore the brunt of the crisis - without ceding sovereignty.

"National governments and national regulators keep their frontline responsibility to protect national taxpayers' interests," she said.

These people make my flesh creep. There is no Conservative Party left. They are fully signed up to the European Project and they ahve no desire to wrest back powers from Brussels. Don't listen to what they say, just look at what they do.

What rebate?

It looks to me that those nice chaps in the European Commission are doing what they can to help Mr Cameron. The reports this morning about the EU's wish to end the remains of Thatcher's famous budget rebate fall into this bracket.

"The British rebate has lost its original justification," Mr Lewandowski told the leading German daily Handelsblatt in an interview published on Monday (6 September). "The structure of the EU budget has changed substantially. Farm subsidies – the main reason for the rebate – have decreased, while the per-capita income of the UK has increased substantially since the 1980s."

Lewandowski seems to have become the Commission's floater of choice what with this and the comment a couple of weeks ago that he was interested in setting up a pan European tax. Of the EU dislikes what remains of the post Blair rebate, and it is amusing that he suggests that they want to spend the money on their 'global ambitions', but, but.

What I can see is happening here is that he is setting up a straw man threat to the UK's budget. The boy Dave and his accolyte Mr Osborne can then say that they are going to the wall to protect the budget.

Then when the Commission backs down on the subject the Government can parade themselves around claiming 'Game set and Match to Britain'.

The headlines will state what a doughty defender of British interests the Coalition Government is, whilst not noticing the continued leaching of power elsewhere.

FSA : Frankfurt's Sodding Accessory

And so it comes to pass. Today the FSA announced both the launch, and the conclusion of a consultation into Bankers bonuses.

According to Rueters,

The FSA said Thursday it would launch a formal consultation process over the planned changes but added that its existing code on remuneration would be strengthened.

How do they know the result of their consultation, because they have been told it by, you will never guess.... yes Brussels.

On July 7, the European Parliament approved what are seen as the world's toughest curbs on bank bonuses, and EU member states, which have joint say, are set to endorse the new law.

The proposed EU rules would stipulate that the maximum amount of upfront cash in a bonus should be 30 percent, while for large bonuses it will be capped at a fifth.

EU states want to allow 40 percent of a bonus to be paid upfront, and a deal on a definitive figure is expected later this year.

Godfrey Bloom, UKIP's financial spokesman had this to say,

"So presumably the conversation went something like this Monsieur Barnier Supremo European Financial Services and monarch of all he surveys.

“May I suggest this new bonus scheme for London City Bankers?”

Hector Sants, for it is he, “Wonderful idea Sir I will install it immediately”.

The relationship is that of Monty Burns to Smithers.

Here is the FSA on the subject,

"We will see what the final text says and apply it appropriately," an FSA spokeswoman said.

Why on earth are they wasting our money on a consultation?

In the FT it is even more absurd.

While the EU legislation had been under discussion for months, it caught most bankers by surprise when it was finalised earlier this month.

No it didn't. It caught financial journalists by surprise. Not the industry and certainly not UKIP, both of whom have been banging on about the dangers for months, nay years.

The planned changes, while not unexpected, are likely to spark anger and confusion across the City, which believes that London’s competitiveness as an international financial centre is under threat...
Industry groups have argued that EU member states are now at a disadvantage to countries such as the US and Switzerland, which have adopted less onerous restrictions on pay in the wake of the financial crisis.

Oh brother. Now Mr Osborne, and yes you Mr Cameron. Has our sovereignty been compromised by this by any chance? Has the power to set regulations over our most successful industry been thrown away?

Yes?

Well can we have that promised referendum then please?

Osborne's Trojan Regulator

Louise Armitstead in The Telegraph reports yesterday's ECOFIN meeting with hyperbolic praise for George Osborne,

EU victory for George Osborne
The City is in line for a major boost after European finance ministers agreed to position the new banking super-regulator in London, rather than Frankfurt.

But what is this victory? And how can it be described as such? What has Ms Armitstead been drinking?

The story revolves around the announcement that one of the new EU regulatory bodies will be based in London. That is a victory? What, that London will pay host to the European Banking Authority? So it will create a few jobs, yes, a few cleaners and the odd secretary will be employed locally granted. But the staff will all be Eurocrats, so this is no big win.

Look, accepting financial suzerainty from Brussels is no victory, it is an abject defeat. Accepting the sugared gift on an EU Agency is like having a rival administer a dose of laudanum and boasting about the get well card that came with it.

Mr Osborne said that having the regulator in London was a "key UK requirement" for which he had won "support from other member states".
Talks with the European Parliament will now resume but all sides are thought to want to secure an agreement quickly. The EU aims to have three new Europe-wide institutions regulating banks, insurance companies and securities markets up and running by January 1, 2011.

The vote for London, which is an important win for the Chancellor, will be welcomed both by British and international banks which have felt increasingly persecuted by European regulators.

A source close to the meeting said: "The Ecofin council recognised that London is Europe's only truly global financial centre. The others might not like that but there's no point pretending otherwise and this is recognition of that."

So out of three new EU financial regulators London gets one, and we are supposed to be happy about that.

I though that the Government was going on about the way in which the Bank of England was going to regain its regulatory role. It won't. What it will do is act as the carapace of power, hollowed out and left impotent by our real masters across the Channel. Leaving the people with a false impression, connived at by our so called Eurosceptic government. It will allow Mr Osborne to stand tall in Brussels, but so will having a ramrod hammered up his rectum.

And what benefit do we get by having this new governing body nestling, asplike, in our bosum? Well some of our senior bankers will be able to take their masters out to lunch.

As Sophocles put it so well,

So now I find that ancient proverb true,
Foes' gifts are no gifts: profit bring they none.