Forum Topic

Mr Hawkes, I was really just attempting to note some facts about prosecutions not necessarily inhibiting a future political career. (As I said elsewhere, I'm with Lord Sugar about crimimalising politicians' lies; but I suspect that law would be an "oink, flap" moment!)I'm interested that Haigh was prosecuted and pleaded guilty. As someone previously involved in the managing of mobile devices, firstly, we'd want any loss or suspected loss reported asap so corporate network access could be blocked and, if feasible, data wiped from the device. It wouldn't be unusual for devices later to turn up - returned from the back of a taxi after an evening socialising/networking with peers, retrieved from a train's luggage rack by a cleaner after a busy financial director had rushed off for a meeting, found under a seat in someone's car! I guess a curious person might turn it on to see what happened, but I don’t see much wrong with that if it's later returned. In practice it's usually HR not IT or Infosec who'd deal with any disciplinary action and I think someone having been mugged would, in my experience, be dealt with sympathetically. I have observed, though, that sometimes junior staff might be dealt with less sympathetically than senior managers and directors, particularly if someone dislikes them - and, realistically, is a personnel director going to fire the finance director for leaving a brand new iPad in a train's luggage rack at Waterloo? One that's later returned? I just feel we're missing something ...

Michael Ixer ● 17h

While Andy Burnham is taking a well earned rest after becoming  PM on the 26 July and his tremendous efforts since to rescue the country from Starmerism, running the country is in the hands of Louise Haigh a convicted felon.https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16025593/Andy-Burnham-foreign-holiday-TWO-WEEKS-Prime-Minister.html 'While Mr Burnham is on holiday, his de-facto deputy Louise Haigh, the First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will be the most senior minister in Westminster.It is understood that convicted fraudster Ms Haigh will be working this week as normal'.Louise Haigh was convicted of fraud by false representation in 2014 after falsely reporting her work phone as stolen.In 2013, Louise Haigh reported to the police that her work mobile phone had been stolen during a mugging while she was out in London. She later discovered the phone at home, revealing that the initial report was false. The case was referred to the police by her employer, Aviva, after an alert was triggered when the phone was switched on. Haigh admitted to lying about the loss of her BlackBerry to obtain a replacement iPhone from her employer, which constituted fraud by false representation She pleaded guilty to the offense in 2014, six months before being elected as a Member of Parliament for Sheffield Heeley. The magistrates handed her a conditional discharge, and the conviction is now classified as “spent” under UK law The incident led to her resignation as Secretary of State for Transport in November 2024 after the conviction became public, although she had informed Sir Keir Starmer of the historical offense prior to her cabinet appointment Haigh has since returned to government in senior roles under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, including First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office, despite the historical conviction'Is she the first convicted criminal to be placed in charge of the country's affairs ?

John Hawkes ● 1d

Not really, Jonathan.1) The government says it wants to reduce welfare spending but so far has given no indication of how it intends to achieve this. If you recall, Labour backbenchers forced Keir Starmer to abandon his modest attempt to cut the welfare bill last summer.2) Yes, staffing is being increased at the Revenue. It remains to be seen how successful they will be at collecting unpaid tax. What is the government going to do about Snazon, who pay virtually no tax (a point which you recently made)?3) All the indications are that taxes, already at record levels, will rise still further, slowing growth. There are no plans to raise tax thresholds in line with inflation to prevent more people being dragged into higher tax bands. There are no plans to scrap the mansion tax. Indeed the Chancellor is said to be considering charging it on £1.5 million homes. There are no plans to scrap VAT on independent schools, an iniquitous measure which has forced the closure of a number of schools. There are no plans to reverse the non dom rules, as a result of which there has been an exodus of millionaires who now pay tax in Portugal and Italy rather than here. A tax on assets of £10 million, naturally supported by people who won't have to pay it, will cause an even greater exodus, representing a loss to the Exchequer. It's worth remembering that the top 1% of earners pay around 30% of all tax. 4) Yes, Andy Burnham has said he wants to prioritise apprenticeships. This will require the cooperation of industry. 5) At present working age people pay national insurance. But this money just goes into the pot and the government can spend it as they wish. Instead there should be a scheme whereby people set aside money to provide for their own social care. There should also be a greater role for private health care, financed by insurance. In Australia, for example, people who use public hospitals when they can afford to pay for treatment are regarded as scroungers whereas here they are seen (by Labour ideologues) as queue jumpers.

Steven Rose ● 3d

Steven has suggested:1) Reduce welfare spending by insisting on interviews with every individual claiming benefit and adjusting the level to ensure that it always pays to work.This already happens.  Perhaps it needs to be more robust.2) Increase staffing at the Inland Revenue so as to collect the sums that are owed.This too is happening, after the austerity years saw HMRC staff numbers drop too far and too quickly.  It takes time to rebuild and train new people.3) Reduce the rate of taxation wherever possible. This means raising thresholds, scrapping VAT on independent schools, reversing the non-dom rules, abandoning the mansion tax, and lowering the business rates.Well, despite assumptions by others, I would also like to see lower taxes, but how realistic is that given the financial bind the country is in?Interestingly, a new poll for The i Paper by BMG Research found that 66 per cent of adult Britons back the idea of a wealth tax on assets worth more than £10m. They agree with Gary Lineker!And, unsurprisingly, almost three-quarters of voters (73 per cent) want to see the amount people can earn before paying income tax increased. The threshold has been frozen at £12,570 since 2021, with just 5 per cent opposed to a rise. Full article: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/two-thirds-voters-want-burnham-bring-wealth-tax-4677518?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=i_evening_headlines%202026-08-02&utm_term=editorial_evening_newsletter4) Promote apprenticeships and internships rather than university education.Isn't the government doing exactly this?5) Encourage people to take more responsibility for their own lives by setting aside a percentage of their salaries for their own health and social care.Nice idea. But how do we do this?It seems to me Steven's wish list is mostly being fulfilled already, without a change in government.

Jonathan Callaway ● 3d

Richard, I am not sure you actually read my post before criticising it. I myself pointed out that some countries in the EU are taxed more heavily than the UK, for example Sweden. But the Swedes recognise that they are getting tangible benefits in return. Here in contrast, taxes are higher than at any time since the war and are likely to rise still further, yet child care is prohibitively expensive, university education leaves graduates with debts of tens thousands, the NHS is in crisis with 7 million people waiting for treatment, adult social care is severely lacking and the country is unable to defend itself. One of the reasons for this is the huge expenditure on welfare to those who don't need it and shouldn't be getting it. Another reason is widespread tax avoidance and evasion. That is why people are resentful.In my opinion what we need to do is1) Reduce welfare spending by insisting on interviews with every individual claiming benefit and adjusting the level to ensure that it always pays to work.2) Increase staffing at the Inland Revenue so as to collect the sums that are owed.3) Reduce the rate of taxation wherever possible. This means raising thresholds, scrapping VAT on independent schools, reversing the non dom rules, abandoning the mansion tax, abd lowering the business rates.4) Promote apprenticeships and internships rather than university education.5) Encourage people to take more responsibility fir their iwn lives by setting aside a percentage if theircsakaries for their own health and social care.But it will require a change of governnent to do this.

Steven Rose ● 3d

Mr Ixer'in the 1980s those of us who bought properties with unmarried partners had two lots of mortgage tax relief - thank you Ms Thatcher for being so liberal about heterosexual sex! (Pity your nasty prejudices unfogivingly demonised our gay friends with Clause 28.)' Oh dear.Thatcher Derangement Syndrome !Is it true then that couples of the same sex were ineligible from having a joint mortgage and hence could not claim two lots of mortgage tax relief ?Clause 28, also known as Section 28, was I understand a British law that prohibited local authorities from PROMOTING homosexuality or PORTRAYING it as an acceptable family relationship.Perhaps somewhat sweeping in trying to restrain the liberalisation of what the majority saw as being the correct definition of an acceptable FAMILY relationship.Because by family most would consider children to be a part.Seeing the extreme consequences of liberalising this arrangement -"A teacher has been found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering the 13-month-old baby boy he adopted with his partner.Preston Davey died in July 2023 at the hands of Jamie Varley, 37, who took a year off work to adopt him.Varley, from Blackpool, told police Preston had accidentally drowned in a bath, but a post-mortem examination discovered the child had suffered 40 injuries.His partner, John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, has been found guilty of sexual assault, child cruelty and allowing the death of a child. The pair will be sentenced on Thursday" -one can see why the majority are wary of further liberalisation in this area.Personally I do not see why any sexual relationship should be constrained if entered into freely and having no impact on third parties - especially children.And I am surprised that in the current zeitgeist any of you 'gay' friends should feel demonised.And back to the point, why should you not have to realise capital gains on your property in order to fund your care in later life ?Why should the burden be pushed onto others perhaps less wealthy ?

John Hawkes ● 4d

Rachel Reeves announced Labour's intention to impose a mansion tax on homes valued in excess of £2 million, costing homeowners from £2000 to £7.500 per year. It appears that Andy Burnham is considering lowering the threshold to £1.5 million homes, though it is not clear how much homeowners wwould have to pay each year at the lower level.The mansion tax is estimated to raise around £400 million per year at a threshold of £2 million and roughly double that if it is imposed at £1.5 million. Since around 70% of £2 million homes and around 60% of £1.5 million homes in the UK are in the Greater London area, it represents a redistribution of wealth from Londoners to the rest of the country. The justification offered by the government for disproportionately taxing homes in London is the fact that homeowners in the rest of the country often pay higher Council Tax. For example, the Council Tax for a band D home in Hartlepool worth £131 000 is $2560, while the Council Tax for a band D home in Wandsworth worth from £700 000 to £950 000 is £1020. There are probably two main reasons for this disparity:  firstly,in a poorer area like Hartlepool there are more claims on the council's budget; secondly, there are fewer higher band homes paying a higher rate of Council Tax, leaving a greater burden on lower band homes.  My objections to the mansion tax are the following:1) A mansion tax was not mentioned in Labour's last manifesto. (Indeed I remember Keir Starmer calling Rishi Sunak a liar in one of the TV election debates when Sunak said that Labour's sums did not add up and that a Labour government would inevitably put up taxes despite its electoral promise not to do so). 2) The money raised by the tax will not go to local councils to reduce the burden on Council Tax payers in poor areas but to central government.3) The amount likely to be raised, whether £400 or £800 million per year, is piffling compared to the spending commitments already announced by Andy Burnham (£340 million over five years to tackle rough sleeping, £850 million to remove VAT from electricity electricity bills this year, £450 million to cap bus fares at £2 in the coming year). When these and other proposals are added to the commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, there won't be much change out of £50 billion.4) A wealth tax rather than a tax on income is unfair on those who are asset rich but income poor. For example a retired couple living on a fixed income whose house has risen in value above the threshold may be forced to sell their home in order to pay the tax. And of course if they choose to remain in the London area, perhaps to be near to their children, they will be forced to pay an inflated price for any home they buy.

Steven Rose ● 7d

There's a lot of talk about wealth but do we understand it, its creation and its taxation? Perhaps there's too simplistic a view of wealth? It's obviously not distributed fairly when many in work are also claiming universal credit but should we differentiate income versus assets? Just some observations, I'm not claiming to have an answer, just some points for debate (I mean debate on the points not the pointless, stupid, insulting of contributers) ...The City of London does manage wealth. To what extent does it create it? It certainly provides jobs for many but there's definitely a distinction between the salaries provided for operational staff (IT, regulatory, data processing & analysis, etc) and the bonuses, commission, share options on top of the salaries paid to traders, financial advisors, directors, etc. The extent to which bonuses and share options are extended to operational staff will vary between organisations. Share options are often the way to real personal wealth; however, they may be invalidated by redundancy, job moves, or company failures; although once exercised, there's income from dividends as well as possible gains share values. (And the country's exchequer can gain from both income tax on dividends and capital gains tax on share value increases creating national wealth.) Overall, though, any wealth generated will be concentrated on a few running the City's organisations and the investors whose money they manage - and the investors may be anywhere around the world so may not be UK tax payers (only corporate taxes on free income). Remember, when discussing wealth, assets such as shares, bonds, property, art, etc are usually the bulk of the "value" and this can change significantly with time - sometimes overnight - and can only be realised in terms of cash when its value is realised at a point of sale - which is when it's usually taxed. But then, cash itself has no inherent value on the open money markets other than confidence in a country's economy and is just a like any other commodity in a capitalist marketplace? I suppose cash is the most liquid of assets so the one easiest to tax?I would guess most wealth is generated by large organisations - big tech, defence, entertainment, bio tech, etc - where the tax paid can be minimised by manipulating where profits are realised. Small businesses do provide employment and incomes but do they generate vast amounts of wealth? Many fail or close after a few years - possibly because of unrealistic finance models, poor management skills, external pressures, or it's just too much effort? - although a few will grow into the large wealth generators (but remember, Apple nearly failed in the late 90s). Then we have, as noted elsewhere, the private equity and other investors that leverage organisations with large borrowing - whether that be care homes, water companies, pub chains, etc - and are often the ones that pay unrealistic high street rents from their borrowed money to greedy landlords? Outside of the City, should natural resources: water, oil, gas, coal, etc be considered as national assets owned collectively by all with a just fee paid to organisations to extract, process and distribute them? And how much is wealth equality driven by culture; for example the Norwegian and Emirates national sovereign finds, or Luxembourg's free public transport for all?There also needs to be a watchful eye by regulators on financial engineering to make sure we don’t have a financial crash like the one of 2008 caused by subprime mortgages being dressed up as triple A debt. In a global market place it's worth remembering that markets don't always continue going up - and who bails them out? Usually governments and taxpayers as in 2008!Perhaps it's wrong to say "the City" creates wealth itself, it pays itself for managing the value created by businesses manufacturing products from commodities, creating intellectual property for a variety of purposes, or providing services that people need and want (of which, the City's financial services is one). Hopefully, that recursion of City services' value doesn't mean there's no real value!

Michael Ixer ● 11d

I am not aware that I have any acolytes, Jonathan. And I don’t despise the ‘Guardian’, though I don’t agree with its general political stance, especially as regards Israel. However I read Justine Greening’s article on your recommendation. I was not particularly impressed. What does ‘good growth in every postcode’ mean? What is the difference between good growth and bad growth? In my opinion any legal business activity which employs people and  pays tax on its profits promotes growth. Your view that financial services ‘create wealth only for a tiny minority’ is clearly untrue. The wealth of London, which is partly based on the success of the financial services industry, is evidence to the contrary. The assumption behind both Ms Greening’s piece and your post is that government can bring prosperity to economically depressed areas where traditional industries have declined. This is only partly true. Yes, government can improve transport links (though I am not sure that the staggering cost of HS2 is justified) and government can invest in schools and colleges to create the necessary skills, but economic growth can only come from thousands of individuals seeking business opportunities. Business is encouraged by low taxation and disincentivised by high taxation. Unfortunately Andy Burnham has made a number of spending commitments but offered no indication of where cuts in expenditure might fall. The only route he can take is higher taxation. This might not worry Gary Lineker who clearly has more money than he knows what to do with. And it would appear from your post that you are happy to pay a wealth tax based on the increase in value of your property. Well, there is nothing to stop Gary Lineker or you from writing a cheque to HM Revenue and Customs if you wish. But that is no reason to impose tax increases on everybody else. Many people, ‘just managing’ in Theresa May’s phrase, cannot afford to pay more tax. Entrepreneurs who see a marginal business opportunity may not bother to invest if their profit is significantly reduced by higher taxation. Billionaires, who contribute a disproportionate share of the total tax take, may decide to leave the country.

Steven Rose ● 12d

Steven, I know you and your acolytes despise the Guardian but I suggest you read this, by Justine Greening:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/04/boris-johnson-my-levelling-up-idea-burnham-good-growthIt is an argument for devolution as well the creation of opportunities for those that need it most.  She endorses “good growth in every postcode” and why not?  She also advocates reform of business taxes, also not a bad idea after the recent disasters of NIC and business tax increases.As for the north-south divide, those areas of the UK that historically were home to heavy industries, coalmining etc, have never fully recovered from the collapse of those industries in the 1970s and 1980s.  What successive governments, starting with Mrs Thatcher's, as her name has now been invoked, failed to do, was make any effort to direct new investment to those areas to help them recover from the loss of their employment base.  "Get on your bike" was the unsympathetic advice of Norman Tebbitt, as I recall.In more recent years, due entirely to their own efforts, many of the major cities in the north, and the Midlands, have started to recover.  Not just Manchester but also Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham and others.But the disparities remain. Nobody said London stole wealth from the north but the financialisation of the economy, and the advances of private equity, hedge funds, vulture funds and the like, create wealth only for a tiny minority, nearly all of whom are in London.  New jobs in the form of zero hour contracts and the gig economy are no basis for stable long term growth.Inequality does not imply that wealth has been unfairly distributed - that suggests it was a deliberate act to drain the north to the benefit of London and the southeast. Simply not the case.Under-investment in the infrastructure of the north is a real hindrance to further growth in the region.  The total amount invested in northern rail improvements - some £2.5 billion over the last 20 years, compares very unfavourably to the cost of Crossrail alone (£19 billion!).  There is a plan to spend £45 billion on "Northern Powerhouse Rail" but that was only announced last January and the money is to be spent over the next 20 years - if it can be found.Just where do you see a plan to tax those in the south to pay more to those in the north?  Are you referring to the possible (probable?) wealth tax on those homes many of us older folk bought decades ago for a fraction of today's market value?  What is so unfair about that?

Jonathan Callaway ● 12d

Steven'There are certainly areas of deprivation in the North and elsewhere, Jonathan. But the word inequality suggests that the wealth of the country has  somehow been unfairly distributed, that London and the South East, for example, have got their hands on money which really belongs to the whole country, the implication being that the wealth of these affluent regions should be taxed and redistributed elsewhere. This approach misunderstands the nature of economic development. London isn’t rich because it stole the wealth of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. It is rich because it is an international centre for financial services.'Absolutely right.Financial services are probably the UK's greatest and most prominent industry and the reason London and the South East are areas of relative affluence.And who can we thank for that ?Mrs Thatcher !'The day the London Stock Exchange's rules changed on 27 October 1986 was dubbed "Big Bang" because of the increase in market activity expected from an aggregation of measures designed to alter the structure of the financial market.The effect of Big Bang led to significant changes to the structure of the financial markets in London. The changes saw many of the old firms being taken over by large banks both foreign and domestic and would lead in the following years to further changes to the regulatory environment that would eventually lead to the creation of the Financial Services Authority'.Another sector in which we excel is higher education.Hence Manchester (with three universities I believe), Liverpool and Newcastle (two each ?) are not particularly deprived.And they can spread their areas of growth by as you say being left to get on with it and reducing taxes on the feeder companies that benefit from closeness to the universities.At a macro level, the benefit system should be radically pruned with every claimant having to have a face to face interview and produce some sort of medical certification to prove their need.Those that are anxious need not apply ! Sadly, Burnham is a typical Labourite.Redistribute what we have in the pot and not bother to make it grow.

John Hawkes ● 12d