Dear all,

After two very energetic and enjoyable years, I am now moving on from the TPA.  It has been an incredible experience working for such a dynamic campaign, and it has been very pleasing to play a part in the organisation’s rapid growth. 

We are now at a stage where our voice cannot be ignored in Westminster.  Government departments, public sector bodies and local councils have been shaken out of a culture of too much complacency, with waste, transparency, the tax burden and the quality (or lack of) of political management now key issues.  It remains a tough and messy fight, with powerful vested interests resisting reform, but one I am confident we can eventually win. 

My replacement as Research Director is the very able Matthew Sinclair.  I am sure the research work of the TPA will go from strength to strength under his direction, and I know exciting projects are underway. 

I want to thank Matthew Elliott, Andrew Allum and everyone at the TPA, and all our thousands of supporters, for making the last two years possible.  I will stay closely in touch, and wish everyone well for the future.

With very best wishes 

Corin Taylor

British politicians could do worse than take a leaf out of the Canadian Government’s book this week, who are apparently going to abolish taxpayer-funded subsidies for political parties (Hat-tip to ConHome).

There are few things less edifying than the sight of political parties which have failed to inspire the public to donate to them forcing taxpayers to support them financially instead. If the need for them to appeal to the public for financial support was removed, yet another line of accountability would be cut and we would have taken yet another step along the road of power lying in the hands of politicians and not the people.

The Obama campaign’s remarkable levels of small donations shows that it is possible to raise money from ordinary people on a massive scale to fund a successful election campaign. This graph from the BBC News Website (with Blue for Obama, Red for McCain) says it all:

It is impossible for any politician to stand up and argue against the case that they have a divine right to exist and that taxpayers must pick up the bill. The bottom line is that the only reason they are demanding subsidies is that their business model, products and service quality have failed pretty miserably. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have no more right to survive, preserved forever at the expense of the people they have failed to inspire, than Woolworths or MFI.

An unusual event, today – good news from local government about council tax. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham have announced that for the third year running they will be cutting council tax by 3%. Congratulations from the TPA!

Let's take a second to think about the true magnitude of this. We have reached such a dire situation with the majority of local councils that if you got a council tax bill through the door saying next year's tax would go down you would assume there had been a misprint or a banding error. What H&F have achieved through careful budgeting, cutting waste, restructuring wasteful departments and paying off debt (Alistair Darling take note!) is achievable by every council in the land, but few of them have the drive and the inspiration to do it.

Hammersmith and Fulham bring the lie to every council that turns its back on residents and expects them to be grateful for tax rises every year. It can be done, and every council in the land would do well to study the Hammersmith and Fulham model to learn how to do it.

…they still can't resist nannying us. Reflecting on the PBR, it's interesting that despite all of Alistair Darling's rhetoric about how seriously he was taking this crisis and how important the VAT cut will be to business and consumers, the Government's nanny state instincts still won out when it came to tax on cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. Unfortunately, Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley seems to think a recession is a good time for some bracing puritanism too.

The VAT cut is a necessary and welcome help to shops and to shoppers, so it is wrong economically as well as morally to refuse to let it take effect on things the Government disapproves of. For many families, fuel is a massive proportion of their weekly bills and a cut in price at the pumps would be extremely welcome. Alcohol and cigarettes are two of the reasons that the poor are disproportionately hit by VAT, and yet they won't see any benefit on their outgoings. Pubs are going under at the rate of three or four a week, and yet for all the talk about SMEs needing help, they aren't going to be allowed to benefit from the VAT cut.

Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and Andrew Lansley have got to realise that whilst they might have been able to get away with this kind of paternalist price inflation by diktat when things were good, in a crisis that kind of bossy government is a luxury that should go out of the window.

It's hard enough at the moment to get into the job market, let alone to progress up the ladder. My folks always told me: if you work hard and want to succeed, you'll get your rewards. Turns out, that's not always the case.

In yesterday's Pre Budget Report, Alistair Darling announced measures that will not only penailse all those earning anything above £20,000, but discourage everyone from working harder (or in some cases working at all) and achieving higher position and wages. He has truly become the grim reaper, sounding the death knell of British ambition.

Let's start with the obvious one: increasing the top level of tax to 45% for all those earning more than £150,000. Now, at first glance, this may just look like a tax on the super-rich, many of whom contributed to the age of financial hedonism that got us into this mess. The Government says it will raise £2 billion from this move, so where's the harm?

The harm is here: the Government's calculations on the revenue this will raise are over-simplistic and, ultimately, wrong. They are based on the assumption that there will be the same number of people in this tax bracket in a couple of years as there are now. With City workers being sacked and taking pay cuts across the board, it is safe to assume there will be nowhere near the high earners to contribute by the time this comes into force after the next general election. Both the CEBR and the IFS estimate that the tax take for this step will be closer to £400 million, but the damage it will do in terms of the loss of fringe benefits such as auxillary job creation and investment will far outstrip this gain.

More importantly, however, is the message this sends. You would think, with the global economic situation, that Britain would be doing all it can to gain the competitive edge, attract investment and show the corporations of the world that this is where they will get the best deal. We want their investment, and in return we should show them that we are business friendly, that we encourage success and excellence in all its forms. But what the Government are doing is trying to score political points by being seen to punish the high earners, with no meaningful consequences other than damaging loss of investment.

But it's not just the high earners, anyone on over £20,000 will lose out from this budget. National Insurance, it was announced yesterday, will rise by half a per cent on incomes over £20,000. So if you're currently on £18,000, and that promotion you've been working for is just around the corner, by the time you are popping the champagne, you'll get less money in your pocket. This will add a total of £20 billion to National Insurance, at a time when families are struggling more than ever to make ends meet.

A much better, fairer soltuion would have been to raise the income tax threshold, thereby helping everybody and proportionately helping the poorest most. Importantly, this would increase the incentive to get into work – with social welfare costs rising and set to rise further, the Government should be doing all it can to get people off benefits and into work – giving them more money in their pockets is the best way to do this. 

These measures affect people all the way up. They punish aspiration, hard work and ambition, three things that not only are in short supply in this country, but that will become ever more important as the economic crisis deepens. 

One positive from yesterday's Pre-Budget report was the delaying of the unfair retrospective rise in Vehicle Excise Duty. The campaign the TPA spearheaded against the rising car tax has – for 2009/10 at least – saved motorists £465 million.

This is a great success for the TPA and for all those who have campaigned so hard against these rises. Of course, now we need to push for the plans to be shelved permanently, but a one-year reprieve is certainly welcome.

Looking to the future, it is hard to imagine that Alistair Darling will be able to justify this unpopular hike on car tax and the accompanying burden of "showroom tax" in Spring 2010, either. For a start we will either still be in a recession then or embarking on our recovery from it, so punishing motorists and the car trade further would be economically harmful. In cynical terms, it is also likely to be election year and, as the outcry against them has shown, these plans are highly unpopular.

Having stopped the plans for now, we will be working hard to make sure the Government is never able to introduce them at all.

I laughed when I received this yesterday from a TPA supporter:

Look at the top line.  It says that by not registering or giving false details with Basingstoke and Deane council, you face a £1,000 fine!  What do they do next?  They say your details have to be in by Thursday 24th November 2008. 

Do you spot the problem?  Yesterday was Monday 24th November.  As our correspondent in Hampshire pointed out to us – does their error mean that details have to be sent in by Thursday 27th November, Monday 24th November or Thursday 20th? 

Were you to be as confused about this as our supporters in Hampshire are and you get your details wrong or miss the deadline – you face a £1,000 fine.  Here’s food for thought.  How about when the council gets their details wrong, instead threatening to fine us, they give us a rebate as way of apology.  We’ve all got to live by the same rules, surely?

Few people outside Islington will have heard of Cllr. Andrew Cornwell, the now former cabinet member for finance on Islington council.  But they should do, for here we have a councillor resigning his cabinet post because of a council’s “waste, inefficiency, spending on refreshments, conference venues, travel costs and consultants”.  Yes, that was a point of principle and to prove that some councillors aren’t just in it for the money, Cllr. Cornwell left his £35,075 salary when he resigned and now goes back to a basic allowance of £9,954.

Congratulations Cllr Cornwell, I say.  Here was a councillor who was trying to deliver value for money, yet saw his council leader jetting off to America for pointless seminars, lavish refreshments and endless waste.  But instead of keeping quiet, he’s sparked a debate in Islington, which you can see from the Islington Tribune’s letters page below.  Of note, also, is a letter from our very own Islington TPA branch organiser Tim Newark congratulating Cllr Cornwell.  Click to enlarge:

More recenetly, Cllr Cornwell has called for £100 to be cut off pensioners’ council tax bills by freezing councillor allowances and cutting spending on refreshments for councillors and consultants.  All good stuff to us at the TPA!

Normally we put councillor contact details on our blog for you to complain.  Not this time.  Give Cllr Cornwell some moral support by congratulating him on his stand for lower council tax!  You can contact him at: [email protected]

TPA supporter Ian Taylor, a champion for giving us news on council waste, has come up with another shocking story of a Kent council using taxpayers’ money for lavish lunches.  This time Canterbury City Council’s Lord Mayor has entertained 11 council worthies and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The news is that you’re the one being left with the bill.

Yes, as if the gold chain round her neck was cutting off the oxygen supply to her brain, the Lord Mayor of Canterbury Cllr. Carolyn Parry has left you with her lunch bill at a time when hardworking taxpayers’ can barely keep up with their own bill payments.

It’s a case of there being two worlds isn’t it?  One for the politicians and one for the rest of us.  The economy is on the verge of severe crisis – thanks to the frankly irresponsible Pre Budget Report yesterday – and our taxes are set to rise.  So what do your local worthies do – they serve you up a higher council tax bill so they can get away without having to pay their lunch bill.

Frankly, I think we’re all got a duty to reprimand Cllr Parry for her disgraceful behaviour.  You can contact her by sending an email to: [email protected]

On Saturday I went to the Bruges Group conference to give a speech entitled ‘big government is bad government’.  When the video is uploaded this week I’ll put it on the site so you can have a look. 

Importantly, it was a timely conference looking at the costs of the EU, the costs of misguided climate change policies and the damaging effects of government waste.  Speech after speech hit out at the damaging effects of big government, how the EU wastes our money and does nothing to stop it, how ID cards and an out of control bureaucracy squander taxpayers’ money and that our politicians are doing nothing to trim down the size of government.

Going around the conference in the intervals, I met some very keen supporters you can see below.  But I was determined that everyone photographed would send a message to Gordon Brown.

Teresa Gorman, former Conservative MP for Billericay and Masstricht rebel:

Marta Andreasen, former chief accountant to the EU who spoke out on the waste and corruption in the EU:

TPA supporter Douglas Evans and Gerard Batten MEP:

Author Lindsay Jenkins and TPA supporter Mick McGough:

TPA supporter Kenneth Irvine:

If you would like to join the low tax campaign, you can register your supporter with us  – for free – here.

Browsing through the Guardian’s job pages this week, I came across this advert.  The job itself didn’t merit the title of ‘non-job of the week’, I mean, if it’s a choice between equality officers and lawyers, the decision is tough but lawyers have a use after all.

But take a look and note the rather arrogant statement on the ad:

“A law unto ourselves”.  If you need any further proof of the aloof nature of local government, this is it.  Liverpool City Council has run up a budgetary black hole of £60 million this year, yet its ad lauds that bloody great giant spider (spinning a web of more debt there Liverpool Council, well done) as part of their Culture celebrations.

To me the ‘law unto ourselves’ statement means that they can rack up as many debts and deficits as they like and still continue to hike taxes and squander taxpayers’ money.  So much for Liverpool City Council acting like responsible public servants.

Well done to TPA supporter Roger Baker!  He’s scored a double hit on over-spending Suffolk county council.  When we went all out to highlight and expose the £220,000 salary Andrea Hill picked up as the new chief executive of the council, the lackeys retorted that it was essential to get a quality chief executive. 

In two letters Roger has destroyed that weak excuse, which you can read at the bottom of this post.  For you see, Ms Hill is so careful with taxpayers’ money that she’s shelling out £400,000 of your money to send 1,000 council staff on a “leadership communication programme” complete with psychological testing. 

Naturally, if you think this is a bad way to spend taxpayers’ money, visit our previous blog here to hold Suffolk’s councillors to account.  If you want to contact Andrea Hill, I’m afraid you’ll have to email her through her secretary: [email protected]. 

This just shows how valuable our grassroots supporters are to the campaign.  While we can only find and do so much at the centre, you’re invaluable in being our eyes and ears on the ground.  If you spot your council behaving badly with your money, let us know like Roger did.  The more waste we dig up the more we can tell people how realistic lower taxes are.  Furthermore we can drum it into the politicians’ heads that they need to get a grip on their officer corps and stop the over-spending.  If not, they’ll have thousands of TPA emails sat in their inboxes. 

Here’s a copy of the letter Roger sent sent to Suffolk’s chief executive.  I’m sure you’ll agree it’s superb:

"Dear Mrs Hill

Congratulations ! You now have the rare distinction of having figured twice in the “Rotten Boroughs” section of “Private Eye” – see the attached copies of both articles.

You will notice that your actions have further confirmed the reputation of Suffolk as a county of “yokels” who are governed by a “Round the Bend” administration (“Private Eye’s” words, not mine).

I wrote to all recipients of this letter in the 13th October suggesting that the expenditure of £400,000 on a “communicational psychology” course was not something that should be contemplated during these straitened times, but the only reply I received was from Jeremy Pembroke who, of course, defended it to the hilt, thereby confirming the widespread belief that the elected councillors’ motto is “Fill your boots – it’s only taxpayers’ money, and there’s always more where that came from”

When are you going to start behaving in a manner which portrays Suffolk in a positive light and which acknowledges that, in the real world outside the public sector, taxpayers are suffering?

Yours sincerely

Roger Baker"

Councillors and officers – you have been warned!

Click to enlarge: