Reality a-tax

The Daily Mail is leading the charge for the right wing of the Conservative Party and David Davis suggesting that people with second homes, shares, jewellery and other assets should not face any increase in Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 40% in order to help people on lower incomes (below £10,000) stay out of income tax altogether. There is plenty of talk of “betrayal” and “revolt” among the 1922 hopefuls and a general feeling that a Conservative government doesn’t do this sort of thing.

Firstly, let’s remember that the reason we are in government at all is because we’ve been able to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems. Sure, a Conservative government with a outright majority would probably have steered clear of CGT altogether but we were 18 seats short of where we wanted to be and the result is compromise rather than full implementation of Conservative principles. It’s a little uncomfortable in places but the PM has said that stable government was necessary in this time of national strife and compromise is part of that.

Furthermore, David Davis says that he wants to protect the ”hard-working, responsible, self-reliant middle and working classes”. I’m not sure how many “ordinary” people he feels deal in more than £10,000 of capital gains each year but I suspect the answer is “not many”. You also won’t find in any of the major papers the fact that the current 18% rate was only set by Labour in 1998 and previously had been much higher under the Conservative government during the 80s and 90s.

The fact is that people who have these kinds of assets to make money on need to pay their fair share in helping reduce the deficit – that may be fair to those whose trading helped bring the problems about and unfair on prudent savers. That’s unfortunate, it’s not entirely comfortable and it’s certainly not Conservative; but it’s necessary and hopefully temporary.

What is important is that those who are being helped by this measure by being freed of tax burdens and encouraged to work at the lower end of the pay scale are given a very firm steer in that direction. There is no justice in asking some people to pay for a £10,000 income tax threshold if those benefitting from it are then not working or contributing to society. Just as we need the wealthiest to help the country out of trouble, so we need the bottom-up economy to get working too.

Having taken a centrist view of the CGT issue then, I’m happy to take a more centre-right view on Iain Duncan Smith’s promise to mend our benefits system, which is a national joke. Of course I believe that the poorest in society should have the help they need. But I also firmly believe that thousands and thousands of people routinely abuse our over-complex and under-thought benefits system for their own gain – at the expense of the entire nation and other taxpayers.

So I hope that left-leaning thinkers will see a connection here – between controlling the right-leaning tax tendencies of the Conservative Party but also changing the liberal attitudes to the Welfare State that have cost Britain money and not a little self-respect during the past 20 years.

Watching your words

An interesting story in a few of the papers today is the case of the magistrate in Blackburn who faces disciplinary action after using the term “absolute scum” to describe young defendants in court.

The Daily Mail story (almost verbatim) is interesting because it offers us an insight into some public opinion in the comments underneath, almost all of whom agree with the magistrate and say that his comments were justified and correct. This raises an interesting question about magistrates – whose justice do magistrates dispense?

Justice, of course, is the crown’s and the Queen’s and last Monday I swore two oaths – both included phrases to serve and pledge alliegance to the Queen and her successors. But if magistrates are taken from the local population, shouldn’t they be free to express the views of the society they serve? Well, yes and no. Magistrates are free to express the court’s views on a crime or sentence to defendants within certain perameters if they are serving as a bench chairman.

But the Judicial Oath also contains in it the words:

“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”

To me, although the bit about the Queen is important, it is this forward-facing part of the oaths that is most relevant on a day-to-day basis. The magistrate on this occasion may feel he was speaking for the community and that by phrasing it the way he did and attributing the “absolute scum” to what “normal people”, rather than he or the court might think he was ameliorating the bane.

But what he has actually done is created the perception – however misplaced – of ”ill will” towards the defendants and reinforced those feelings within the community. That, it my view, goes against the Judicial Oath. The fact that the comments were made in a Youth Court – where particularly sensitive and careful work with young people goes on – is also unfortunate.

The gentleman concerned is an experienced magistrate and has  given considerable service to his community. And the culture of the magistracy generally is one of ongoing training, improvement and support for everyone involved – we all make mistakes and discussion, correction and learning is the positive approach to addressing them.

But, sorry to disappoint the Daily Mail, we can’t have justices appointing themselves as “voices of the community” or stamping their own moral code on the courtroom, however awful the offence and unrepetent the defendant.

Using their reasonable judgement to dispense justice according to the law is the sole purpose of a justice; anything else is politics and that, as we know, belongs in a different place.

Lack of Myleene-iency was Klass-ic plod

 

Myleene Klass

Former-popstar-turned-crossover-pianist Myleene Klass is hardly an unlikely cause de celebre for the Daily Mail but rather than because of a minimal swimsuit, she is making headlines after waving a kitchen knife at a group of ne’er-do-wells who thought it was perfectly okay to go sneaking around her Hertfordshire garden.

They of course got away and even though the police probably know who they are, nothing will happen to them. By contrast, the face of Marks and Spencer got a visit from the local beat telling her that if she threatened people with a knife again, she’d be the one down the nick giving over her DNA and fingerprints to the national database and fending off the inquiries of the county’s finest.

Interestingly, Hertfordshire Police first categorically denied telling her off. It said:

“For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home.”

They then changed their story to:

“Words of advice were given to the owner of the property.”

The point is this – that if some thugs enter your home or trespass on your property, you ought to be able to let them know in the strongest possible terms that they are not welcome. I don’t necessarily think that waving a knife at them is the best idea – not least because they may be armed themselves. Nor do I agree with some right-wingers that people committing crime should not enjoy the protection of the law – it’s a poetic concept but we’re not animals, for goodness’ sake.

The law needs clarifying - what is “reasonable force” and where is your “home” and what counts as “self-defence” and where do the boundaries begin and end? At the moment the courts are left to decide everything on the basis that no one instance is like another – not true – and as a result many defendants are dragged unecessarily through the legal process in a way that undermines confidence in the law, respect for the police and leaves victims feeling as though they are no better off than criminals.

And the police appear to be every bit as confused as the public given their completely disproportionate and legally dubious reaction to Ms Klass.

PS Sorry about the dreadful tabloid headline, her name is a gift to sub-editors everywhere. And also apologies for the “pretty girl” picture – but come on, one in six months is allowed.