TAX AVOIDANCE PROPOSALS ARE THIN END OF WEDGE.

A long-standing principle of British law has been that there is a clear difference between 'tax evasion' and 'tax avoidance'. It has also been an accepted principal of the same law that 'the law is the law', in other words, the law is interpreted as it is written.

Now, all that is set to change. The Government is proposing to introduced sever penalties for anyone who advises people how to avoid tax; note, that this is about the wholly legal 'avoidance' rather than the clearly illegal 'evasion'. As the responsible department, the Treasury plans to introduce new rules designed to stop people using loopholes which were 'never intended' in the original legislation, in order to "root out" tax avoidance at source.

No one seems to be very bothered about this and yet it is an astonishing advance in the powers of the state. No longer will legislation have to be properly written, it will be sufficient for it to have an 'intention'. Separately, something which is absolutely legal in itself, tax avoidance, will be fully criminalised, even though successive Governments have actually introduced measures that specifically promote avoidance in schemes such as ISAs and SIPPs. Effectively, tax avoidance will no longer exist outside of approved Government schemes; all other avoidance will be treated as evasion, whatever the law actually says..

If the proposed measures do come into effect, it will be the beginning of the end for democracy and law in this country. Subsequently, any Government will be able to claim that anyone is in breach of any law because whatever they've done was 'intended'  to be outlawed, even if the relevant statute doesn't actually say so. Those who frame our legislation will become increasingly sloppy in its formation, relying on this principal to cover up their incompetence.

I find this shocking, appalling and terrifying. Why is there so little fuss about it ?

CAMERON'S HONOURS : "YOU SHOOK MY HAND ? HAVE A GONG !"

Stories about David Cameron's 'Resignation Honours list' have hit the news and, if true, show just how corrupt the UK honours' system is.

Cameron has reportedly proposed honours for an assortment of lackeys, a large number of whom seem to have been his personal supporters. Again, if true, this shows just what type of man Cameron is, one who will eschew genuine service for the country and, instead, reward those who were simply

'on his side'.

Everyone knows that the honours' system is a farce. Although those who control it will point to the thousands of 'ordinary people' who receive gongs, they don't mention that these almost all receive the lowest awards. The higher honours are reserved for time-serving civil servants, politicians past and present, and sport and media 'stars'. Many of these people have accrued considerable wealth from their careers and have done no more than do their job. Many of the political figures seem to almost expect to become 'Sir' or 'Lady' after a few years of parliamentary membership, while elevation to the peerage comes as a reward for being a good party member.

When pop singers, television personalities, sports' personalities and an assortment of others who have done little other than to enrich themselves while also doing what they love doing, are rewarded with medals and titles, it is obvious that the system is broken. Cameron's proposals, if as reported, just reinforce the case for wholesale reform of what has become nothing other than a mechanism for showering one's mates and various populist figures with ill-deserved favours.

It is time to do away with this antiquated system, along with the concept of an appointed 'Upper House' in parliament. These things belong to a bygone era and have no place in the modern world.

THERESA MAY'S NEW CABINET : WHERE WILL IT TAKE US ?

With Theresa May's new Cabinet now in place, it has to be said that it's been a pretty brutal 'reshuffle' as well as being a bit of a 'curate's egg'.

The new Prime Minister has made huge changes, with 9 previous senior ministers leaving the cabinet and making this one of the most wholesale reshuffles of modern times. George Osborne, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, John Whittingdale, Theresa Villiers, Oliver Letwin, Mark Harper and Baroness Tina Stowell have all been sacked while Stephen Crabb has resigned. Rarely has there been such a clear out.

The new appointments have not necessarily been without interest. The appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary took the early news, being something of a surprise to almost everyone, though Philip Hammond's move to the Treasury had been much anticipated. Few have kept their old jobs, Jeremy Hunt at Health and Michael Fallon at Defence being the only 2 major figures so to do, while the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries also hung on, at least partly due to their positions as the only acceptable candidates.

However, some other posts may be more contentious. Andrea Leadsom, who made such a horlicks of her leadership bid, has unaccountably been rewarded with the job of Environment Secretary, God knows why. Liz Truss, who strikes me as being pretty useless and certainly has presentational issues, has been promoted to become Justice Secretary and the first Lord Chancellor in British history; again, I find the appointment baffling. Similarly, the reasons for the appointments of Amber Rudd to the Home Office and Karen Bradley to Culture, Media and Sport, plus the move of Justine Greening from International Development to Education, seem to owe more to their gender than any real track record of political achievement, none of them having been MPs for very long. Priti Patel is another woman who has been promoted to Cabinet level after not many years of parliamentary experience, while Natalie Evans, who becomes Leader of the House of Lords, only joined that illustrious house 2 years ago.

Many of the rest have, at least, years of experience behind them. David Davis who will oversee the country's exit from the European Union, Liam Fox who has been given responsibility for international trade, Damian Green, Chris Grayling, David Liddington and Patrick McLoughlin have all been MPs for periods approaching 20 years or more. Others who have less experience include Gavin Williamson as Chief Whip and Sajid Javed as Communities Secretary, the latter seemingly being demoted after having had rapid promotions previously, and James Brokenshire, all being MPs only since 2010. Greg Clark has been an MP since 2005 and is the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

One wonders if this mixture of experience and inexperience, novelty and femininity will produce the desired results, or will there be another reshuffle before very long ?

BORIS JOHNSON : FOREIGN SECRETARY !

Fortunately for the UK, Andrea Leadsom finally saw sense a few days ago and Theresa May has inherited the post of Prime Minister unopposed. While some have complained that she has not been elected to the office, the quick resolution of vacancy created by David Cameron's childish and destabilising resignation can only be good news, added to the fact that the post of Prime Minister is not an elected one anyway.

Whether Mrs May will prove to be the right choice as PM is something that we will have to wait to discover, however, her initial decisions seem promising. Having campaigned, albeit quietly, for the UK to remain in the European Union, she had made it clear that 'Brexit means Brexit', and her first senior cabinet appointments certainly back this up. Chancellor George Osborne, previously seen as Prime Minister in waiting and David Cameron's 'right hand man', has been kicked out altogether. Osborne was an ardent 'Remainer' and issued numerous dire warnings about the probable economic effects of Brexit, as well as having made something of a Horlicks of his Budgets over the last 3 or 4 years. Osborne's replacement is former Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, a 'Remainer' apparently seen as a safe pair of hands.

To replace Hammond at the Foreign Office, Prime Minister May has made a real statement of intent by appointing Boris Johnson who led the Brexit campaign, while her choice for the new post of 'Brexit Secretary' is David Davis, another ardent Brexiteer. While the appointment of Davis had been suggested as a possibility, no one could have imagined seeing Boris at the Foreign Office; his bumbling, slightly dishevelled style surely does not fit with that department's imagne of itself, nonetheless, there he is. What these appointments suggest to me is that Mrs May really does mean to move pretty rapidly to get the negotiations for the UK's exit from the EU, and negotiations to sort out our independent relationship with the rest of the world, under way.

The quick confirmation of David Cameron's replacement at Number 10, has also helped to calm financial markets with the stock exchange showing some improvement from recent low levels and the pound rising somewhat against both the dollar and the Euro. While there may still be some volatility in the months and years ahead, the initial signs are that the horrors predicted by the Remain campaign were largely over-hyped.

Mrs May will reveal more of her ministerial appointments over the coming hours and we will discover more about her likely style and intentions in Government. No doubt there will be a few surprises along the way.

IT'S THERESA MAY FOR ME.

And so the Conservative Party has decided that our next Prime Minister will be either Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom, the final choice to be announced on September 9th.

 

Theresa May has many years of Parliamentary and government experience and seems to be the preferred candidate of Conservative Members of Parliament; she campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU, though was not exactly at the forefront of the campaigning. In truth, she was probably a rather reluctant 'remainer' who rather hedged her bets when it came to choosing sides and has already suggested that her negotiating stance with the EU will be quite tough.

Andrea Leadsom only entered Parliament in 2010 after a career in financial services. She has progressed fairly quickly to junior minister level but has no experience at cabinet level. It has been suggested that she may be a bit of a closet 'remainer' even though she was a leading light in the 'Brexit' campaign, and some of her comments suggest that her negotiating stance may actually be more liberal than that of Mrs May.

Some of Leadsom's supporters have said that her lack of senior government experience is no concern as she has plenty of experience at a senior level in her previous career. They also cite David Cameron's lack of government experience when he became Prime Minister in 2010 which, to me, is no recommendation at all; Cameron has hardly been a Prime Minister who has covered himself in glory and history will largely ignore him except for the glaring issue of the EU referendum.

Theresa May entered Parliament in 1997 and has been at a senior level in the Party since 1999. Appointed as Home Secretary in 2010, she has now been the longest serving in that post for over 60 years, surviving remarkably well in a job which has traditionally been a graveyard for politicians. Indeed, Mrs May seems to be something of a survivor, having come unscathed through the various turmoils of her Party over the last 20 years. Kenneth Clark has been heard saying that she's good but also that she's a 'bloody difficult woman', something which could easily be seen as a recommendation.

I don't have a vote in this contest and, as a committed 'Brexiteer', if I did I ought to be a supporter of Mrs Leadsom. However, I really think that her lack of political and diplomatic experience is a massive stumbling block. Mrs May, on the other hand, does have a track record at the highest level, has the confidence of an overwhelming majority of her Parliamentary colleagues and seems to know her own mind. Consequently, I find myself firmly in the corner of a 'bloody difficult woman'; let's just hope that, as our second woman Prime Minister, she proves to be as tough as our first.

CHILCOT : BLAIR REMAINS DEFIANT

After years and years of procrastination, the Chilcot Report has finally been published. Rather surprisingly, the report has pointed fingers, very particularly at former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Way back in the mists of time, Blair involved the UK in a costly and pointless war in Iraq. He claimed that the Iraqi government was a major threat to peace and had 'weapons of mass destruction' galore; he backed up his claims with an assortment of information from the security services and others. Now, it seems, that much of what was claimed was spurious or even downright lies.

Chilcot has concluded that Blair made a secret arrangement with the US President, George W Bush, that the UK would take part in a war against Iraq, pretty well 'come what may'. He didn't communicate effectively with his cabinet colleagues or Parliament, and didn't initiate any post invasion planning. The security information was largely flawed, misrepresented, or entirely bogus and there were no 'weapons of mass destruction'. Effectively, the invasion was unjustified and even illegal.

Blair's response has been to say that he has no regrets about his decision to take the country to war and says that his actions were justified by the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He seems to believe that the Iraq of today is a better place than the Iraq of yesteryear, even though it is now a country in terminal meltdown. Previously it had a powerful dictator who kept the country under control, albeit brutally at times; now it is supposedly democratic but is in a constant state of civil war, with no one in effective control. How is one condition better than the other ?

More than 200 British citizens died during our involvement in the conflict and many thousands of Iraqis, most of them civilians, also perished. The country is certainly no better off than it was previously and may well be worse off; some of its people have been reported as saying that they regret the demise of Hussein as, at least, under him there was order.

In my eyes, Tony Blair was, and is, an egomaniac, driven by a desire to be seen as a great statesman, bestriding the world and upholding his notions of decency and morality. He saw himself standing alongside the US President as being a clear indication of his own importance and was more than happy to ignore truth, accept dubious security services reports without question and send thousands of British troops to war for his own personal ends. The British people were, at least, misled, at worst lied to, all in the pursuit of one man's goals. 

Blair is an utter disgrace and yet, as a by-product of his activities, he's amassed a fortune in the upper tens of millions of pounds. While soldiers died, he made money; while the middle east, and beyond, is a disaster zone, he makes money as a supposed mediator. How on earth does he get away with it ? 

EU REFERENDUM : IT AIN'T ALL OVER 'TIL THE FAT LADY SINGS !

As the dust clears, it is also becoming clear that some pro-EU campaigners have not given up hope of keeping the UK in the Union, come what may. In particular, that well known champion of democracy, Tony Blair, has said that the UK should 'keep its options open' and suggested that, while Parliament has a duty to act in accordance with the will of the people, that will could change.

Blair has been careful to hedge his remarks with so much waffle that he could, if it came to it, claim that he was doing nothing but expressing an opinion about the overall position, without suggesting that there should be any back-tracking over the referendum result. However, knowing how attached he is to the political status quo and his own best interests, his weasel words can be interpreted in only one way. He is laying the ground for a second referendum or, even, for the possibility that Parliament simply ignores the original result citing changed circumstances, an unacceptable exit negotiation or some other manufactured nonsense as reason.

There is, undoubtedly, a move afoot to find a way round the inconvenient result of the referendum, exactly as there was in previous referendums in other EU member states. On several occasions, countries have got the 'wrong result' in referendums and their governments have simply held others until the 'right result' was achieved. Brexiteers should be under no illusions; the referendum result was far from the final act in this saga. In fact, unless we get a genuinely pro-exit Prime Minister and get on with the process of leaving 'tout suite', we may well never leave.

You have been warned.