How much tax is paid by the Workers and how much by Business?

There has been much talk lately of a fairer tax system.

Thanks to organisations like UK Uncut and 38 Degrees and those behind the Robin Hood Tax, tax avoidance and tax evasion are now high up the agenda and offer a real "alternative" to cuts and austerity.

How much of an alternative though, that's the question? Is there enough inequality in the system to carry out an economic "re-balancing" of an entirely different kind? Not one from public sector to private sector but from Business to worker?

We hear endless tales of woe from business. They are the wealth creators, the drivers of our economy. They are over taxed and over regulated, all of which, they claim, leads to inefficiency and a drag on wealth creation.

Osborne's plan is to cut red tape, give tax breaks to business and encourage businesses to invest, to employ and to grow. But will they? Without influence from legislation, will business leap to our rescue?

This astonishing chart compiled by my good friend Eoin Clarke over on The Green Benches seems to give the starkest evidence of why this approach is flawed.

Whilst workers account for 45% of all tax that comes into the treasury (through Income Tax and National Insurance), Corporation tax accounts for just 8%

Put another way, workers pay nearly 6 times more than business towards the economic effectiveness or our country.

Business sits on a £600 Billion surplus already - is there any evidence that leaving even more money under their control will lead to growth and investment? If the wealthiest business owners and so called "wealth creators" increased their personal wealth by 300% during the credit crunch, are we really going to stand by and watch it increase further while families are plunged into debt simply to pay for food and rent?

If anything illustrates how things have gone wrong and why they need to change, then surely this chart does just that?

Durrr!

Lord Owen: NHS changes must halt

Independent, Monday 4th April 2011

"Andrew Lansley should be prevented from implementing any further changes to the NHS while the Health and Social Care Bill is being debated, Lord Owen has said......."

Just thought I'd post that really. 

It seemed so blindingly obvious, I was amazed to even read it in print. 

The Man who bet everything on Black...

Forgive me for repeating myself, but I can't help watching the Great NHS Battle of 2011 with a mixture of fascination and horror.

I've pointed out how very unwise it is to dump a 3 billion re-organisation on the NHS without its desire or consent.

The NHS is the one universal policy, the one institution we value over all others. It has vast public support and is a national treasure Labour are seen as better at managing.

It's clear for all to see that Andrew Lansley's health reform plans are in trouble. They have no support amongst doctors, nurses, patients or GPs, the Lib Dems voted against them at their conference, Tory backbenchers know they will cost them seats and possibly put the EU in charge of competition laws. The mighty 38 Degrees have taken on the cause, with a 250,000 signature petition and the BMA voted overwhelmingly against the plans.

So what to do?

Well, traditionally, policies this unpopular are gently discredited from behind the scenes and we all agree that no more should be said on the matter. The minister in charge of such chaos is quietly shuffled off to another department and subtly the narrative starts to change toward something much more palatable and popular.

Political opportunism? You bet. But also vital for a government to survive. If something is genuinely unpopular, you just ought to accept that you got it wrong and move on. If not you risk looking as though you think you "know bes,t" think you can push through any policy "for our own good". You risk a poll tax or an Iraq hanging around your neck that blocks every future message you ever want to send.

A quick flick through today's papers however reveal a charm offensive is underway. The Telegraph tells us that "David Cameron will this week take control of the government's Health Reforms amid fierce criticism of the plans"

So the man who was convinced that only he could win an election for the Conservatives, now believes that only he can "sell" an unpopular Health policy. PR Dave will save the "brand" and the "product" with a series of oh-so-earnest "meetings"

Cameron's personal ratings are still better than either Miliband's or Clegg's. During the election campaigns last year, do you remember seeing anyone else in front of a camera? You certainly didn't (and still don't) see Osborne. You didn't see Theresa May or Oliver Letwin. Not hide nor hair of Lansley or Grayling. "Lansley who?" May have been more accurate.

Seems we have another Teflon-messiah with over-reaching self belief.

But to stake your ratings and political capital on an unpopular and failing health policy is like betting everything on black. If it remains unpopular, you will evermore be linked in the public psyche to NHS attacks.

For quite some time, Cameron trod a delicate path. He delegated well, kept out of departmental squabbles and wafted around looking statesmanlike. People liked it. If a policy went wrong, Dave stepped up to reassure and largely, people thought, "Oh, phew, that's OK then. Dave seems like a nice bloke."

To think that that will work with the NHS is quite remarkable. I suppose the closest example I can think of is Blair resolutely clinging to Iraq when all around him were edging, then fleeing away. It didn't turn out well. For evermore, every message Blair wanted to share started with the words "Iraq-blah-blah-Iraq". Domestic politics faded into the background and Iraq was all anyone ever heard.

If you think it's an unlikely comparison, just wait to see the reaction when a domestic issue like the NHS takes centre stage. When wards and hospitals start to close, when operations aren't scheduled and maternity units can't deliver babies. Even Tory backbenchers will walk away from that level of carnage. The public will run.

There is of course a way out. It's brutal, but politics is brutal. Drop the unpopular bits, reassure the public ad nauseum and replace Lansley. I don't think Cameron will. He is loyal - Coulson showed us that. He may fall into the trap of defending the indefensible until it really damages him, just as he did with Coulson. He may keep Lansley around long after he becomes a liability, just as he did with Coulson.

Or, Clegg might see his greatest chance to revive his ailing party quite spectacularly.

Nothing would give his party a greater boost than the words "I'm sorry, my party is sorry, but some prices are simply not worth paying. If power and influence means the destruction of our National Health Service, then that is something my party simply cannot be a part of ."

The Health Reforms would fail, we may well see an election and Clegg would shoot straight to the top of the opinion polls before you could say "NHS Saviour".

But that almost certainly won't happen either. Will it?

A little hint for Lansley and Cameron...

Oh yes! After my NHS post this morning, you can see the Whitehall Mandarins have started a full on charm offensive to "sell" Andrew Lansley's health reforms to us silly, uncomprehending fools. We just don't "get it" you see. If we understood, we wouldn't mind, according to the finest Tory minds. (Well Cameron actually)

I just read this article in the Guardian that explains how Andrew Lansley had a stroke in 1992 and experienced dreadful care in the NHS, the stroke wrongly diagnosed as an ear infection, and an impenetrable wall of NHS bureaucracy kept him from treatment.

It was this apparently, that led him to devote his career to reforming the Health Service.

Without a trace of irony, the article then goes on to flash forward to 2009 and Cameron's appreciation of the wonderful job the NHS had done in caring for his severely disabled son Ivan. It notes how badly Cameron needed to detoxify the Tory brand by claiming that there would be "no more top down reorganisation of the NHS"

So, let me get this straight.

Lansley had terrible care in 1992 (after 13 years of Tory cost cutting) and decided the NHS was rubbish.

Cameron had amazing care right up until 2009 (after 12 years of Labour investment) and decided the NHS was wonderful.

Yet still they can't work out what could possibly have made the difference.

And these people are running the country?

The NHS - It's a jungle out there Cameron

As I said on this blog back in February and before, the NHS is not an animal Prime Ministers ought to underestimate:

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com/2011/02/nhs-camerons-albatross.html

In policy terms, the NHS is a lion, snoozing in the midday sun. It might look sleepy, it might seem unconcerned. You might be foolish enough to believe that it is cumbersome - lazy even, but you wake it at your peril. You won't win. Politicians never have been and never will be a match for NHS-lions. If you anger it or make it lame, you won't survive. It will gobble you up and spit you out, adding more politician bones to the sun-bleached pile of decades. 

It's been clear for some time that Lansley is a "Dead man Walking." It was only ever a matter of time before Cameron would have to step in with his earnest promises and hypnotic snake-eyes, reassssssuring us that all is sssssafe. The BMA, the RCN, GPs, patients and charities are all against his plans, with the BMA coming a hair away from a vote of no confidence in Lansley last month. 

Even the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil  monkeys of Clegg, Alexander and Huhne were urged by their conference to stop chattering amongst themselves and step up to protect the King.

According to the Independent this morning, next week, Cameron will announce a "pause" of up to three months in the progress of the bill through parliament. This will be :

"to allow for more time to reassure clinicians, patients and coalition MPs."

Take three months Mr Cameron, take three years if you will. When it comes to the NHS, we can sniff out rotten flesh at 100 paces. We are told that these plans took Lansley up to 8 years to put together. Three months won't persuade us to like them any more. The press-vultures are circling, ready to pick your policy bones clean - the longer you take, the more deadly they become. 

When even wily old crocs like Tebbitt and Owen step in to criticise their own, it's time to go back to the lodge and search out other prey. 

Law of the jungle Mr Cameron; survival of the fittest. If only you'd left the beast alone; protected it as you promised, it would have have no cause to gobble you up. As it is, it will be feasting on political capital for years. 

UK Growth Surges

Figures released this morning show an unexpected surge in UK growth.

Growth, which had previously been falling, surged by a whopping 1.6% in the 1st quarter of 2011.

With unemployment rising, inflation at over 4%, and cuts set to hit the economy from this morning, the UK chancellor, George Gideon Oliver Osborne, heir to the baronetcy of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon said in a statement that :

"This totally vindicates my fingers-crossed economics. We've introduced no fewer than 1500 new confidence fairies and planted 12,000 new money-trees. Today's growth figures can only show that high unemployment, high inflation, raising VAT, pulling loans and grants and cutting public services are the only way to create an affluent, thriving society."

Tomorrow, in a statement to the treasury, Mr Osborne will lay out his plans to turn water into wine and introduce an incredible new goose to the front benches. The goose is said to lay golden eggs and is the next stage in Mr Osborne's plan for maintaining today's unexpected recovery.