It was little surprise that Greece’s late response to the demand for details of how they will run their budget was accepted yesterday by the Euro group.

The Greek state government committed itself to change tax codes to raise more money from the better off, and to find ways to improve tax collection and enforcement. They have offered to make many changes to different parts of revenue collection, with more inspections, more audits and more and better staff to do the collecting.

They have also pledged to improve their controls over public spending, concentrating on non wage expenditure which accounts for 56% of the total. They also wish to improve the provision and quality of medical services, with universal access. They are going to consolidate pension funds and seek to reduce early retirements to cut pension spending.

It will cut the number of government Ministries from 16 to 10, cut fringe benefits to MPs, Ministers and top officials, improve public sector tenders and keep wage costs down.

The government has had to accept much of the privatisation programme it inherited and disliked. It now says it will not roll back privatisations already committed. It will rejig future ones with “the emphasis on long leases,joint ventures…and contracts that maximise not only government revenues but also prospective levels of private investment”

The pledge to pay a higher Minimum wage has become “the ambition to streamline and over time raise minimum wages in a manner which safeguards competitiveness and employment prospects. The scope and timing of changes to the minimum wage will be made in consultation with social partners and the European and international institutions…..” taking into account whether changes are in line with productivity developments and competitiveness.

As expected, both sides have had to sacrifice a lot. The Euro area has agreed to lending Greece more money, and to giving more time to trying to negotiate a longer term solution later this year. In the meantime the ECB has now lent more money to Greece. The rest of the zone has to accept promises, which rely heavily on the ability of the new government to raise much more in taxation than previous governments have managed. For its part, Syriza has to accept privatisation of state assets, accept a delay in raising the Minimum Wage, accept Eurozone surveillance of its budget and loan programme, and recognise there is not going to be a large planned fiscal stimulus for the economy.

In summary, the Greeks have not slain the dragon of austerity as they see it, and the Eurozone has not weaned Greece off more loans and assistance. If revenue does not respond quickly to new treatment, the issue of how to pay for the Greek budget will intensify.

Some commentators wish to stir a battle between the generations.

The young have their advocates, telling us the baby boomers now reaching retirement have done too well at the expense of others. They point to high house prices making it difficult for first time buyers, and high rents sometimes paid to buy to let landlords who may themselves be baby boomers.

Pensioner savers have their supporters, saying that they have been hard done by with ultra low interest rates and poor annuity rates on retirement thanks to quantitative easing and the low rates in the aftermath of the banking crash.

The truth is more mixed. Both generations have their advantages and their challenges in the current situation, and both have policy interventions designed to help them.

The younger generation has the benefit of much lower interest rates when they can find a house and a mortgage than their parents faced. They also now have the benefit of very low inflation, compared to the rates we were used to in the 1970s and early 1980s. The government has added its Help to Buy scheme, and is pressing ahead with ways of securing more new homes.

The older generation of savers have made money from the rise in asset values brought on by quantitative easing and the general economic policy. Those savers who bought property or shares or certain kinds of savings bond are likely to have decent capital gains today on what they bought in past years. The government has now added the National Savings Bonds with higher interest rates for those who do not want to risk their capital but need a better return than the 0.5% base rate.

There is another truth which the generation warriors ignore. Within most families one generation helps another. Much of the wealth of the baby boomers will be passed on to their children and grandchildren on death. Some of it is being passed on before death, as parents help children with home deposits or other large ticket items in their budgets. Just as some grandparents help with the household chores and childcare of their children, so some help with gifts of cash. The money which is not passed on will be taken in tax by the state. That money can then be spent on those most in need.

Conservatives have announced they will keep Pensioner bus passes, free tv licences for the over 75s,and winter heating allowances. Do you agree?

It is one of those ironies of history that democracy should be under such pressure in the European country commonly claimed to be its birthplace.

The most recent Greek election and the battles over Greek policy within the Euro have been about whether national democracy is compatible with the single currency. It appears it is not.

The Greek people made their views known all too clearly in January. They said No to more austerity, No to the Euro area requirements to cut their debts and deficits, No to various reforms of their economy that the rest of Europe wishes to visit upon them. Their newly elected government took that message volubly to Brussels.

The Greek government soon had to back down. It backed down over its refusal to deal with the troika. It backed down over the need to extend the old loan agreement. It backed down over the principle of having to negotiate its budget and future economic policies with the rest of the Euro area. It was left with a fig leaf of choice, as the Euro area said there might be some flexibility on how Greece achieved the austerity targets which had to remain in place.

The Greek government has been using rhetoric about national self determination and democratic government. It has discovered that if it wishes to stay in the Eurozone it has to play by the general rules of that zone. It is also the case it has learned an older and more basic truth. If you want to borrow more money from certain institutions, you may need to honour the terms of the loans you already have from them.

I find it fascinating that Syriza saw the confrontation as one of national democracy against the Eurozone, not just as a debtor having to deal with its creditors. As a result of hyping the rhetoric in that way the Greek government has made its possible defeat into a defeat for democracy in Greece.

In that sense Syriza has done us all a service. They have highlighted how in the Euro a country cannot have an independent economic policy. As economic policy is one of the main things electorates wish to influence and change, the loss of those freedoms is a major blow to a national democracy. Many of us in the UK find there are too many constraints on our national democracy from membership of the EU outside the Euro. It is many times worse for those in the single currency.

As expected, Germany blinked and Homer nodded. The Germans had to agree to more money being lent to Greece whilst they have the proper argument about what the future should hold. The European Central Bank continues to bail out Greece via emergency assistance to its banking system. There is a delay in implementing all the requirements of the last loan package, whilst Greece tables new proposals. Germany’s promise to enforce all the old loan agreements and to offer no new money has been broken. The message to other countries strapped for cash and disliking the conditions of loans is to cause trouble.

Greece had to swallow much of their bold rhetoric. Greece has had to apply to extend the old loan agreement which it said it intended to tear up. Greece does have to deal with the troika, though perhaps under a different name, when she said she would not do so. Greece will have to table austerity proposals next week to substitute for any of the current austerity requirements in the loan agreement which she does not like.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Greece will spend and borrow more, with likely overruns on the permitted deficit (called a primary surplus by being struck before interest charges). The European institutions will continue to finance Greece. It is more extend and pretend. The Euro has decided to be a bit more flexible to avoid a Greek exit, despite their fine strong words that a Greek exit would now be a minor matter for all but Greece.

Is this just kicking the can down the road for a couple of days? Or for a few weeks? Or will it result in a longer term fix? Time will tell. It appears that Germany is allowed to make the weather with the words, trying to spin the outcome as a tough settlement, a victory for austerity. Meanwhile the officials and the institutions which increasingly drive Euro policy are working behind the scenes on flexible language to cloak the truth, which is the zone so far has decided to extend more credit and pretend Greece can meet her obligations.

It’s no way to run a serious major world currency. If they carry on like this their economies will continue to malfunction, unemployment in parts of the zone will stay far too high, political protest will grow, and from time to time there will be alarms in the markets and in the weaker national banking systems. Cyprus shows us one way out of a financial mess for a state in the Euro – capital controls. Another way is for the rest of the zone to write off more of the offending state debts. They still have to arm wrestle electorates and some political parties as they seek to impose stricter controls on future spending and borrowing by states that cannot pay their way. Greece does not today suddenly become a paradigm of German virtues meeting all her loan conditions as some German comment would have you believe.

The Treasury official figures said putting the 50p tax rate down to 45p would entail a loss of £100m of tax revenue. Instead, as some of us forecast, it has led to a surge in additional tax.

Self assessed income tax reached £22.5bn in 2008-9 when the top rate was 40%. In 2011-12 it was just £20.33bn and in 2012-13 just £20.55bn when the top rate was 50%. As self assessment tax was up by £1.66bn this January on last January, the full tax year 2014-15 is likely to see a substantial gain on the receipts during the 50% years.

The Guardian tendency claim this is a one off event owing to delays in paying bonuses from the previous year. This does not explain why revenues were lower at the 50% rate in the years prior to the year of the announcement of a cut in the rate, nor does it explain why the revenues were always lower at 50% than they had been at 40% before the increase.

Far from costing the state £100 m the 45% rate will bring in substantial extra revenue. The figures also suggest moving up from 40% has lost the state billions.

London property prices are at new highs. UK share prices have been hitting new decade long highs. Property and unquoted shares around the country have risen in value considerably. It is curious therefore to see a further slump in Capital Gains Tax receipts in the latest January figures.

January is the big month for the Revenue to collect CGT, based as it is on annual tax returns. This January the Revenue collected just £2.45 bn, down by more than a sixth on the £3bn in January 2013. CGT has been running at around half the peak level it reached before the 2008 crash. The interesting thing is the rate was then 18% and the rate today is 28%.

It is quite clear that the new higher rate puts people off realising capital gains. Owners of second properties and holders of shares have plenty of opportunity now to take profits, given what has happened to values. It appears they chose not to. Some may not take profits because they hope values will rise further. Others have instructed their investment advisers, or have decided themselves not to trade, so they do not sell shares that take them over the CGT tax free limit. Owners of buy to let and other properties that are not a person’s own residence also seem to have decided to hold on, in part deterred by the high rate of CGT.

The current rate of CGT is preventing the government optimising its tax take on gains, as the rate is too high to maximise the revenue. It may also be standing in the way of some people moving property into hands of others who might be able to make better use of it. The curious case of the vanishing CGT receipts is more good evidence that a government which needs revenue needs to set realistic rates. It is also more proof that plenty of people avoid tax – in this case by the simple expedient of not selling assets which have gone up in value.

Yesterday’s spending and borrowing figures show the government is making some more progress in cutting the deficit, thanks to rises in revenue from Income Tax, VAT. Stamp Duty and Corporation Tax. There was further confirmation that high earners earn more and pay more at 45% than they did at 50%.

The gripping drama being played out between Syriza and the rest of the Euro area is not just a struggle between creditors and debtors, or between countries who will play by the rules and one who thinks the rules are absurd. It is also an enthralling battle over the future of democratic parties in a variety of Euro area countries. Syrzia swept to power by crushing the centre left traditional Greek party and by defeating the centre right alternative. Both those parties were sullied by submission to EU austerity policies which had led to a decline of one quarter in Greek living standards and mass unemployment. In Spain the issue is how well will Podemos do with its anti establishment stance. In Italy can a combination of the Grillo 5 star movement and the Lega Nord put the traditional centre right and centre left to the sword? In France both the Gaulist opposition and the governing Socialists are behind Le Pen’s National Front in Presidential polls.

The interesting feature is how comprehensive the collapse of a traditional party can be under the extreme impact of Euro policies which national governments are unable to overturn or even influence much. The Socialist party of Greece, not so long ago the governing party, collapsed to 5% of the vote in January this year. In Italy Forza Italia, the old centre right governing party of Berlusconi, is today on just 12% in the polls. In France the socialist party of Mr Hollande is on just 23%.

The future of Syriza matters to both the traditional parties and the new challengers. If Syriza caves in and accepts new loans with a string of austerity conditions, traditional parties will breathe a sigh of relief. They will think that extinguishes the reason to vote for change in such an inflexible system. It may of course, just make Greek voters even angrier, looking for a new challenger party to support. It may also anger challenger parties and voters elsewhere, increasing their resolve to stand firm if their chance comes. If, on the contrary, Syriza hangs tough and gets major concessions, then the challengers elsewhere will expect to do well to enjoy the same treatment. They may of course encounter new barriers and new language against them, as the rest of the EU will be reluctant to allow others to get away with such a challenge. Greece will be portrayed as a very special case, and ring fenced.

In the UK without the austerity of the Euro and with a better performing economy, the two main parties support is holding up better than on the continent. In 2005 Labour and Conservative commanded just 67.6% of the vote in the General election. Today they have around 65% in the polls. In the UK the dramatic decline has taken place in the third party support of the Lib Dems. They had 22% in 2005, and 23% in 2010. They are now down around 6%. The top three parties of 2005 had 89.6% of the vote. In 2010 they had 90.7%. Today those same three have 71%. Most of that fall is down to third party, the Lib Dems. Protest is moving to others now the Lib Dems have been a party in government. Their enthusiasm for all things European clearly does nothing to help their popularity.

You do not make the poor rich by trying to make the rich poor. High tax societies do less well than sensible tax societies. Societies that welcome in rich people and companies and give them some freedom do better than societies that let jealousy rule. Cuba and Venezuela show what poverty socialism can breed. France has just demonstrated under Mr Hollande that high personal taxes lead to a flight of talent out of the country and less growth and prosperity, forcing him to cut the rates.

The UK is the fastest growing European economy at the moment. It is aided by low corporation tax rates and the recent decline in the Income tax rate. Lower taxes for all is the first policy requirement to speed growth and raise prosperity.

The UK has done best when it fosters an ownership revolution. The twentieth century saw progress from most people renting to most people owning their home. It also saw some modest progress with shareholdings for the many, not just the few, largely through pension and insurance fund investments.

In the twenty first century so far there has been some backsliding on property ownership. A combination of high house prices, the great crash of 2008, and mortgage finance problems from 2007 has made it more difficult for young people to become first time buyers. A new generation of twenty somethings is as likely to be living at home with Mum and Dad, or sharing flats with friends, as to be climbing the property ladder.

I want the next government to tackle this problem vigorously. To let a new generation have the same opportunity to own as their parents we need to control migration numbers to limit demand, and take further action to improve the supply of new homes. The government’s Help to buy scheme can assist, given the tougher requirements of the mortgage regulators affecting the banks and building societies.

I als wish to see the tax regime help people set up and grow their own businesses. More of the talent we are nurturing at university and College should be encouraged and mentored to have a go at developing and selling their ideas directly to the market, forming their own enterprise. We need more direct contacts between financiers, venturers and the universities, more incubator business units and science campuses, more direct training in how to speed things to market through the web.

The UK debate has been depressing during and after the deep recession of the last decade. There has been much discussion of how to share the diminished income and output, with rather less talk of how more people can own more and participate more fully in the economic life of our country. Recently there has been enthusiastic discussion of how to tax rich people and companies more, with no discussion of how more people can be well off and more can own and run their own successful companies. If we get better at generating more wealth, there might be less bitterness about how to distribute what we already have achieved.

It is a common British attitude that things should be fair. Some on the left interpret that as meaning they should be equal. That is not the majority view. Many people’s idea of fairness encompasses the opinion that those who work hard, achieve to high standards, perform well should be entitled to earn more and keep more of their earnings. There is surprisingly little resentment of the fabulous income and wealth of many footballers, and little envy of the earnings of pop stars, top tv talent or even of successful entrepreneurs like Mr Branson. There is resentment of high salaries in both the public and private sectors for leaders who do not have distinctive talent, or who fail to lead well, or who preside over chaos or corruption.

The tax debate has been typically negative. Doubtless there are some who have got away with evasion without prosecution or even without being made to pay back what they should have paid. We all wish to see them pursued successfully and energetically. As some critics of tax avoidance have discovered, their own family tax and legal affairs can be complicated. Once you start to hurl allegations around about particular individuals avoiding too much tax, others will think they are entitled to know whether you yourself have ever used legal tax avoidance methods. As many of you have remarked, MPs who dislike current legal avoidance should change the law.

Tomorrow I want to look at some positive ideas on how we can promote an ownership society. If more have a realistic chance to earn well and build some wealth if they wish to put in the effort, it will help social mobility and satisfy many people’s sense of fairness. We need some optimism, some sense that opportunity can defeat injustice, some guidance that shows the future can and will be better than the past. Bring on hope. Elections based on fear and jealousy are not good for a society. The way to help the poor is generate a more prosperous society that has more money to share, more buying of goods and services to generate more jobs, and more tax revenue to help those in need.

Sensible people want to hear from their politicians during an election about the plans and intentions they have for the next five years, if chosen to govern. People are quite interested in examining the record of leading parties in power, so there does have to be some discussion of the past to help form impressions of whether a party in government is broadly helpful, reliable and good at handling crises. The main preoccupation is what will happen next? Will we be better off? Will things that currently annoy us be improved or changed?That requires an intelligent examination of what parties say they wish to do, and probing to make sure they have thought through their plans and are resolved to carry them out.

There is a danger that too much knocking copy and too many fights over Westminster issues distracts from what really matters to individual voters. Labour’s decision to make “dodgy donors” the issue was always going to cause trouble, and may help put more people off politics. Any named Conservative donor was going to deny the dodgy label and maybe sue if Labour pursued the charge. What does dodgy mean? How do you prove dodgy? Is it aggressive tax avoidance, or does it have to be tax evasion? Presumably it’s more than having a large pension fund or a few ISAs. It also meant that some in the press and in other political parties would start the trawl for Labour dodgy donors. If there are dodgy donors, they will not all support the same party.

Relying on private donors has its difficulties for all political parties. They have to show the donors cannot “buy policy”. The donor may give because he or she likes what the party is saying, but should not give to get the party to change what it is saying. They do have to obey the law and turn down donations from people who do not qualify as donors. For the party’s sake, they also need to satisfy themselves that a large donor can withstand any unfriendly enquiries from jealous party rivals.

However, the main alternative, of requiring taxpayers money to finance parties seems to me to be far worse. Why should I as a taxpayer help finance parties I disagree with? How do you prevent taxpayer funding acting as a buttress to old parties who are well established and stifling new or challenger parties? What is a fair way of giving out the money? Should today money be given out based on how many seats parties won in 2010? Or how many votes they won then? Or should modern opinion polls have some role? The difficulty in defining who should join a leaders’ debate would b e mild in comparison to the squabbles over how much state finance each is due.

The donor battles will be damaging to all involved. There can be no winners. The best answer to limit the damage would be to reform the current system in two ways. The first would be to drop the long campaign, and to limit the election campaign to the last month. The second would be to impose a lower limit on how much any party can spend, so limiting the number of rich donors or the amounts parties need to take from any one source. That seems to me to be the least bad control.