Inland Revenue figures confirm what this site has been saying for some years. To collect  tax from  the rich you need to set a competitive tax rate. That helps you offer  Income tax cuts to everyone else.

         In the last year of Labour when the rate of Income tax for the rich was 40% the top 1% of earners earned 13.9% of all the income in the country. They paid 26.5% of the total Income Tax.

        The advent of the 50% tax rate led to a predictable decline in the numbers of rich staying and paying, and to lower incomes. Their share of total income fell to under 12%. Self assessment tax receipts fell.  With the reduction of the top tax rate  to 45% the top 1% have got back up to near their 2009-10 position, earning 13.7% of total income and now contributing a record 29.8% of the total income  tax. (HMRC estimated  figures for 2013-14) Both the amount paid and the proportion of total tax  would doubtless be higher if the top rate was back to Labour’s 40% rate.

 

The UK has two governments for the price of three. Ministers are busier these days, because so much of what they do entails checking the EU government will let them do what they wish, or requires endless negotiation of new laws and requirements with their European partners.

I was asked yesterday to explain how Uk Ministers interact with the EU government. Ministers  have to attend Council of Ministers meetings to discuss EU policy and the introduction of new EU laws with fellow Ministers from the other member states. Each new EU proposal for a law is drafted and introduced by the Commission, the permament government of the EU. The Commission needs the approval of both the  Council of Ministers and the the European Parliament to introduce a new law, but has extensive powers to administer and enforce the large corpus of established EU law. Most EU laws are passed by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, which means if the UK wishes to block a proposal it needs to find a number of like minded states to vote against.

A UK Minister faced with a new proposal for a law is wise to bring it to the UK Parliament. Parliament can debate it and offer advice to the Minister on what the UK’s negotiating position should be.  Parliament’s best chance to influence and scrutinise occurs before the law is passed by the EU. Once passed by the EU the UK Parliament has no option but to co-operate in the law’s introduction into the UK, short of seeking exit or renegotiation of our relationship with the EU.

Most major  EU laws pass in the form of Directives. These are instructions to national governments to pass into their national laws a new law meeting at least the minimum requirements laid down in the EU Directive. The UK Parliament has a role to supervise the Minister’s translation of the Directive into UK law. The Parliament can, for example, seek to limit gold plating, requiring the Minister to do the minimum necessary for compliance. Alternatively Parliament can ask the Minister to go further than the Directive where this is permitted. The EU also puts through Regulations, which are directly acting and do not need UK Parliamentary approval in the way a Directive does.

Usually a Directive is transposed into UK law as a Statutory Instrument. This limits Parliament’s ability to debate and prevents amendment. Parliament votes on a take it or leave it basis, under the pressure of knowing that the UK has no option but to introduce the law as required. Parliament could vote the Statutory Instrument down, demanding a rewrite, but this does not usually happen. The only way Parliament could refuse to implement the Directive would be by means of amending the European Communities Act 1972, which would presumably be part of exit from the EU or part of a renegotiation of our relationship.

Ministers also face officials advising them that things they wish to do in the UK in the normal course of government business might be illegal under EU law. Such advice is a matter of opinion, seeking to second guess the possible legal actions of the EU. It encourages a caution in  the governing system which some will like and others will find frustrating, as the easiest thing to advise is to do nothing for fear of EU displeasure. Ministers rightly have to live under the law in the UK as well, but here Ministers have the power to amend the law for the future if the courts interpret it in ways that do not seem sensible from government and  Parliament’s viewpoint. If the UK government falls foul of a perverse interpretation of EU law Ministers have no similar power to change the law for the future so they can carry out their legitimate business.

The EU has made huge changes to our constitution. One of the biggest is Parliament now regularly binds its successors,by rubber stamping EU law which a future UK Parliament cannot repeal. Another major change is Ministers are now not only beneath the law, but in the case of European law cannot change the law for the future when it gets in the way of good UK government (Unless the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states agree)

 

               The Prime MInister has rightly been tackling the EU Commission over the excessive zeal for new regulations. He is putting deregulation back on the agenda.

                 The new Transport Minister Mr Goodwill needs the PM’s help. His very first Transport Council tomorrow has on the agenda a new regulation on compensation and assistance to air passengers, as well as a new approach to joint air traffic management. It will also discuss a new Directive on railway safety.

                  Meanwhile, back at home we heard yesterday of the government and opposition combined plans to regulate the press, and listened to Ministers make a case for regulation of lobbyists through new UK law.

 

What should we expect of Ministers? What are they meant to do and what do they do?  Today I wish to set out a little more detail on a typical Ministerial job description, trying to explain why we have 3 different levels of Minister.  It should be born in mind that most Ministers are also MPs who still have to do most of  their MP duties, so being a Minister is a demanding and time consuming second job. Their Parliamentary activities  can be  more time consuming than a typical backbenchers, but are all related to their Ministerial job and are timetabled for them.

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State  (PUSS)

A PUSS or junior Minister is often the Ministerial assistant to a senior Minister of State with a large command, or for the Secretary of State in a smaller department.

Duties include:

 

Parliament –  Adjournment Debates answering one MP or a few MPs with specific cases or detailed queries on policy and the conduct of the department.

Handling many of the Committee stages of Bills and maybe some of the  Report stage on the floor of the House

Case work for the department, dealing with many routine cases that need Ministerial oversight – explaining the department’s policy to others, handling complaints, adjudicating some conflicts

Advising the Minister of State on policy and matters relating to the Department based on case work/ meetings/ contacts

Working with officials to ensure smooth running of the interface of government with MPs, the public and interest groups.

Ministerial visits to see the operations of the Department and issues/ people on the ground

Briefing and appearing in  some technical and specialist press and regional media explaining departmental policy

Handling consultations and other meetings with lobbyists/Councils/MPs and reporting to the Minister of State

Handling some specialist Parliamentary Questions in his or her area.

Some of the senior PUSS ranked jobs like Economic Secretary to the Treasury have their own courtesy titles and some delegated responsiblities.

Minister of State

May have a courtesy title (Minister of Housing/Minister of Health/Minister of Local Government) for his or her quite large command

Responsible under the Secretary of State for the day to day running of the command. Influential in detailed policy development. May have substantial delegated authority under the Secretary of State to make decisions.

Chairs departmental meetings of officials and with outside interests to progress the work of the department.

Takes responsibility for all stages of many Bills and may make the speeches on 2nd and 3rd Reading. Will probably do the most difficult clauses in Committee/on report to relieve the PUSS.

Answers Parliamentary questions on his or her area of interest.

Makes Ministerial visits, handles substantial media on his or her  specialist subject.

Reviews difficult cases, adjudicates disputes within the department and between the department and others. May belong to junior Cabinet committees for agreeing cross departmental policy and approaches.

May act as the representative or envoy of the Secretary of State to sort out a given problem.

 

Secretary of State

Ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the Department he or she leads, save for those financial, personnel and regularity issues which are the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary, the top official running the department.

May leave all the Parliamentary work on new laws to his junior Ministers, but would be expected to make big speeches on 2nd reading of major contentious  Bills and handle any really sensitive and hig profile  issue that takes place on the floor of the Commons.

May leave most casework to Juniors, but would be asked to decide in big cases involving high political risk or high  risk to the department.

Has to attend Cabinet and Cabinet committees, represent the department to the rest of the government and help form general government policy.

Handles the major  interviews and media enquiries, particularly where the interview is national and likely to wander into general government policy.

Has his or her own pattern of visits.

Chairs important working meetings of officials, junior Ministers and outside interests.

May chair a daily or weekly departmental meeting of Ministers with or without senior officials to provide a general sense of direction and oversight.

Can help the Permanent Secretary run the department and can  control its policy (subject to the EU, official views, legal position etc), or may work collaboratively with senior Ministers of State who do more of this for the S of S. May delegate much of implementation  and day to day running to officials, or may take a personal interest in administration and implementation.

 

 

 

 

 

            Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have for many years undertaken reshuffles that can do more harm than good.  The way they are carried out is crude. Too often there is insufficient time spent on training, mentoring, career and succession planning. The good practices of personnel management, and some of the common courtesies of working with others, are ignored because we are told “government is different”.

              Government is different. It has  more power. It has the power to take money off people, sending them to prison if they refuse to pay. It has the power to make everyone do as it says, by changing the law. It operates on a  huge scale, affecting directly the lives of every single person in the country.  Those characteristics, you might have thought, would encourage the use of the very best techniques of personnel selection, retention and promotion.

            Instead, reshuffles are often seen as ways of disciplining MPs by idle threats and hints of advancement. We read of far more reshuffles than are carried out. We read of far more sackings than happen. Whilst some of the press stories on Ministerial changes are  planted by others which the government cannot control, some of the most persistent have under various PMs come from the centre. A Minister learns of his pending sacking from a paper, not from his boss.

            There are three  good reasons why some Ministers need to be sacked. If a Minister is not good at the job and lacks the Ministerial skills, he or she might need to be asked to stand down. This should only follow clear warnings, the offer of mentoring and training, and all the other usual efforts made in business to get an executive to perform. The eventual sacking if  the help fails should not be a surprise and should be managed by mutual private communication.

          If a Minister is becoming too detached from  the government’s policy, is becoming an encouragement for dissenting views, and is seeking to rally MPs or other outside forces to his cause, the PM may have to move him or her or get them to leave. This should also follow attempts to get the Minister to play by the rules  and to stick to the common line. Mr Clegg should be having these types of conversation with Mr Cable, who often seems to be a loose cannon seeking to  appeal to Lib Dems thinking of a different Leader by providing a running critical commentary on the government he is meant to defend.

         If a decent hard working Minister has spent a long time at a given level of government and is not thought suitable for promotion, there comes a time when his or her place might be needed for some new talent. This is the more difficult case for sacking. The sensible way to handle this would be for the PM when appointing a PUSS or a Minister of State to outline the options for the future. He could say that typically someone might be a junior Minister for up to say  4 years, but then it would be upwards or out. The regular reviews a junior Minister should have with a Senior Minister would cover the Ministers future eligibility and suitability for promotion. By the time the Minister was asked to leave without promotion it should be no surprise, as expectations would be managed accordingly.

               Quite often the need for changes to Ministerial ranks is forced on a PM. This government has had to find a new Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a new Energy Secretary following the enforced resignations of Mr Laws and Mr Huhne. More  recently the government has lost its Railway Minister to the ambition of becoming Deputy Speaker. If the government is following a good policy of career advancement and training there will be natural successors available to bring on.

                 Managing expectations and eliminating most surprises will remove much of the bitterness from sackings. If someone is sacked out of the blue they will feel the world is unfair and will resent the PM. If they have been through a long process of trying to meet targets and expectations but have failed at least they will understand why they have gone and will have had a chance to put it right. If they have not made it to promotion they will have some idea of why and may be more reconciled. It will not have been a shock.   Each category could also be given some flexibility on leaving date if that would help. We need to get away from the idea that many jobs have to be switched all at the same time. Occasional minor adjustments might be a better, less destabilising way.

               Equally important to the task of removing people without surprise or without too many feelings of ill will is the task of giving new Ministers clear instructions on what  they are expected to achieve. Indeed, you can only have a fair and effective system of personnel management if people are set achievable tasks and are judged by reasonable criteria on how well they have achieved those tasks. I will talk in a later blog about what the different levels of Minister should be expected to do, and how a PM and his senior Ministers can monitor, assess and encourage to get better results.

 

In the 1980s I published an antidote to the Marx Manifesto. A similarly slim volume, it was entitled “The Popular Capitalist Manifesto”.

I accepted Marx’s tenth proposal, free education for all children. I stood most of the other Marxist proposals on their head to recommend policies which could promote the freedom and prosperity Marxism repressed.

In place of the abolition of private property I proposed Everyone an owner, everyone a shareholder – wider ownership.

In place of a heavy progressive Income Tax I proposed lower tax rates for all earners.

In place of preventing inheritance I proposed a multigenerational society where property can be passed relatively easily from one generation to the next.

In place of centralising credit in the hands of the state I proposed the ending of exchange controls, the conduct of a prudent monetary policy, competitive private sector banks and the  reduction of state borrowing and debts.

In place of more nationalisation and state control I proposed more competitive private enterprise

In place of enforced movement of labour and state control of production I favoured freer markets, freedom to work and to invest as you chose.

In place of industrial armies I proposed a sensible welfare system allied to freedom to chose your employment

In place of nationalising the commanding heights I favoured more private sector involvement in the economy.

In place of the state forcing town and country together, I proposed roles for the state in maintaining law and order and defending the state from threats.

My slim volume was of interest to the eastern European states emerging from the long winter of communist tyranny. I went to several of the newly freed countries to talk to them about the transition to a freedom loving democracy backed by a free enterprise economy.

 

 

 In 1848 the slim volume entitled “Manifesto of the Communist party” was produced for a revolutionary Europe. It contained the by now familiar distorted view of history that it was a  prolonged class struggle which would end with the triumph of the proletariat. More importantly, it proposed ten major policies or Big Ideas  which have held considerable sway in Europe ever since.

           1. Abolition of all private property and the application of rents for public purposes.  This  helped inspire Development Land Tax, Section 106 agreements, the accumulation of large areas of public property and a range of other Labour measures and taxes to try to capture  wealth from property.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax. Labour got its marginal rate up to 83% for earned income and 98% for unearned income in the 1970s, rates Marx would have approved. They resiled from these 1997-2009, but started to hike rates again at the end.

3. The abolition of all right of inheritance.  This has fathered Inheritance taxes,  the Republicanism of some Labour supporters, the end of hereditary principle for the Lords – though political succession is a feature of some of the great Labour families.  

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Never caught on in the UK, though popular in some autocratic regimes abroad.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, through a monopoly nationalised bank. This is now done through a monopoly Central Bank with extensive regulation of the commercial banks. Labour got furthest with this during the crisis of 2007-8 when they bought shares in banks instead of putting them into controlled administration or some other private sector solution. As a result more than half the UK’s banking system was in public hands or under strong public influence.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Labour reached the point where the UK had a nationalised airline, railway, road freight, postal and telecommunications service.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state (plus planned agriculture).  Labour did assemble substantial nationalised manufacturing interests, (aerospace, car manufacturing, computers etc) and the EU has taken to substantial planning and direction of agriculture.

8.Equal requirement of all to labour and the establishment of industrial armies. Public sector employment has risen substantially, but there has not been enforced direction of labour.

9.A gradual erosion of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population – this has increasingly happened as a result of economic growth anyway.

10. Free education for all children in public schools . Abolition of child labour.(Good ideas) This I am pleased to say has happened.

  One of the main reasons Mr Blair wanted to make such an issue of abolishing Clause IV in the Labour party constitution was to renounce the Marxist influence over Labour’s past. Is this to remain Labour’s position, or are they moving back to the Marxist influences? They seem now to favour more public sector control of energy industries, are against employee and citizen ownership of the Royal Mail, and moving towards more general price controls.

The fact that policies in this little book are still actively promoted today, including damaging ones, means we need to keep a look out in debate for those who are influenced by it.

 

 

          In my youth I grew up hating both the major ideologies that had so disfigured the twentieth century. I loathed both fascism and communism, which seemed to me to have a lot in common with each other. Both thought they were morally right, both used state power to excess, both were brutal with anyone who disagreed in places where they had power. Fascism killed the Jews, the disabled and the opponents of the regime. Soviet communism killed the middle class  farmers, the dissenters, the “mentally ill”, shot anyone trying to leave their zone without permission and presided over cruel famines. Both ideologies encouraged people to hate other people because of their birth and circumstances.

          As a Conservative I agreed with the left when they condemned fascism. Many of them declined to join in when I condemned communism. When I argued with left wing intellectuals they usually played down the Soviet attack on personal liberty, the deaths done in the name of the state and the deaths which came about owing to farming failure and poverty. Alternatively they told me that they believed in a form of communism which worked and created equality for its peoples, a form which unfortunately had never existed in the real world.

            The enthusiasm for Soviet communism was surprising given its dreadful record. Cambridge educated men became Soviet spies. Many left wing academics in reputable universities had good things to say about Marx’s thought. Mr Wilson when Prime Minister in his famous “white hot heat of technology” speech was recommending a sanitised version of  the Soviet state planning model to modernise the UK economy. Many left wing intellectuals egged on Marxist revolutionaries seeking power in far flung countries. They would praise Castro’s Cuba and support Che Guevara.

           All those who have in their past espoused Marxist thought should be asked to explain why. They should be asked if they still agree with it, or which bits they now on reflection think were unwise. They need to be asked why did their egalitarian ideal so miscarry? Why did communism become the embodiment of Animal Farm? Why did the leaders of Soviet communism reserve to themselves a lifestyle the rest of their country could not approach? Why were there privileged schools for the children of the bosses and summer villa second homes  for their relaxation?  Why did they have special rights to travel where most Soviet people did not?

               Facing many clever people who told me that communism was a noble ideal, I used to ask them why it was that  so many people wanted to leave the Eastern bloc, and why the guards shot them if they sought to cross into the west? How could you think that was a good system of government? And why had the communist bloc fallen so far behind the west in living standards and output?  I never received any satisfactory answers.

             Tomorrow I will look at the Communist party Manifesto, to remind us what they were trying to do and to see how far they got in the UK.

 

        I took up the issue of train safety again when I met train company representatives at Manchester. I am still shocked by what I saw at Ufton Nervet when a train crashed into a small car on the level crossing. The derailed coaches led to deaths and injuries, as people were flung around inside the carriages or flung out of broken windows.

         Industry representatives  sought to reassure me by saying that modern trains have much stronger windows, so they should not break when someone or some object  is thrust against them by the force of a crash or sharp deceleration. That still leaves plenty of opportunities for serious injury.

        My shopping list of better safety features is based on the items that are mandatory in cars, and have been for some years.

          First, I want proper luggage restraints. Placing heavy and large objects in racks above the seats  allows these items to become flying missiles in the event of a crash. Cars and coaches have boots or luggage compartments where all larger and heavier items are stored for the duration of the journey. Planes have doors on the luggage racks which are secured for flight. At the very least trains could fit retaining nets or doors to their luggage racks, so no-one need be injured in future by flying luggage.

         Second, on fast trains between major cities I want seat belts. If a fast train is derailed or forced to decelerate rapidly people can be flung out of their seats in ways likely to lead to their injury. It is most strange that cars and coaches are limited to 70 mph on motorways with mandatory seat belts, yet trains are allowed to run at speeds in excess of 100 mph without seatbelts.

           Third, I want to see the hard edges and dangerous corners designed out of the coach interior on a train as it has been on cars. There are all too many hard edged tables and  hard edges to the seats, and seat fixings. These cause dangers to passengers if they are flung around the inside of the carriage in a crash. Modern cars have soft and padded surfaces throughout the interior, and many have additional airbags which deploy in the event of sharp deceleration.

         The train company executives I have spoken to about this are far from sympathetic. They think they have nothing to learn from the far superior standards of vehicle safety in cars and long distance coaches to train carriages. They rely on the big safety advantage of the trains that no other type of user is allowed on the tracks, reducing the possibility of conflicts which occur on multi use highways.  This does not seem to me to be good enough, as the big improvements to car safety have cut the injury and death rate in collisions, and applies to cars travelling on motorways where similar exclusions to railways apply.

          The main reason the train companies advance against restraining luggage or supplying a seat belt is cost. The legislators have rightly overruled such considerations when it comes to car and long distance coach manufacture. Indeed, car makers now often regard the additional safety features they offer as a selling point that helps market their vehicles. The cost of simple train  luggage restraints would be small compared to the price of a new or refurbished carriage. Adding a seat belt as part of the original equipment would not be too expensive, but would greatly add to train safety. I always try and sit with my back to the direction of travel as it gives you a bit more of a chance in a crash, but you could still be on the wrong end of flying luggage and displaced people if the carriage overturns or somersaults.

 

                 I have kept my Dad out of politics. I  never talked about him and his views in major speeches and  certainly avoided all mention of family members when I was contesting the Conservative leadership in 1995.

                I kept him out because I did not want him to experience the personal attacks, abuse and misrepresentations that go with the job of being a senior political figure in a lively democracy where voters and press like to have a go at those in or near power. I did not refer to him because as a loving Dad he did not seek to influence or interfere with my political views. I was solely responsible for what I thought and wrote, and did not turn to him to help write the speeches.

               I do not wish to take sides in the row between Mr Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail. I understand why Ed has rushed to his father’s defence, and understand the main point he is making about his father’s commitment to the UK and its tolerant democracy. He should do so, as his late father cannot defend himself, and has been subjected to this posthumous examination by his son’s words and job. I can also see why Mr Miliband senior’s views on politics which he made  public  are of interest.

                Anyone who  challenges to be Prime Minister can expect an altogether more intense and energetic media scrutiny than the rest of us in UK politics. I remember journalists in 1995  suddenly  contacting my  former school teachers, university friends, business colleagues and  members of the family on the other side of the world to check out if their memories of me squared with the statements I was making about myself and my  past life. The UK public dislikes a phoney or dishonest person. Many want to stop any given individual and party achieving the highest political office, so they will dig to find unhelpful things.

            The politician himself can make this more likely if he indicates that a given family member or other person in his life is or has been an important influence. It gives the media more reason and more excuse to prod and probe.  I usually answer “Queen Elizabeth 1” to the question who in British politics do you most admire or who has influenced you. I do so because it is a true answer, but also because there is not much journalists can do to the past Queen that has not already been done to her. I have pointed out that I have always been uneasy about her decision to execute Mary Queen of Scots!

             If  a politician selects some contemporary influence then it invites guilt by association. If the person is contentious it can damage the politician, as the journalists will often then ascribe to you the worst view or thing that person influencing you has said or done. If a senior politician has a father who has been active in UK politics and has published political views, someone will ask if this influenced him. They will ask all the more if that person regularly refers to his father in his major speeches.