UK Uncut - demonstrating that bias need not be consistent

UK Uncut have been a thorn in the side of the Coalition since their emergence from anti-Vodafone demonstrations in October 2010, with their message that spending cuts were unnecessary and evil. And whilst one might agree with that, even if I don't for the most part, their argument has gone beyond politics and into sterile partisanship.

This is demonstrated by their response to the failure of their application for a judicial review on grounds concerning the governance and tax liabilities involved in an HMRC settlement with Goldman Sachs in 2010.

Anna Walker, campaigns director of UK Uncut Legal Action, said;

Obviously, while we are deeply disappointed that this deal has not been declared unlawful, the judge's ruling that top HMRC officials played politics with major tax deals to protect Osborne's reputation is a major victory in exposing the truth behind these secret deals.

Despite not having won the case today, we still feel that this judgment has demonstrated that the government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare system, rather than take action to make corporate giants … pay their fair share of tax.

This case has exposed the lengths the government will go to to look tough on tax avoidance and has been vital in holding the government to account for its shameful actions.

And yet, a closer look at the judgement in this matter exposes an uncomfortable truth. At paragraph 12, Mr Justice Nicol states;

The Claimant's case is that the agreement on 19th November 2010 infringed this guidance. Contrary to paragraph 14 it was a package deal which traded a promise to pay 100% of the NICs for HMRC's promise to forego interest on those contributions. Principal and interest were effectively a single issue. In county court proceedings against Goldman Sachs which had been issued in 2003 the Revenue claimed both. The 19th November agreement "split the difference", contrary to paragraph 14. Likewise, contrary to paragraph 15, this was a situation where HMRC's case was strong, but it had accepted a settlement for less than 100% of the tax and interest.

Furthermore, Goldman Sachs had gained an advantage over the companies who settled with HMRC in 2005. It had retained the money which was due to the Revenue for another 5 years without having to pay interest. It had done so because of its aggressive behaviour. This settlement did the opposite of encouraging taxpayers to behave positively and was therefore contrary to paragraph 13 of the Litigation and Settlement Strategy.

I highlight one phrase.

Goldman Sachs had gained an advantage over the companies who settled with HMRC in 2005

Yes, this was a case taken out against a group of financial institutions, all but one of whom had settled in 2005, some five years before the Coalition came to power.

So, when Anna Walker says that the case demonstrates that;

the government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare system, rather than take action to make corporate giants … pay their fair share of tax

she is wrong, and either carelessly wrong, or maliciously wrong to make such a claim based on this one case. The argument put by UK Uncut's barrister makes it clear that HMRC was treating each financial institution the same, the only difference being that Goldman Sachs resisted for rather longer than anyone else, and exposes the fact that the legal argument commenced prior to 2005.

Their argument also suggests that HMRC takes party politics into account in settling cases, yet Mr Justice Nicol confirms that this was not, and should not have been, a factor - despite David Hartnett's unfortunate turn of phrase and apparent misjudgement.

It is, in many ways, unfortunate that her bias obscures a genuinely important question, i.e. what should a tax regime seek to achieve? Are rates of corporate taxation appropriate in the United Kingdom, and what action should be taken to prevent large companies from playing one tax authority off against another, or simply playing the system for personal gain or advantage?

But if UK Uncut want to take a partisan stance, opposing an administration which has done more on corporate and other tax abuse than most in the past three decades, they may not achieve much more than notoriety...

An honourable courtesy?...

In the last Parliamentary session, the Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colville, introduced a Bill to grant courtesy titles to husbands and civil partners of Peers. I have to admit to having mixed feelings on the subject, acknowledging the equality perspective whilst sceptical of the value of courtesy titles full stop.

However, regardless of my personal view, the Bill never even got as far as a Second Reading in the Commons, and was lost at the end of the session accordingly. And now it's back (although not from outer space), courtesy of backbench Conservative Peer, Lord Lucas.

This time, it comes as part of an Equality (Titles) Bill, which covers the rights of inheritance to a hereditary title as well. If passed in its current state, it would grant the use of the title 'Honourable' to husbands and civil partners of Peers, baronets and Dames.

It could be worse, I suppose. 'Honourable' is fairly irrelevant, and tends not to be used, so could be ignored by those preferring not to conform with the orthodoxy. Frankly, I wouldn't see me using it much, except perhaps in certain unlikely social circumstances where it might be 'useful', i.e. the odd 'county set' event stuffed with Tories.

Taking the Bill at face value though, if you believe that equality is important, a half-hearted reform is as bad as no reform at all. The Bill still reinforces the second class status of husbands of female Peers and civil partners of Peers generally. If the appropriate courtesy title for the wife of a Peer is 'Lady', how does 'Honourable' compare with that? The answer is, it doesn't.

So, if the House of Lords really thinks that this matters, they'll apply genuine equality. And if they don't, I for one won't fundamentally mind if it is lost for lack of Parliamentary time...

A new drink, a sea view, the lizards and me

I've always found that, after a conference, I need a little down time. Given that I'm not overburdened with self-confidence, mingling with other delegates requires effort to relax on my part. It's not because they are intimidating - far from it - but because they are high fliers, and I don't really picture myself like that. It does get easier though, as I have learned over time that it is much easier to be myself than to try too hard. Apparently, I'm quite good at being me...

So, Council finished, I have come into Pula by bus and am having a gentle explore on what has become a rather nice afternoon. The railway station, to the north of the town centre, is in a state of genteel decay, especially now that it is at one end of a completely isolated piece of track connected to a series of small towns and villages across the centre of Istria - the last through train ran in December.

Next stop, the Roman amphitheatre, which held up to 20,000 people in its heyday, and the walls of which are mostly intact. It was, as one might expect, a venue for gladiator fights. Nowadays, it hosts a film festival and pop and classical music contests. The terracing provides a sun lounge for dozens of small lizards who seemed to grow comfortable with my presence.

The Adriatic is just yards away, and is millpond flat, the sun is warm, and I'm slightly more active than the lizards (but only slightly).

Pula also has free public wi-fi in various parts of the city. This means that I can blog whilst sitting at a cafe in a square with a glass of biska (a mistletoe grappa). This I highly approve of, and it is something that I should seek for Creeting St Peter in due course.

I head for home tomorrow, in time to hurl myself back into my studies and be (hopefully) reunited with my Kindle Fire. But there are a few things that I ought to do besides...

ALDE Council: the bureaucrat's cut...

On a pleasant evening such as this, with the church bells of Pula ringing out, and the sun slowly setting, a glass of white wine by my side, it is easy to forget that I came to the frontier of the European Union to do a job. So, given that some of you actually voted to send me here, what have I done to justify your faith in me?

Having arrived safely on Thursday evening, I attended the welcome reception and continued the lengthy process of building a relationship with delegates from our sister parties across Europe. That sounds obvious, but when you're part of a delegation as large as ours (we're the largest party delegation), there is a strong temptation to cluster together. I also remember what it was like not to really know anyone at these events, so it is nice to take the time to talk to newcomers like the delegate from the New Kosovo Alliance.

Yesterday started with a session on drafting the ALDE manifesto for 2014. It is important to establish a robust, inclusive process to ensure that we end up with a document we can all stand behind. I spoke against a proposal to elect the drafting committee here in Pula, as delegations had not been warned in advance, and they would need to consult in order to find the best people for the task.

During the Council meeting that followed, I voted with the rest of the delegation to admit applicant parties from the Ukraine and the Aland Islands as new members and to approve the draft audit report for 2012.

I supported the resolution laying out how the manifesto will be prepared, as I am keen to share the workload required more widely amongst experienced members, and was pleased to see this passed.

Finally, I spoke in the debate on how an ALDE candidate for the Presidency of the EU Commission might be chosen. It was clear that there was a split in the room as to when the process of selection might start, and I wanted to ensure that, regardless of the decision, that a 'job description' be developed as a vital first step. After all, what else could we expect from a candidate? I also noted an inconsistency in the proposal, in that only member parties from EU member states could nominate a candidate, yet a group of delegates from any member party could do likewise. Given that ALDE has member parties from a number of non-EU states, this strikes me as potentially difficult, and is a point I will be following up on.

This morning, I attended seminars on the impact of populism in the western Balkans and on policy towards illegal migration and the EU response. I am tempted to try to draft a policy resolution for the next ALDE Congress on migration policy, although we will have to wait and see.

Last, but not least, I wrote a review of the event for Liberal Democrat Voice, which I hope that you might enjoy...

Come in number 54, your time is up!

So, I have made it to Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, my 54th country visited, dragged my suitcase the short distance to my hotel, and am now at a Lonely Planet recommended restaurant in the Lower Town, with veal in my near future.

A very pleasant train journey, with some of the finest scenery that Germany, Austria and Slovenia have to offer, with a little border crossing drama to top the experience at Savski Marof. Add to that quite respectable restaurant car food, and Paulaner weissbier at €2.90 for a half-litre, and a good time was had.

My hotel has come as a bit of a surprise. The Palace Hotel was originally opened in 1907, and the lobby hasn't apparently changed much since then - very Austro-Hungarian. But on entering my room, it appears that I may have been slightly upgraded. The bedroom is large, and overlooks the square outside the hotel, the bathroom is vast, with two sinks, an enormous bathtub and enough space for a football team to change in. And then I found the corridor... at the end of which is a lounge which seats six and a meeting table which seats another six.

It's only a pity that I leave again tomorrow morning...

Not a great day in the history of travel...

I am not entirely in a happy frame of mind which, given that I am doing something I enjoy, is less than wunderbar (I'm in Germany).

The first disappointment has come courtesy of Deutsche Bahn and OBB (Austrian Railways), the first of whom has graciously sold me a first class ticket for a through train which, thanks to OBB, does not actually have a first class carriage. I am not impressed.

In fairness, my seat is comfortable, there's plenty of legroom, and the view over the Bavarian countryside is perfectly charming. And, having perused the first class carriage that will be detached at Villach, which is, by comparison, crowded and dirty looking, I may not be missing out on much.

I'll go and grab lunch after we leave Munich, which may help a bit.

The other setback is that, in a fit of genius, I left my Kindle Fire in my hotel room in Stuttgart. Again, this is not fatal, as they are making arrangements to send it back to Creeting St Peter, but my study manuals were in it, as well as some books to read and some games to play.

Ah well, time to concentrate on the journey, I guess...

The long and winding road to ALDE

I am on my way to ALDE Council, scheduled to start in Pula, Croatia, on Thursday evening - there's a drinks reception planned. And so, obviously, I'm in... Stuttgart.

Yes, there is beer, although that's entirely incidental. But I am on an adventure. Having discovered that flights from London to Pula are awkwardly timed, I was inspired to find a 'prettier' route, especially as Ros, who likes travel but not that much, wasn't able to come with me (Queen's Speech, bad flight times). And, after a lot of research, and agonising about connection viability (is fourteen minutes just too tight a connection?), I found a late enough flight to Stuttgart to allow for a London tutorial scheduled to end at 4.30 p.m., allowing me to catch a 9.58 a.m. train to Zagreb the next morning.

And so, with the benefit of some sleep, I'll be off to stare aimlessly out of the train window for eleven hours or so.

It'll be pretty...

Crashing to an inglorious defeat, a long way from home

Oh yes, the County elections, I nearly forgot. You'll be wondering how I got on, I suppose. The answer, put simply, is badly.

In Eastgate and Moreton Hall, a division held by one of the County's two incumbent Independents, I came a very distant fifth, with 68 votes, behind the Conservative, UKIP and Labour candidates, as the Independent won fairly comfortably.

It is a sign of the times that, as a paper candidate, I only just scraped above the 3% mark, but it reflects our performance across Suffolk in seats we didn't work in. In Upper Gipping, where I managed 225 votes in 2009, my replacement achieved just 35 this time.

Europe - like hell I'm giving up, Nigel!

It is intriguing to hear Nigel Lawson suggest that the future for the United Kingdom lies outside of the European Union. Perhaps he feels that, having rather foolishly tried to shadow the European Exchange Rate Mechanism when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he needs to balance the ledger.

Naturally, the response from those more favourable towards Europe has been swift. Some of it has been personal in nature, which is unfortunate. Other responses have spoken off the number of jobs which depend on our membership of the European Union, figures which may or may not be accurate, may or may not be up to date.

For me, it is a question of honest doubt. There are certain facts that I am confident of, i.e. that non-EU investors wonder why we would leave the EU, and would be more likely to invest and locate inside the EU rather than outside. It is also true that we do an awful lot of trade with the European Union.

There are, however, a whole lot of imponderables. If we left the European Union, would we face tariff barriers when attempting to sell to EU states? What influence, if any, would we have on the future direction of the Single Market? Would potential additional costs make us less competitive? What impact would the loss of freedom of movement within the European Union have? I don't know the exact answers, but I tend towards a particular view.

Given that, when push comes to shove, there is a tendency towards self-interest, it is hard to imagine that we would be able to resume existing trading relationships without there being a price to pay. We would certainly have to compromise in order to comply with relevant European directives, without any credible means of influencing them. Bidding for public sector contracts within the European Union would need to take into account an increased risk of failure.

In our dealings with the rest of the world, why should rival nations and trading blocs treat us with the same, or greater, respect as they currently do if we stand alone? We would fall outside of the increasing number of European Union Free Trade Agreements, and would have to negotiate our own, assuming other nations were willing.

All of these things are doubts, but doubts which cannot be answered with confidence by Nigel Lawson and his sceptic friends.

I am, however, also confused. If the Anglo-Saxon economic model is so wonderful, and the deregulation agenda so seductive, instead of walking away, why can't we persuade our European partners to move that way? Why throw up our arms and concede that it is all too difficult and not worth the effort accordingly?

It is the politics of surrender, of a lack of confidence in our case and our ability to make it. It assumes that Europe cannot be reformed, has no collective identity or purpose, that there is no vision of a democratic, accountable government for Europe.

If Nigel Lawson is to be believed, there is no hope of Camelot, there is no dream of a shining city on a hill, no Jerusalem.

I believe that he's wrong. As a liberal, I believe that decisions should be taken at the most effective level, through structures that are democratically accountable and transparent. The best way to get that is to actively seek the necessary reforms, engaging public opinion and bringing the people with you.

So, I have this to say to Nigel Lawson. In the words of the Reverend Ian Paisley (a former MEP, lest we forget), "No Surrender"!

And that's what your Parish Council is for... a playground emerges from the earth

It has been an awfully long time coming, and a lot of people have put tremendous energy into the project, but the new play equipment for the village has finally started to be put in place.

Whilst there are times when being a parish councillor seems to be about minor bureaucracy and generally being ignored by other tiers of government, it is always nice when my colleagues and I can deliver something that enhances village life, and the new play equipment, on the field that the Parish Council now leases on a peppercorn rent, will hopefully give children in our village a safe place to play.

The new swings in mid-construction

In truth, my role has been predominantly as an onlooker, agreeing next steps, confirming that we have the funds to carry out various tasks. The hard work has been done by our Parish Clerk, who has driven the project on, the former Community Council, who raised so much money, to Mid Suffolk District Council for supporting us with additional funds when they were truly needed, to the Marland family whose land we are renting, and to everyone who has contributed time, money and enthusiasm.

It's a bright day in Creeting St Peter...

UKIP and the Liberal Democrats: don't worry, be liberal!

Watching the media hunt as a pack on the question of "Whither UKIP?" is not my idea of a perfect Sunday morning. Fortunately, most of their attention is on the dilemma facing the Conservative Party. "Move to the right!", "Agree to a referendum on Europe!", "Get rid of the Old Etonians!", the cries are many and slightly silly.

For, in truth, UKIP are doing well because they aren't the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour, and the public don't like politics. Or, more precisely, politicians. And, in a world of difficult questions, easy answers are seductive.

There is a catch, however. It isn't enough to say that, if exposed to a little sunlight, they'll go away. They might, they might not. Instead, as political activists, we need to be true to our stated principles. As liberals, we have a particular view of the world, and we need to express that view., via leaflets, via a presence on the doorsteps - in other words, the things that we used to be good at. It also means that we need to tell people what the liberal solutions to their problems are.

We also need to take a view of affairs that extends further than a week. I worry that politics is about tomorrow's headline, about dealing with today's crisis. And so I find myself in agreement with Simon Titley (not something that I say every day, it is true) when he says that we should "stop worrying about UKIP and learn to love Liberalism".

I would be personally happier to espouse a positive vision for my village, my community, my county and my country, rather than spend my time attempting to scare people into not voting for someone else. By all means highlight their contradictions and their failings, but say what I'd do instead and why, and if my political adversaries want to publicise their own ideas, they can bloody well put out a leaflet, or knock on some doors and say hello.

It's time to renew a conversation with the public, to address their problems but not compromise in terms of our answers. You've got to believe in something in politics, and I just happen to prefer liberalism.