For a government completely devoid of any business experience (or experience of anything beyond trade unions, the public sector, or left wing activism), they seem to be mightily familiar with clever accounting techniques. Which is why Keir Starmer has somehow been able to keep a straight face when telling the nation his plan for the Chagos islands will only set taxpayers back ÂŁ3.4 billion.Â
Giving away our own territory and paying ÂŁ3.4 billion for the privilege was already enough to get our hackles up but, a new TPA briefing note has revealed the true figure could be as high as ÂŁ47 billion!Â
|
|
While ministers quote the ânet present valueâ - essentially what theyâve calculated all of our payments to Mauritius to mean in todayâs money - in cash terms the amount is wildly different with the governmentâs own actuaries putting the figure at ÂŁ34.7 billion. The trouble is, as Darwin Friend explained to GB News viewers: âThe assumptions the government used to try and calculate the cost of this deal over the 100 year period have been overly generous⊠By using what the market expects inflation to be and long term gilt yields, for the net present value, the figure goes to ÂŁ4.1 billion and in cash terms it rises to ÂŁ47 billion!â
The media leapt on our findings with coverage in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, and Express, while William Yarwoodâs thoughts could be found in his op-ed on the GB News website.
|
|
Our research also caught the attention of parliamentarians, with Conservative MP Sarah Bool citing our figure in the commons here (jump to around 14:15) while Nigel Farage quoted our findings in an interview.Â
In the TPA studio, Elliot Keck sat down with Robert Midgley from Friends of the British Overseas Territories, diving into the history of the Chagos islands and busting some of the myths around Mauritiusâ claim on them.Â
Rounding off the coverage, Elliot joined Mike Graham on Talk cutting to the heart of the issue: âThe real question should be not why are we paying Mauritius ÂŁ47 billion but why are Mauritius not paying us ÂŁ47 billion given itâs our territory weâre giving away, not the other way round.â
|
|
Thereâs no getting away from it, this deal is a humiliating surrender from our government. British taxpayers are being told to give up land and hand over ÂŁ47 billion to Mauritius so that the government there can abolish income tax for 80 per cent of their citizens.
As the bill to put this ridiculous sell out from Keir âinternational lawâ Starmer progresses through parliament, itâs more important than ever to make your views known. Weâve made it as easy as possible to make your voice heard with our tool for writing to your MP. If youâve not done so already, click here to tell your MP to oppose the Chagos surrender!
|
|
|
From the Reform UK Conference in Birmingham
|
|
|
|
For this weekâs episode of a nation of taxpayers, podcast host Duncan Barkes and William talk to those who attended the Reform UK Conference in Birmingham.
|
|
This episode features contributions from Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative MP and Cabinet member, Councillor Saffron Sims-Brydon who sits as a Reform councillor on Durham County Council, Russell Quirk who is a candidate in the forthcoming Hutton South by-election for a seat on Brentwood Borough Council in Essex, and contributions from other delegates and Reform UK members.
Give the latest episode of a nation of taxpayers a listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.
|
|
After unions in the capital spent the week making the lives of commuters and Londoners a misery, you might think the cityâs mayor would be calling out the disruption and those behind it. Instead, Sadiq Khan is preparing to cave and dish out a âno stringsâ pay rise. You couldnât make it up.Â
As someone who endured the chaos, Joanna Marchong was perfectly placed to pop up on GB News to give her views on the striking workers and their demands for a 32 hour working week: âWe need to get more people in so that we donât need to rely on these people striking who are just quite lazy.âÂ
|
|
|
Anne Strickland, the TPAâs newest researcher, took to the pages of City A.M. making the case for automating the underground: âAutomation could eliminate driver strikes entirely. Beyond labour disputes, automated systems provide enhanced safety, improved customer service, operational flexibility and reduced environmental impact. Crucially for taxpayers, automation delivers economic balance: better services while controlling costs that spiral with every union negotiation.â Take a read of Anneâs piece in full here.Â
|
|
|
Regular readers will know that weâre not generally singing the praises of civil servants. As Joannaâs investigations have shown, when theyâre not working from home or off sick, they can often be found doing things like knitting and âMenopause Yogaâ during working hours.
|
|
It also looks like a number of them are fond of the website Reddit. Our eyes were caught by a report from the Telegraph, highlighting a thread on the forum filled with posts supposedly from civil servants bemoaning their lack of work and endless diversity training sessions. While we werenât shocked by the stories, the honesty from some of these mandarins was striking.
Anne was spot on when she told Telegraph readers: âThese stories prove just how broken the civil service system is. Taxpayers expect civil servants to be delivering for the public, not sitting idle in a culture where effort is punished and mediocrity rewarded. Itâs clear that this bloated bureaucracy needs slashing, and incentive structures need changing because currently money is being squandered on staff with nothing to do.â Hear, hear!
|
|
|
The public wonât reward government overspending â just ask Ed Miliband
|
|
|
With new polling published yesterday showing that cutting spending is twice as popular with the public than increasing taxes, John OâConnellâs op-ed in City A.M. from Wednesday looks to have hit the nail on the head.Â
John used his latest article to argue that uncontrolled public spending, as weâre experiencing with this government and the calamitous Rachel Reeves in the treasury, is rarely rewarded by the tax-paying public who pick up the tab.
|
|
|
John writes: âTake the employersâ national insurance increase from last yearâs disaster Budget. We were told that businesses would pick up the slack. But businesses are nothing more than filings at Companies House â they can no more pay taxes than your toaster can pay the electricity bill. People pay taxes. So instead, workers received no pay rises (or lower than they could have been); prices for consumers went up; and returns to capital reduced (thereby disincentivising investment and job creation)... Some argue there are no current political rewards for reducing public spending. But thinking back to 2015, it wasnât Ed Milibandâs Labour who won the election â it was the party offering more spending restraint. Perhaps the British public are more perceptive than political strategists give them credit for.âÂ
Â
|
|
|
The Lifetime ISA is failing taxpayers and first-time buyers
|
|
|
|
In this weekâs blog, Jonathan Eida takes a dive into the Lifetime ISA (LISA) and explores whether itâs really delivering for savers and taxpayers. A George Osborne innovation from 2016, the LISA rewards savers with a 25 per cent top up to their deposits, capped at an annual bonus of ÂŁ1,000 and is designed to support saving for a first home or retirement.Â
|
|
|
While this may sound fine, as Jonathan writes: âThe LISA is increasingly seen as an outdated solution to the broader problem of housing access. If the government is genuinely committed to helping first-time buyers, then efforts must go beyond savings products and address the structural issues on the supply side of the housing market. This includes reforming planning laws to allow for more building and offering stronger incentives to developers, such as easing tax burdens, so that housing supply can begin to meet growing demand.â
|
|
Benjamin Elks
Grassroots Development Manager
|
|
|
|
|
