Rejoice, rejoice, just rejoice at the news!

Be grateful that our fourth Chancellor in three months has ensured that the economy is just totally Sunakered and not completely Trussterfucked. (To quote loosely from two sources).

Our PPS’s enthusiasm for swinging in behind the Tory economic wrecking-ball shows no bounds. – Owl

Simon Jupp MP has backed tax rises and other measures revealed in Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement on Thursday (17 November).

The East Devon MP previously supported major tax cuts in former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget in September.

exmouth.nub.news

Mr Jupp described the decisions in the Autumn Statement, which also include spending cuts, as “tough but fair” and they would “restore economic stability and tackle inflation.”

He said in a statement: “Like many countries around the world, the UK is facing profound economic challenges – Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the Covid pandemic have cost our country billions.

“I wanted to touch on some of the headline matters today, based on the issues raised with me in recent constituency surgeries and correspondence.

“The state pension will rise in line with inflation – 10.1 per cent. I have repeatedly emphasised with the Prime Minister and Chancellor the importance of restoring the triple lock to help protect pensioners’ spending power because it offers vital economic security for many people in East Devon.

“The standard minimum income guarantee in pension credit will also increase in line with inflation from April 2023. Additionally, I also spoke with the Chancellor regarding benefits. Today, he announced that working age and disability benefits will rise by inflation, supporting the most vulnerable. 

“I am particularly pleased to learn that there will now be £4.4 billion of additional funding for schools over the next two years. I have spoken with several East Devon school heads in recent weeks to raise their concerns about recruitment and funding with the Secretary of State for Education. The extra money will help schools locally and I will continue to work with education leaders across East Devon.

“I know there has been some uncertainty about the government’s energy bill support beyond April 2023. We now know that the government will extend the energy price guarantee for twelve months until April 2024, although at a higher level of £3,000 per year for the average household. This will come alongside direct support for 8 million low-income households. 

“The government will also double to £200 the level of support for households that use heating oil and liquified petroleum gas to heat their homes. Many residents in particularly rural parts of East Devon told me the £100 initially announced some months ago wasn’t enough. I agreed and made the case for an increase.

“I believe it’s right that those with more contribute more. Two policies stand out in this regard: the point at which the highest earners start paying the top rate of tax will be lowered from £150,000 to £125,140; and energy firms will pay an expanded windfall tax of 35%, up from the 25% already levied on their profits. 

“Thanks to the action taken today, our borrowing costs are broadly back in line with comparable countries. Although we will now see some tax increases, the Chancellor has not raised headline rates of taxation, and tax as a percentage of GDP will increase by just 1% over the next five years. 

“Today’s Autumn Statement protects those on the lowest income, restores economic stability, and tackles inflation.”

 

Andrew Dilnot is warden of Nuffield College, Oxford, and was chair of the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support www.theguardian.com 

Dementia. Chronic lung disease or arthritis. Loss of mobility, sight, hearing. These are all things that could hit any of us, make us vulnerable and require compassion and social care. The chancellor said his statement on Thursday was about protecting vulnerable people and displaying the value of compassion. So how can a part of that statement have been yet another occasion when social care has been put at the bottom of the list of priorities?

I chaired the commission appointed by the coalition government in 2010 to suggest a way forward. My name was read out in Jeremy Hunt’s statement on Thursday, which breached the 2019 manifesto promise to “fix social care” by delaying the improved funding system I recommended from October 2023 to a (post-general election) date of October 2025.

In September 2021, the then government announced a package of changes to social care funding. There were three main elements. First, an increase in the generosity of the means-tested system, so that instead of needing to be down to your last £23,250 (including property) before you got any help from the state, you would get state help if your assets were worth less than £100,000. Second, a change to the way care is charged for, which would end individual care users subsidising local authorities. And third, a cap on the lifetime amount that you would have to pay, which meant that for the first time ever, the risk of needing social care would be pooled across the whole of society rather than borne by whoever happened to be hit. It would have moved our treatment of people with social care needs closer to the way we deal with medical needs in the NHS.

Since then, hundreds of thousands of families in vulnerable and difficult circumstances have been looking forward to October next year. The announcement on Thursday broke the pledge in the manifesto, and laid out in parliament, and now these families are being told they will have to wait until October 2025. Without these reforms, individuals and families facing the possibility of long social care journeys are left entirely on their own, with the state only helping once their assets – including their homes – have dwindled down to the threshold.

This is not the first time those needing social care have been let down. When Labour came to power in 1997 it pledged to address social care funding reform. There was a royal commission, but nothing happened. The 2010 coalition government set up an independent commission, which I chaired, and which reported in 2011. We recommended reforms similar in structure to those that have now been deferred, albeit with the cap set at a lower level. In 2013, the government legislated, with implementation due in April 2017. Before the 2015 election, the implementation date was brought forward to 2016. Immediately after the 2015 election, it was deferred by a year and then abandoned. Nothing happened.

Then there was a plan for a green paper. Nothing happened. Then there was a plan in the 2017 manifesto, which was abandoned during the campaign. Nothing happened. Then there was another plan for a green paper. Nothing happened. Then Boris Johnson on his first day in office said he had a plan. There was the 2021 announcement, followed by legislation agreed by both houses of parliament and an implementation date of October 2023. Hope grew. If this latest announcement is not reversed, we will again have a whole parliament during which … nothing will have happened.

The way we treat those in need of social care is a strong indicator of how we care about the most vulnerable people. This group has been denied the sharing of risk that we apply most strikingly in the National Health Service, but also through our wider social security system. Just over a year ago, a promise was made to these people by the prime minister. To break that promise now is not only backing out of protecting vulnerable people, but it’s also taking away something on which they were relying.

This is a time for looking to the founding of the modern British welfare state and asking why the principles that apply across so much of it are not applied to social care. In 1943 Winston Churchill said that he and his colleagues were strong partisans of national insurance “for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave”, recognising that social insurance brings “the magic of averages to the rescue of the millions”. That Churchillian insight, shared by William Beveridge and Nye Bevan, is just as true now as it was then, and the glaring omission in our social welfare arrangements is social care. The reforms due to have been implemented next October would have begun to set that right. The delay hurts not only the most vulnerable, but also the carers, formal and informal, who help to support them. Social care is something we have to do together. Making this group wait yet again seems hard to defend. Can we really not do better than this?

Ministers have been told to “come clean” on the economic argument behind not scrapping non-doms in the UK after the chancellor suggested he did not know how much money axing the controversial tax status would raise.

[See below Owl’s summary of the anachronistic origins in colonialism and slavery that gave rise to “non-dom” status. It was specifically introduced to shelter foreign property owners from swinging taxes introduced to pay the national debt in 1799. The status remains unique to the UK.]

Kate Devlin www.independent.co.uk

Jeremy Hunt insists the economy would not be helped by scrapping the status, saying on Friday that he would rather the super rich “stayed… and spent their money here”.

And he said he was told by Treasury officials that they were “very unsure” about how much money the move would actually make.

Labour has now called on ministers to publish figures on how many non-doms there are and the amount the Treasury loses because of the loophole.

The highly-respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank told The Independent the “best estimate” it had was that abolishing the measure would be worth around £3 billion a year.

The figure is roughly the same amount as Mr Hunt announced will be added to next year’s NHS budget.

The Independent revealed earlier this year that Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, held non-domicile status while her husband was chancellor.

Mr Sunak called the reports about his wife “unpleasant smears” at the time, though she ultimately gave up the advantage.

The issue was seen as so toxic that insiders initially believed it scuppered Mr Sunak’s hopes of becoming prime minister.

The lawful status can save an individual from paying UK tax on income from dividends from foreign investments, rental payments on property overseas or bank interest.

Making the call for the government to produce figures on non-doms, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Pat McFadden said: “As the Tories raise taxes on working people, it simply isn’t right that those at the top can benefit from outdated non-dom tax perks.

“If you make Britain your home you should pay your taxes here.”

He said Labour would ensure “people who make the UK their home will contribute to this country by paying tax on their global income”.

Labour also cited researched from the London School of Economics which alligned with the IFS and put the figure the treasury could raise as close to £3.2 billion a year.

Earlier this year, the IFS warned there was “very little evidence on the effectiveness of the non-dom regime at attracting and retaining valuable individuals”.

But Mr Hunt argued that scrapping the tax loophole as Labour has suggested would “damage the long-term attractiveness of the UK”.

He faced questions over his decision to keep the status while planning tax rises and public service cuts, which experts warned would hurt those on middle incomes especially.

The chancellor said Treasury officials did not give him solid numbers on how much abolishing or paring back non-dom status would raise.

“They said to me that they were very unsure about the figures that were being bandied around, as far as the savings were concerned,” he said.

“Like me, they wanted to be very sure they weren’t doing things that damaged the UK’s attractiveness. These are foreigners who could live easily in Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, they all have these schemes. All things being equal, I would rather they stayed here and spent their money here.”

Pushed on whether Treasury had given him a figure on how much abolishing the status would bring in, he said: “No, because we don’t agree with the figures that Labour have given.

“The Treasury did not tell me it was going to help the economy to do this, that’s why I chose not to do it.

“I’m not going to do anything that’s going to damage the long-term attractiveness of the UK, even though it gives easy shots to opposition parties, I think it would be the wrong thing to do in terms of creating jobs in the UK.”

Labour has pledged to abolish non-dom tax status and replace it with a system similar to that in Germany or Canada where temporary residents are allowed to avoid paying domestic tax on overseas earnings.

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves accused Mr Hunt of endorsing “tax free income for millionaires while millions face frozen tax allowances and council tax hikes”.

In an apparent reference to Mr Sunak’s household, she added: “How can he possibly claim that this is fair? He refuses to act, and I wonder why. Maybe that was the only policy that he can’t get signed off by No 10 Downing Street. I say if you make Britain your home you should pay your taxes here.”

A Treasury spokesman pointed to Mr Hunt’s comments that axing the status would be the “wrong thing to do in terms of jobs and prosperity for the United Kingdom”.

History  of “Non-Dom” status and its origins in colonialism and slavery

The “non-domicile” tax exemption regime was originally introduced in 1799 to shelter those with foreign property from the swinging taxes introduced by prime minister William Pitt the Younger.

Pitt introduced new taxes In 1786 to try to reduce the debt incurred by the American War of Independence. With the country still in debt, Pitt was also forced, in 1797,  to introduce Great Britain’s first-ever income tax. The Napoleonic wars followed almost immediately and Pitt may have seen these coming.

“Non-Dom” status, then, is an echo of our colonial past. 

It is subtly different from nationality and residence and roughly equates to the concept of “homeland”. “Non-Doms” are supposed to have strong links to that “homeland” and demonstrate intent, not to remain in Britain, but to return there. A further curiosity is that you can also inherit the status from your father.

However, if eligible, you still have to make a conscious decision to claim this status. It’s a choice.

Having lost America, the aim of the perk was to keep the new colonial rich happy. Those who were now left propping up the empire, for example sugar farmers in Jamaica. 

It is, therefore, appropriate to consider this quirk in the light of the current debate on the legacy of slavery.

Slavery was only outlawed completely, though not entirely stopped, in the “Empire” in 1833 and emancipation was not fully achieved in the USA until 1865.

But what was our Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, doing being photographed alongside Tory candidate Paul Carter, EDDC Tory Leader Philip Skinner and Simon Jupp MP?

Didn’t she take an oath to conduct herself “without fear or favour”?

Has she nothing better to do?

All for a paltry 113 votes! – Owl

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk

Readers may recall my writing about the passing of the vice chair of East Devon District Council, Val Ranger over the summer after a brave fight against an awful diagnosis. Even now I find it hard to process the loss of a truly loved friend and colleague, and I know many other councillors feel the same.

Val would have been pleased, I feel sure, that democracy carried on last week in her ward of Newton Poppleford and Harpford when a by election was held to find a new councillor to serve the remainder of her term till next May. The winner was an Independent, as Val was, Chris Burhop, well-respected chair of the parish council, by a huge margin.

I also feel Val would have welcomed the campaign of another local candidate, Caleb Early representing the Labour Party. Caleb is not yet twenty, but plainly sincere and passionate, just the kind of person who Val would have nurtured and encouraged. I hope he enjoyed the experience and congratulate him on taking second place. The desire to serve in a younger person gives great hope for local democracy.

Coming third was Paul Carter for the Conservatives and again anyone prepared to put their head above the parapet is to be applauded. The campaign which was run for him by the East Devon Conservatives, however, caused widespread concern in one particular respect.

That worry is over the role of the Devon & Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez. The oath promised when P&CCs take office is to conduct themselves “without fear or favour”. To many, while these positions are usually elected on political lines, the winner must thereafter check in their party affiliations and partisan campaigning at the door.

Of course, if Ms Hernandez wishes to attend Conservative party rubber chicken evenings, she has every right to do so. But I am very uneasy that someone on £85,000 per year whose sole public focus should be on the fight against crime feels she can spend her time campaigning in by elections.

To be frank – and again, I am not on Twitter but people send me these images – when I saw the Tories open their campaign in Newton Poppleford with a four-shot picture of Mr Carter, EDDC Tory Leader Philip Skinner, Simon Jupp MP, and the “without favour” Police and Crime Commissioner I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach.

For they were openly touting this election, caused only by a tragic premature death of my friend, as the launch of their campaign for next year’s district elections. This was ill advised in two respects. First, it calls into question the judgement and independence of our Police and Crime Commissioner. And second, simply, how deluded were they?

Because while shipping in campaigners from out of Devon to knock on doors, didn’t they have the simple intelligence on the ground to realise that they were always going to be beaten by a country mile and that the missiles from their big cannons would just dribble out of the barrels and explode around their own feet?

Elsewhere in the jungle, Conservative-led Devon County Council is in huge financial trouble, as was reported last week, just as Tory Kent and Hampshire Councils are this week. In this respect however, I feel very different about the Tories.

John Hart, the longstanding Leader of Devon CC, is a decent, serous, old-school, one-nation politician, being sold down the river by his government. The crisis has been almost entirely caused by that government failing to properly fund both child and adult social care and pushing the problem down to the county councils. I wish him well in his campaign to be heard at Westminster.