Fantastic Mr Fox

I don't like foxes. I'm not one of these deluded people who think they're all cute and fluffy. I'd like to get on the back of a muscle packed stallion and chase one across the countryside and then know that it's been killed by some dogs.

But it's not that I dislike animals; quite the contrary. I'm a huge animal lover. I've been vegetarian for the past 18 years despite dreaming about steak (not one of those ghastly preaching ones, though), I actually communicate often like I'm a bloody cat and I do generally prefer animals to people. It's my love of animals, particularly the gorgeous ones I live with, that I want a bit of equilibrium to be restored and man to be the natural predator of foxes again.

For years in the suburbs there have been urban foxes causing a nuisance: ripping bins apart, screaching into the night and stinking and being infested with fleas. They don't run when they see a human; why should they? What can we actually do? They're the ones with sharp teeth and rabies. We should run from them.

And we know from news reports that foxes attack people and maul children. Those people who feed foxes and encourage them into urban areas think that sleeping children provoked a fox into scarring their faces and chewing their arms but this is bullshit.

My first pet, a rabbit called Christopher was killed by a fox who just took his head. Over the years we all came to know foxes as pet killers as a series of fluffy animals were taken as trophies despite our best efforts to keep them safe. Now we keep chickens and cats and it's another round of ensuring that people watch them even during the day and that all animals are locked up at night.

This morning I woke up to a text message from my friend who lives near saying that her kitten was killed last night by foxes.

Yes, you 'animal rights ban hunting stop pest control' people: a kitten was killed by a fox. You with all your 'save me' posters of foxes didn't have to clean up that one in your garden, did you.


So I had a look to see what can be done about dealing with the fucking pests. Here's the government website. Essentially, in much the same way as people have been told for the last decade about rape and burglary, it's your responsibility to stop it happening to you.

Blocking empty living spaces
If the space is occupied by foxes (or other animals) it’s illegal to trap them by blocking the entrance. Instead, wait until the foxes stop using the space and then block the entrance before the next breeding season, which lasts from December to May...

Legal protection for foxes
It’s against the law to treat foxes cruelly. Find out more information on foxes and the law on pages six and seven of 'The red fox in rural areas'.

And of course make sure there's no rubbish anywhere and don't fly tip. Of course, there's more rubbish around since we don't get it cleared up ever week (landfill directive) and more fly tipping (weee directive) so thanks EU.

In the mean time, if you've got a fox which is making your life unpleasant, remember that the last Labour government thought it more important than you. Perhaps we should get some changes included in this Great Repeal Bill?

How to be a tabloid journalist part 24638

Not that tabloids overreact in their coverage, often stringing a few comments into a double page feature, but this coverage of the pantomime wedding in the News of the World had me hooting with laughter:

Women and children were forced to FLEE the scrum - some in floods of TEARS

It's a church in Surrey, not the Rwandan fucking genocide.

Britblog Roundups: the 'football team's coming home' edition

Hello! And welcome to this sunny BB round up which is taking place on a Monday as no sun worshipper worth their salt would have been in on a day like yesterday.

So from a bronzed Trixy towers, here is a selection of the posts from the blogosphere in the week where England finally ended their world cup challenge and thus people finally took down those tacky flags with 'The Sun' or 'England' emblazoned across them. Yippee!

I'm going to start this week with an excellent post from Mark Reckons who notice an air of hypocrisy around the writing of Simon Heffer:

Quite aside from the fact that his logic is severely flawed (we have had crack-down after crack-down on drugs for the last 40 years and use has risen hugely), where is the liberal Simon Heffer who wants the government to back off from people's freedoms to drink beer and smoke tobacco? Both of these drugs harm and kill far more people each year than all illegal drugs combined. Why is there such a clear difference in his mind between the two groups of drugs, those that are legal and those that the government (sometimes seemingly arbitrarily) deem illegal?

Moving from one sin to another in the eyes of the pure, our man in Hanoihas noticed that the British Embassy has an interesting freebie. Each to their own, I guess...

Moving onto the subject of football, Matthew writes about why he thinks England could never have won the world cup this time around. I've always wondered why people get so attached to clubs given that they bear little resemblance to clubs which were started up for players of that area. Players move around all the time, as do managers. Someone who is the favourite one minute then becomes in some way a traitor or hated for doing what he probably did before he joined the club one supports. It's a marketplace and to me it's like supporting a favourite shop. I love shopping in Gina but if they secure a new marketing manager and the shares go up I'm just as happy as before because, well, it's a business.

Let us though not try and place the blame for this defeat solely on to others, when the real reason lies, at heart, with the English ourselves.

We have sold our best clubs to foreign owners. Foreign managers oversee them and foreign players dominate the 'English' Premiership line-ups. If you want a vision of England's future, take a look at Scotland today.

I'd like the oiks who threw eggs at my windows to understand that but I doubt very much they can actually read.

Brian Barder writes about Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection which, despite the fact that he employs the phrase 'Polly Toynbee is right' reads very sensibly. I don't tend to get too involved with the whole crime thing, in the sense of committing it or what one should do with prisoners because, let's face it, one can't be interested and informed in everything. And I'm interesting and informed in a whole raft of topics so I'm sure you'll forgive me. And anyway, the tan makes up for it.

These people are in preventive detention, being punished for future offences they haven’t committed, often with no hope of release, fearing that they are in prison for life, having already been punished for often quite minor offences. The onus is on them to prove a negative about the future, which is conceptually impossible as well as reversing the normal onus of proof. The proportion of IPPers so far released is minuscule.

Staying on the same blog, but moving over to the subject of Afghanistan. The headlines were full of Cameron's statement that he wants British troops to withdraw from the country by 2015. But why is that? Like Obama's statement, war is not something you can put a definite time on (and if you do you'll probably be wrong) unless you don't actually have to be there. Is this the case in Afghanistan? Technically speaking it was not an illegal war because it's not actually an international conflict but lives have been lost, bodies have been shattered and hearts have been broken.

Our political leaders are, I think, inhibited by two fears, neither of which can possibly justify a single additional death or maiming of another British soldier.

The first is the fear that our withdrawal will be interpreted as a failure, and a defeat for British arms. But it need not be so. Britain has been second only to the Americans in the size and effectiveness of our contribution to the war over nine years, and in the cost of it in blood and treasure. It can reasonably credibly be claimed that our war effort has real and tangible achievements to its credit: al-Qaeda’s presence and power virtually eliminated, Taliban control of towns and villages removed and girls’ schools reopened, social development schemes instigated and funded under British military protection, Afghans given political options denied to them in the years before 9/11 and the arrival of NATO forces.

Neil Craig is getting a bit misty eyed at the prospect of the Norwegians building a tunnel for ships. I agree that one in Scotland would be fantastic but it would be late and about 10 times over budget, I guess.

Finally, because Chameleon said she enjoyed it (although I think that was only to remind me to write the round up this week!) here is my post on the budget and how I think the Tories still have a shit EU policy.

I've just been informed that I am not allowed to support Germany in the world cup, despite the egg throwing incident but have to support The Netherlands. This is because my Dutch housemate hates Germans because they 'start wars and stole my grandfather's bicycle'. Well, it won me over.

Until next week, get nominating your favourite posts at britblog [at] gmail [dot] com

Pip pip!

Finally a budget for single people

For years, especially under the socialist government of Labour we've had to listen to all the benefits which would be going to 'hard working families', how 'schools n' hospitals would have as much money as they wished and how 'the poor' must get everything they want without having to actually get a job.

It was all to get us to be involved in the state. Child Tax Credits are clearly inefficient as a way of redistributing income and a higher personal allowance would do the job of ensuring the lowest incomes don't pay tax to keep them in an unemployment trap, but that wouldn't have worked for Gordon. He wanted you to be dependent on the state; to love it and him for its generosity.

So since I've been paying tax it's been a slavering socialist at the dispatch box telling me how much more of my money he's going to be taking from me to throw into his pit of money to waste on pointless projects.

But last week it was different: here was a budget which actually pleased me in many ways.

For now I don't have to pay so much for other people's children or the endless pursuing of the married couples' vote with one off lump payments for newborns and endless nonsense about monitoring schools. You may think I'm being unreasonable but for thirteen years the single and childless were shouting 'What about us?' at the TV and into newspapers. We don't get benefits, we just bloody pay for it all and sit there struggling to get a deposit for a house, ineligible for any tax credits or council housing because we've chosen not to spawn.

The rise in VAT is annoying because of course it increases money we give to the EU which is already far too much. It's politically preferred, of course, as whilst it will affect inflation until the 13 month rolling average sorts that one out it isn't a headline grabbing increase in income tax and doesn't show on the monthly salary statement which is the general view of how we all work out how better or worse off we are.

I only hope that in November the coalition will have the guts to realise that what they've started is a good thing. We shouldn't be worrying about winter fuel payments because if we didn't rape the pensions system and get taxed to kingdom come then people would have enough for their retirement. Stop state dependency and grow a pair. This country started the industrial revolution and it was the Victorian work ethic which allowed us to be great whilst at the same time improving conditions for the poorest in society. That concept has been hidden but I do hope that it hasn't been lost.

And whilst we're on the subject of growing a pair, the increase in the number of MEPs gives the chance that the Tories and Cameron said he wanted to get rid of this Lisbon Treaty. They came first in the country in 2009 with eurosceptic rhetoric and claims that they wanted to repatriate powers to Westminster.

But at the first chance he has he's already been wooed by Barroso over eggs and bacon and a quick kiss and cuddle at the first summit he attended as Prime Minister.

We cut the defence budget but ring fence international 'aid' which harms the chances of free trade and global development whilst Cameron bleats on inaccurately about how he'll push ahead with bilateral trade agreements for the UK. Not since we joined the EEC, Cameron old chap. We have a single trade policy now: we don't even get a seat at the WTO...

The Euro is a victim of its own success

Yes, yes: that is what the President of Europe said. Nothing to do with the fact that this currency is based upon a political pipe dream which ignores economics and the democractic wish of the people who foot the bill. Nothing to do with the fact that the criteria for joining the currency were wishywashy themselves and even then were ignored by many of the Club Med countries in the EU. It's such a success, that's why Germans are bailing out other countries. And don't you forget it!

Lack of judgement or wounded pride?

President Obama hasn't been having a good couple of weeks. First of all he's had to launch a full scale attack on BP and ignore any US involvement to ensure that he keeps up his protectionist stance. Now Gen McChrystal is coming under fire from the politician and his advisors, mainly for comments made by his aide.

At the White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gen McChrystal is expected to face:

Joe Biden. Gen McChrystal had mocked the vice-president when asked a question about him. "Are you asking about Vice-President Biden? Who's that?"
Karl Eikenberry. Gen McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul during the long 2009 White House debate on troop requests for Afghanistan
James Jones. One of Gen McChrystal's aides says the national security adviser is a "clown stuck in 1985"
Richard Holbrooke. Gen McChrystal says of an e-mail from the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke... I don't even want to open it"

Stanley McChrystal has been praised as the best commander in Afghanistan in the nine year war and has reduced civilian casualties by 44% which will have a positive impact on the 'hearts and minds' battle in the country, vital for intelligence on local Taliban activities.

But instead of concentrating on that, Obama has some wounded pride to see to. If members of his administration haven't been supporting the troops properly than I think it's important that people know about it. If his attitude has been less than helpful yet he and his administration are using trips to see the troops to raise their profile then I think it's a valid thing for people to know about. After all; who pays the bill?

Former CGS Gen Sir Richard Dannett was outspoken about the last Labour government and many people think this is why he never became Chief of the Defence Staff at a time when the Army was, has and will continue to take the brunt of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By its very nature and the emotions the Armed Forces bring about, troops will always be a political tool. It's just that only rarely do those stories make the front pages and when they do, it's the military which get blamed by the politicians for being irresponsible.

So stats aren't his strong point

If I showed someone a graph which had a direct correlation between two sets of figures one can say that one has an effect on the other. Economists calculate this using the formula r squared, or the correlation coefficient.

r squared is between 0 and 1: at 0 there is no correlation. 1 is where the two are entirely dependent on each other. I used to have a great time during my degree collecting all kinds of data and calculating if they had anything to do with each other. And it also enabled me to occasionally throw into conversation the word heteroskedasticity.

This EU summit has, alas, proven that our new Prime Minister isn't up there with even basic stats, let alone yummy econometrics.

Mr Cameron said a larger EU had diluted the tendency for further bureaucratic integration. He said: “Now Europe is so much wider and broader, with the countries of eastern and central Europe as members, that will help push us in a more intergovernmental direction, which I support.
“The wider and broader Europe takes some of the pressure off further integration. But you also have to be on your guard.”

This was the excuse used for Greek entry to the EU in the 1980s and actually was an A Level economics question (where you don't tend to use any stats apart from the terms of trade).

It's quite clearly a nonsense which doesn't require any complex analysis but a basic look at the different treaties over the past 50 years.

When the A8 countries joined in 2004 the EU didn't have as many powers as it does now. One of the criteria for them joining in their accession treaties were that they signed up to the EU Constitution, now in law as the Lisbon Treaty.]

Before Greece joined, Cyprus joined, before Finland and the UK there weren't the powers in the original documents as there are now. I know that the Tories use the reason for supporting expansion as saying that the pond will become wider and less deep but it's a nonsense. It's the reason they're using for their support of Turkey joining and countries like Serbia, but it's a fucking nonsense.

What I'm trying to establish in my own mind is that are the Tories, and Cameron in particular, being mendacious in their statements or are they being ignorant?

Answers on a shoebox, please.

Ups and Downs in the EU

Whilst Cameron and Hague are having a love in with Barroso and the EU, agreeing that people who lead an organisation who haven't had their accounts signed off for fifteen years should approve our budget, one man who has never traded his principles gave another warning on the Euro.

Bonus time for bootleggers?

(I'm posting this on behalf of the Lovely One.)

So it's only been a few weeks but I'm still yet to be bowled over by the repealing of detrimental legislation which was piled on this country by the combination of Brussels and the ghastly ex-Labour government.


ID cards were satisfying but quite frankly I'm hungry for more. We had thirteen years of incompetence and those people running the country into the ground and what I'm looking for is something more, well, groundbreaking. As far as I can tell it's still illegal to do things which are normal things to do like, for example, smoke inside, and at the same time we have the Lib Dems trying to force the utterly ruinous rocketing of CGT which people like Jackart don't seem to think so terrible for some reason. I've no idea why that is except, like a second marriage, it's a triumph of hope over experience.


A rise in CGT will stop people investing in, well, most things. Second homes which are pension provisions especially since Gordon Brown raped our pension pots. Shares which boost many areas of economic life through injections of liquidity. Even for demand side economists who worship the Income Equation, a generous boost of 'I' is just what the doctor ordered in these economically uncertain times.


But here's a basic thing that the coalition could do, which wouldn't really need much effort and would be a step in the right direction both for our civil liberties and small businesses.

SALES of blackmarket cigarettes could outstrip legal sales in Britain unless ­Labour’s draconian over-the-counter ban is reversed for shopkeepers.


In Canada a similar ban saw contraband sales in parts of the country overtake shop sales within 12 months of the new law coming in.

If the same thing happened in Britain, hundreds of newsagents would go to the wall and the Treasury would lose out on millions more in unpaid taxes.

One hardly expects a Labour government to do anything remotely sensible which is part of the reason why we're in the mess we are in. But I'm afraid that a Tory majority coalition should not have the excuse of incompetence to hide behind.


They are supposed to be the party which abhores excessive regulation and wants to promote freedoms and small businesses. I do hope that this marriage of convenience with the Lib Dems does not turn out to be more like an affaire de coeur with a mere mistress having undue influence.


It's about time that this country had a government with a vague grasp on the right thing to do. And this one seems pretty simple to me.

It's nothing personal...

I've had a mentally challenging day and so have decided to indulge by reading all the shit in newspapers, mainly about Cheryl Tweedy, as we're to know her as. It's as sinful as licking the bowl of the chocolate cake with fresh strawberry frosting which I have made for a friend. But less fattening.

There are fabulous flashes of genius, though:

Cheryl is said to have broken the news to Ashley by telling him frankly: “It’s nothing personal but I never want to see or hear from you ever again. Please respect that.”

Nothing further to add, your honour.

The world according to the Estonians

Enjoy this rather splendid clip by the Estonians whilst I have a look at the results of the Georgian elections and see who will be pissed off most by the results and if Russia will start attacking them again in the knowledge that the EU are too shit scared of them to comply with international law and defend Georgia.

Britblog Roundup

Slightly late, for which I apologise but life is still rather kunterbunt at the moment, but here is the excellent Britblog Roundup as hosted by the talented Chameleon.

Next week we're going to see Jackart who I don't think has forgiven me for still lusting after David Miliband.

Ah, well.

A Laws unto themselves

It's like last summer never happened. The expenses scandal which rocked the establishment and led to mass resignations and MPs being arrested was a figment of our perverse imaginations.

This new coalition we are being governed by appears to think that the election of them is enough to make us forget that it's our money they are stealing from us.

As Mr Laws MP said in the Western Gazette on the 17th October last year,

I believe strongly that all expenditure by MPs – whether it is on staffing and office costs, or for reimbursement of our own expenses – should be made available regularly for the scrutiny of those we are accountable to, our constituents.

I do not give one whether David Laws is gay, straight, asexual or transgender. I don't care if he's black, white, pink, northern or southern. What I care about is that someone who has seen the justifiable public outcry against the expenses MPs claim should then think it's okay that he gives £40000 to someone he is also giving one to.

Some of us can't afford one mortgage let alone have the opportunity to supplement our partner's lifestyle with tax payers cash.

It's also a demonstration of just how beige this new ConDem coalition is that both Clegg and Cameron jump to his defence.

Responding to Mr Laws' resignation letter, Mr Cameron said he was an "honourable man", adding: "I hope that, in time, you will be able to serve again."

Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he had always admired Mr Laws' integrity and he hoped he would one day be able to return to government.

He said Mr Laws' privacy had now been "cruelly shattered".

Mr Cameron wrote: "The last 24 hours must have been extraordinarily difficult and painful for you.

"You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else.

"Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity.

As the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister it would be nice if they, in reference to the fact that they are the servants of the people and were elected by us, would just occasionally leap to our defence. Is it too much to ask that we have in the government people who will just live by the rules? How is this man an example of someone with integrity? He's resigned over the scandal caused by his behaviour and there are people calling for his resignation as an MP.

Integrity? I'd hate to see the person Cameron and Clegg thought a bit dodgy.

And it really is one law for them and one for us. Just over a month after David Laws made a statement on expenses whilst lining the pockets of his lover, a staffordshire man was arrested for much the same thing.

A BENEFITS claimant has been jailed for two months after he failed to tell council officials about a change in his living arrangements.

David Griffiths, of Swansmoor Drive, Hixon, near Stafford, received just over £10,600 in housing and council tax benefit between August 2006 and December last year by claiming to be the only person living in his home. He also got more than £7,000 in income support.

Griffiths failed to tell Stafford Borough Council or the Department for Work and Pensions about a change in his circumstances.

The 39-year-old was actually living with a partner.

A click of the heels to Mark Croucher for pointing that one out.

All of this just confirms my believe that whilst this coalition may repeal a fews laws which I didn't like they are just papering over the cracks of our problem.

It's impressive in a way, though. Rebellions over the catastrophic increases in Captial Gains Tax, expenses scandals and resignations in the same month as the election: normally it takes years for a government to achieve this level of incompetence.

A woman with worse taste in men than me

I was rather amused this morning when I read a shocking story about a Colombian beauty queen who in involved in drugs trafficking..

The Argentine press, who have dubbed her "Narco Queen", say she moved to Mexico in 2005 where she became romantically involved with a well-known drug trafficker known as The Monster.

Now, I do have disastrous taste in men but I think even someone as stupid as me when it comes to love and romance would think twice about dating someone called 'The Monster'.

Whilst the discussion as to the nickname would provide an interesting chat over the starter at Pizza Express I suspect that the reasons would not provide an inducement for me to take my knickers off.

That abortion advert

I thought I'd wait until the advert aired on Channel 4 to make a few comments about the Marie Stopes advert.

As predicted, the usual suspects have thrown their hands in the air at the concept that women are able to make an informed choice about an unplanned pregnancy.

It's 32 seconds long so take a look at it here:



The people who protest against an advertisement offering a medical service are the same people who complain if it's advice given by a medical professional. It's not the medium in which it's been given that is their problem but the fact that they wish to deny people the choice over their own body because they don't agree with it.

Michaela Aston, a spokeswoman for anti-abortion charity Life, said: "To allow abortion providers to advertise on TV, as though they were no different from car companies or detergent manufacturers, is grotesque.

"By suggesting that abortion is yet another consumer choice, it trivialises human life and completely contravenes the spirit of the 1967 Abortion Act, which was supposed to allow for a small number of legal abortions in a limited number of hard cases, but has been twisted and distorted to allow for mass abortion on demand."

It's not an advert asking people to pick them for their 'Buy One Get One Free' abortion offer or some sexed up alcohol advert with citrus fruit flying over the screen: it's a couple of women going about their life looking concerned because they've missed their period. They're not asking you to buy their product at all but call up if you need advice. ADVICE. Yes, Marie Stopes offer abortion services but all you pro choice people, if they didn't then old Agnes round the back streets would do just as well with some gin, a hot bath and a coat hanger.

In such a situation isn't it best to get informed advice rather than worry, be unsure about what to do or have a baby which one can't afford, have no support for bringing up and is ill advised?

blogging break

I've been signed off work sick for a couple of weeks and instructed to do lots of exercise and get out in the sunshine. I can deal with that: I am already a nice shade of pink brown.

But given my precarious health at the moment was it wise to give me the mobile number of my current lustful fantasy? Really? I've managed to control myself so far but these tablets do funny things!

commemorative mug

For those of you reveling in the civil partnership between Dave and Nick, why not show your feelings with this commemorative mug?


Mine is on order. I'm going to drink weak tea and herbal remedies from it, or possibly blend the two in a beverage style metaphor of our government.

The true colours start to shine through

It's hardly a new generation of government when one wakes up to this sort of nonsense
Darling George, the man who probably does have actual wallpaper on his computer screen, the man who is ill equipt to be in charge of our economy at this important time, has told his core voters that he wishes to shaft them.

I think it would have been pretty clear for anyone coming into office that there was a substantial problem with capital gains tax and avoidance of income tax,' Mr Osborne said.

Reform of capital gains tax was unavoidable because of the 'enormous amount of income shifting' happening by people looking to avoid paying income tax, which currently attracts much higher rates

Fundamentally, Georgy, people don't like paying tax because they see how much money pointless twats like you waste. You've been in power long enough to send out a note to local councils informing them that you won't be funding cycling workshops or lesbian tea dances and yet all I've really heard is that the so called Conservative Party has jumped into bed with their coalition partners with the enthusiasm that the builder's son who secretly dressed up in his mum's clothes does with the first pretty boy he meets at university.

It was always there for it to be this keen.

But the original Tory commitment that 80 per cent of deficit reduction should be achieved through spending cuts and just 20 per cent through tax hikes has been quietly abandoned.

Brilliant. The party which came third is successfully trying to ruin our economic recovery. Of course, if the Tories actually had a backbone or even an inkling of economic nous they would tell Cleggy to shut his pretty mouth and let them get on with the job of trying to dig this country out of the ghastly mess which socialism and neglect has brought.

But they're not. They could have stood with no UKIP candidates if they'd trusted the people enough to give them a referendum on our continued membership of the European Union, which would do a damned site more for the economy than a rise in VAT (which brings them in line with other EU countries and of course is a way that the EU gets money without asking national governments for it) but they declined.

Yet Osborne might have problems with his proposed rises, as a reader writes to me to say:

'I’ve heard your policy on raising the rate of CGT from 18& to 40% on more than three occasions from yourselves & your local candidate.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt & assuming that you are not aware why the rate has been ‘lowered’ to 18%; either that or I am missing something which means that
three of you have not described your proposals properly, or you are proposing to commit theft.

I don’t support your party; I’ve met Vince at Guildford Theatre last year; you both seem to be very able politicians & decent people which is why I’m puzzled by your proposals re CGT.

Canvassing for my party I’ve found that few members of the public understand what the deficit is; how much we owe: what Gordon Brown means by saying he’ll halve the deficit etc.

To them, your proposal to charge ‘rich’ people 40% on capital gains must sound attractive – it may well win votes.

The thing is you’d be challenged in the courts if you tried to do this. Let me explain simply CGT has always been complicated:

CGT was introduced some 40 years ago as Sch.D case VIII.

In the early days, in order to establish & quantify a gain, tax consultants and HMIT had to resort to opinions from valuers etc. this could be a time consuming, costly process

There have always until recently (with the introduction of the flat 18% rate) been problems associated with establishing the true gain, i.e after allowing for inflation.

Let us assume that I bought a second home 10 years ago for £100,000. I could have bought a Rolls Royce for that but I chose the house.

Let us also assume that inflation/indexation would have increased the value to £130,000 and that I sell the house tomorrow for that figure.

Under present rules, after deducting the annual tax free allowance (say £10,000) I’d pay CGT of 18% on £20,000 i.e £3600. It is arguable whether I actually made any gain, and my Roller would still cost £130,000, but at least the calculation is simple.

Under your proposals (as I understand them), you’d reduce the annual allowance to £2,000 leaving a chargeable gain of £28,000 on which I could pay tax at 40%.

Thus my CGT liability could be £11,200 on a gain that, as a result of inflation, did not actually occur. That would not stand up in court if challenged.

Vince said today that very few pensioners would actually pay 40% CGT. That is not true. There are thousands of people who’ve invested in second homes for their retirement or student homes for their children or grandchildren, who will not be reliant on state handouts, who you are proposing to rob, if my understanding of your proposals is correct (I apologise if I’m wrong)

I look forward to your reply and, if appropriate, to a public withdrawal from an unfair (you being the party proposing fairness) tax.'

This letter was originally written to the Lib Dems during the election but I think given this new state of affairs it's worth flagging up to Mr Osborne.

Gentlemen; we won't hold our breath.

Britblog Roundup

Apologies for the delay in pointing you over towards the delectable Mr Eugenides for this week's Britblog Roundup but I'm afraid I'm ill at the moment and not on the planet all of the time.

Anyway, go read it. He's written it just for you.

Oh dear...

I still have a thumping great crush on David Miliband. I've tried to rid myself of it by spending time with soldiers but they're all the bloody same and not the kind of people you want as anything other than mates.

Come here, Mili-lover, and bring that banana with you.