UKIP MEPs Falling Out With Farage?

When UKIP celebrated their "European Election win" back in May of this year, those with a more experienced eye instead wondered how many of the 24 MEPs would be left in 2019 by the time of the next elections, and with good reason. Farage, as Dr Eric Edmond observes, historically; "has a long track record of losing MEPs rather quickly as he rounds up the EU Euros".

Of the original intake in 2009 UKIP lost nearly half of its MEPs with a small consolation of only one defector to the party - Roger Helmer from the Tories. The reason is obvious and has been well documented - Farage sees off anyone he perceives as a threat;

“He cannot tolerate anyone in the party who he feels is or might be in a position to challenge him. He prefers to surround himself with incompetents and deadbeats. Anyone who emerges who might show an independent streak, he ruthlessly eliminates, to ensure that they cannot be seen as competition.” 

As Bloom warned UKIP MP Carswell last month "watch your back". UKIP is a one-man party by design not by accident.

O'Flynn of course has not covered himself with glory not only with his so-called "Wag Tax", which was dismissed within 24 hours by Farage himself but with his stupidity over the 1st November nonsense. Another example of UKIP bringing in someone and promoting them to roles where they are completely unsuited, in this case to the role of "economic spokesman". It's worth noting though in view of O'Flynn's comments on VAT that UKIP has this on its website under "Policies for People":

Houses on brownfield sites will be exempt from Stamp Duty on first sale and VAT relaxed for redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Thus confirming that official UKIP policy is to retain an EU tax (or remain EU members). But O'Flynn's biggest problem was always that he had a high profile, particularly as a former journalist with contacts - thus he's a threat to Farage. He came top of those who had a list of MEPs mostly likely to fallout with Farage. And so it's coming to pass, the briefings have begun:

"Senior members of UKIP are campaigning behind the scenes to have Patrick O'Flynn MEP removed as economic spokesman after his appearance on the BBC's Newsnight programme last Monday night. In the interview O'Flynn called for higher taxes on business, having previously called for a tax on the turnover of companies so they would pay even if they did not make a profit."

Deja Vu all over again and it's completely of no surprise. We've seen it all before and then some... With no coherent polices and a leader desperate at all costs to shore up his bank account by virtue of being leader, this is no way to run what desires to be taken seriously as a political party.

And certainly it is not going to win an EU referendum, in fact quite the opposite - it will only help the side which wish us to remain in.

How To Lose The Female Vote In An Instant

Apparently Nigel Farage is attempting to woo the working class voters with a so-called 'wag tax'

Ukip has unveiled a tax on luxury goods such as designer shoes, handbags and sports cars in a series of populist announcements aimed at winning over former Labour voters.

The party wants shoes costing more than £200, handbags worth more than £1,000 and cars costing more than £50,000 to attract a higher level of VAT.

Leaving aside the fact that the acquisition of designer clothes can be part of working class culture, not least women who desire to own Louis Vuitton handbags and Blahnik shoes, what on earth is UKIP doing proposing to retain VAT? VAT is an EU tax which was introduced with our entry into the then EEC in 1973. Why is UKIP proposing to keep it?

We can't help as a consequence coming to conclusion that UKIP has no interest in leaving the EU...

Update: And what about Russell and Bromley? As an example. Most certainly they are not classed as "luxury shoes" but some cost more than £200. Have UKIP lost the plot? One suspects their policy has not only been made as they go along but by men who have no idea whatsoever...

Carr Tax

The 'outrage' over Jimmy Carr's tax affairs has been rather amusing. On one level much fun can be had seeing a lefty comic, who only makes jokes about the 'right kind' of minorities, squirm as he gets caught out.

Now if ever there was a story that resembled to politicians an oversized can with the label 'worms, do not open' this was it. So while Downing Street initially told journalists that the Government does not normally comment on the tax affairs of individuals, Cameron in Mexico City had other ideas, and in with both feet he went:

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the tax arrangements of comedian Jimmy Carr are "morally wrong".

Good ol' populist stuff...which inevitable would mean the papers would investigate others close to the PM. And as a result he's now having to beat a hasty retreat:

David Cameron was in full retreat over his condemnation of celebrity tax avoiders last night, following warnings that his attack on Jimmy Carr could open a Pandora’s Box.

The Prime Minister refused to criticise the tax affairs of Take That star Gary Barlow, despite allegations that the singer was involved in a similar scheme to the one Carr used to cut his liabilities.

And the man is supposed to specialise in PR?

Then of course there's the outrage in the comments. One wonders how many of them have paid builders cash-in-hand thus avoiding VAT, and not declared it. A practice, unlike Carr, is not avoidance but evasion and so entirely illegal....

Benefits Of The EU?

The saga of 'PastyGate' rumbles on. Despite the VAT's origins in Brussels, what's intriguing (and not entirely surprising) has been the Tory response or lack of to damaging headlines.

A tax on food obviously resonates deeply, particularly after a budget that reduced the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p (my emphasis):

"This is basically a tax on the working man of Britain," she says, "and on the many elderly and unemployed people who come by here for a pasty every lunchtime.

"My hot pasties would go up by 50p from £2.75: for some people, that will make a big difference. I'm planning to put a sign up in the window: 'Hot for the rich, and cold for the poor.'"

But only a couple of years ago Cameron was desperate, as opposition leader, to 'decontaminate' the Tory brand: no issue was too cuddly to avoid and, acutely aware of his Eton background, he was eager to play down any thoughts that the Tories are for the rich - as his awkward interview with Andrew Marr in 2009 demonstrated.

Yet here we are with a tax which will hit the working man the hardest, and from Cameron et al there's silence. Osborne could have tried covering it up by saying it was all Brussels' fault - "we'll fight them on the beaches etc" even though we all know in reality it would be empty rhetoric as it so often is.

But no, instead they're prepared to take the electoral polling hit, prepared to scupper their next electoral chances and prepared to recontaminate the 'brand' (and once that sticks it ain't going anywhere). In short preparing to destroy their own party just for the sake of appeasing our EU masters.

All of which demonstrates very clearly who the EU benefits, and it certainly ain't us.

An Uphill Battle

It's long been my view that a referendum on EU membership is far from a foregone conclusion and will probably put back the cause for years.

Over the last couple of days has further confirmed that view. Two stories have agitated the MSM to a great degree reflecting popular anger, however they are stories which also do not acknowledge the dead hand of Brussels that lies behind them. A trait that is very common.

Firstly there has been much consternation over the dramatic increase in Royal Mail stamps. But what's not mentioned is that many of the recent problems of the Royal Mail, including the dramatic rise in the cost of stamps, stem largely from EU Postal Directives - a point that was made here and expressed very clearly by a Government review of the postal services in 2008. See here, page 19 onwards. However in the MSM? Not an 'EU mention' at the time.

And secondly there's also George Osborne's extension of VAT for all hot food as per his recent budget. Now VAT is, as Autonomous Mind rightly says, an EU Tax:

This concerns the proposal in Gideon Osborne’s coagulation budget to impose VAT on hot take-out food.  Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the governance of this country will know Value Added Tax is a European Union matter and that member states must impose a VAT rate – currently with a minimum standard rate of 15%.

VAT is one of the most obvious and long-standing EU interferences in our life. Therefore any major changes will almost certainly have the dead hand of Brussels behind it. And so it proves as Richard North demonstrates:

And there gripped the cold, mindless jaws of the VAT Sixth Directive, of which the ECJ had so cruelly reminded us. To their horror, HMRC have confronted their worst nightmare. If the fish fryers are selling hot food rather than services, and have to charge VAT on it, so does everybody else who sells hot food.

That is what the Sixth Directive says: you can't charge different rates of VAT on the same goods. If a member state charges VAT on some hot take-away foods, it must charge the same rate of VAT on all hot take-away foods. They must, therefore, all be charged at zero rate or the standard (higher) rate. And, of course, Georgie opted for the higher rate, taking in the (hot) puddings and pies.

The acknowledgement from the MSM? Er...nowt, nothing. Now, I've often wondered whether large scale omission of EU matters in our country by our MSM is due to laziness and ignorance or a deliberate 'conspiracy of silence'. A Twitter exchange today with Daniel Knowles from the Daily Telegraph suggests the former.

Daniel Knowles has blogged about the recent VAT changes, couching his piece in the classic, and politically self-comforting style, of Tories are rich and toffs:

This morning, the Conservatives have no such luck; for raising tax on Greggs Cornish pasties, George Osborne is described as a "modern Marie Antoinette". In its leader column, the newspaper says that "unlike Sun readers", he and his Cabinet colleagues, "don't worry how to pay for food, rent or petrol. If they ever have done, they certainly can't remember how it feels now". For a moment, I thought I was reading the Daily Mirror, or at least a Dan Hodges blog post.

Daniel misses the point of course, it's not the love of being a toff that is the reason but the Tory love of the EU that has led to this change. A point I mentioned to him on Twitter with revealing responses. Firstly we had the usual "No one cares about this because of the EU":

As I've pointed out before people do care about the EU because it affects the majority of the top ten issues that they care most about. But then Daniel is not even "sure this is an EU issue at all". FFS, call yourself a journalist? No of course VAT isn't, not at all. Then we get this:

Apparently the Sun doesn't mention the EU so that's all ok then? Because the Sun is the Oracle when it comes to all matters EU. But then...we get to the final flurry:

Let's remind ourselves that the self-proclaimed "Assistant Comment Editor at Telegraph.co.uk. who writes about politics and economics" thinks Thatcher introduced VAT for ideological reasons. Oh dear, oh dear. I had moments of doubt whether he was taking the piss or being serious. But I've not a reply since when I highlighted his mistake.

And if that's bad enough then there's today's Daily Express. In 2010 the Daily Express ran with this front page below:

The Daily Express is the only British paper to openly advocate complete withdrawal, whilst the Daily Mail and the Telegraph still want in. Yet today's front Daily Express looks like this:

Despite two EU open goals, the Daily Express in the print edition does not mention the EU once regarding the price of stamps, nor (scanned here) on page 2 in relation to VAT on 'hot foods'

The Express has editorials on both matters:

SINCE the advent of the internet making the nationwide delivery of ordinary post pay its way has become more challenging.

Many fewer letters are sent these days so economies of scale are less effective than they once were.

The Royal Mail also has to cope with private competitors plundering the lucrative business despatch market, so the scope for subsidising letter delivery from other very profitable activities is also limited.

And yet the one thing that will hasten its decline is round after round of massive rises in the price of stamps. There is still a lot Royal Mail can do to become more efficient but it doesn’t even seem to want to try.

Not everyone is able to access the wonders of email and almost everyone does, on occasion, need to use the post.

That the organisation that ushered in the Penny Black should now be anticipating the £1 first class stamp suggests it has lost the plot.

And:

THE revelation that Chancellor George Osborne cannot remember the last time he ate a hot pasty offers a rare political opportunity for Labour.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls would be fully justified in making some fact-finding trips to hot food takeaways.

Although by the looks of things he probably already has.

So the so-called Eurosceptic "we want out" Daily Express, even in their editorials, cannot bring themselves to mention the EU on issues which clearly agitate their readers. With EU friends like this who needs enemies?

Absolutely hopeless.

Deliberately Misleading?

Ian Cowie, the head of personal finance in the Daily Telegraph, rightly picks up on the disgraceful jump in the numbers of older people dying of cold, unable as they are to afford to heat their homes. His solution, rather than tackle the real issues, is to propose scrapping VAT on household fuel:

Warm words from politicians are cold comfort and no substitute for action. Bringing the tax on household fuel into line with zero-rated VAT on water and food makes sense - they are all necessities of life – and could bring immediate help to thousands of people suffering unnecessarily this winter.

One small problem however - Brussels.

Domestic heating used to have zero VAT until 1993. The then Major Government under pressure from the EU began the process of harmonising VAT in accordance with the 6th VAT Directive. This meant that, in an ever increasingly 'isolated' Britain, the Tories attempted to impose VAT on previously exempt goods such as; food, clothes and newspapers. Politically sensitive as this obviously was, the Tories began tentatively with domestic heating, the upshot being that we gave up that exemption (with a 5% duty) and so to get it back now requires the permission of Brussels - permission that almost certainly won't be forthcoming.

Despite being the head of personal finance, Mr Cowie doesn't mention any of this. Now this can only be because of one or two reasons: he doesn't know or he chose not to mention it. It's hard to believe he doesn't know. VAT is not some obscure EU Directive but a real tangible part of our membership - it's an EU tax introduced in 1973 as a consequence of joining the then EEC. To plead ignorance, particularly in his position on the Telegraph, must surely call into very serious question his abilities as a journalist.

So the only other option is that he is aware. Which then means he has written an article that he knows cannot happen but disguises this by hiding important information from his readers. An article in short that is a lie and a deceit.

Either way what he has written is pointless waste of time and illustrates once again the inability of our MSM to acknowledge where the real government lies. I do wish they would grow up.

Balls

I didn't watch Ed Balls' much trailed speech at the Labour conference - I haven't watched any of them so far as I can't be bothered in truth - and with good reason, as epitomised by one of Balls' proposals to get the economy going, which according to the BBC, is:

Immediate one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance

VAT is of course an EU tax, so any changes are subject to approval by our Brussels masters, and lo and behold a quick check shows that this policy was announced in 2009 with EU approval:

The UK is to be given the option to charge VAT on home maintenance and repairs at a reduced rate of 5%, after a ruling by European Union finance chiefs.

The ruling paves the way for the UK government to ease the tax burden on a construction industry badly hit by the recession – allowing architects, builders and surveyors to carry out private refurbishments for a cheaper rate.

Yesterday's decision by the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council to allow member states to lower VAT on renovation and repair of private dwellings from 17.5% to 5% comes after months of campaigning by trade bodies and MPs.

A 5% VAT rate on home improvements was one of the main points of the Get Britain Building manifesto set up by a coalition of MPs and trade bodies last month. It has also been the focus of a long-running campaign led by the Federation of Master Builders (FMB).

Sigh, plus ça change, etc etc

When Is A Peep Show Really A Cinema?

In a rather bizarre VAT case at the European Court of Justice, the owner of a Belgian sex shop is attempting to argue that a coin-in-the-slot peep show counts as a cinema, which would then qualify for a reduction in VAT.

Under EU rules a cinema qualifies for a lower rate of VAT because they are identified has having a social or cultural purpose and in Belgian this reduces the rate from 21% to 6%.

The question posed to the ECJ is as follows:

Should a cubicle consisting of a lockable space where there is room for only one person and where this person can watch films on a television screen for payment, where this person personally starts the film projection by inserting a coin and has
a choice of different films, and during the time paid for can continually modify his/her choice of projected films, be regarded as a ‘cinema’ as referred to in the Sixth Council Directive
No 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, Annex H, Category 7 (subsequently: Annex III, No 7, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006)?

Now, a number of questions spring to mind; 1) Will the judges need to make a site visit, 2) why don't Belgians have the internet and, 3) are Pringles really cakes?