The pre-budget airwaves are quiet... too quiet

Is that because no news is good news?

The pre-budget airwaves, normally teaming with feverish speculation, are ominously quiet. There doesn't even appear to be a 'book' on how long the Chancellor will speak for (or not that I have come across yet at least).

Unless George can produce the ubiquitous (most likely scrawny and headlight-dazzled) rabbit out of his (or anyone else's) hat, we think the Budget will aim principally for stability, with few big changes and a broadly pro-business stance to keep encouraging growth. In terms of predictions as they might affect those in the private wealth industry, we can predict what he won't do (and a little of what he might), with some confidence:

Inheritance tax won't be abolished and the Nil Rate Band won't be increased (OK - we already know that). Tinkering might involve a resurrection of the well-rehearsed fear that the Chancellor might abolish the provision whereby you can vary a will or intestacy within two years of death (usually to take advantage of an exemption from inheritance tax for gifts to charity, spouse or relief for business or agricultural assets), or even perhaps the seven-year rule for gifts, but we think this is unlikely. Given that it raises little in terms of revenue we don't think the rate will be changed either.

Capital gains tax: The extension to non-UK individuals could have been made when liability was extended to non-UK corporates in relation to real property. Although some see this in itself as an anomaly, the rates have been tinkered with over recent years without much evidence in terms of overall increase in the UK 'tax take'.

Income tax: A further reduction from the incoming 45% is unlikely, as are any major changes to other rates or (we hope) further meddling with pensions. The personal allowance could rise to £10,000 or even more, to ensure that those on the minimum wage (around £11,200 p.a.) do not pay tax.

Mansion tax: Although it has been much discussed, this seems unlikely, as it has never had Coalition Government support. The mooted tax would be primarily a tax on London and the South East, and many of those affected, especially at the introductory level of £2 million, may well be unable to pay the tax (particularly those who inherited their properties, are already mortgaged to the hilt, and/or have lived in the same house for many years).

Tax avoidance: Given the introduction of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule, which is extremely wide in its application, we struggle to see what else can be bolted on to HMRC and HM Government's ever increasing arsenal.

So that leaves us with very little in terms of predicting what he might come up with. My own wish list would include:

- a flat rate of tax (including both income and capital gains);

- the abolition of inheritance tax; and

- a four wheel drive car tax - a much better indicator of surplus wealth, better for the environment, easier to collect than a mansion tax and a positive benefit for those who have to contend with them in urban settings.

Sophie Mazzier is counsel at private client law firm Maurice Turnor Gardner LLP

This article first appeared at Spears magazine.

Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On the important issues, Louise Casey all too often has little to say

Far from moving the debate on, this new report on integration adds little to the report I commissioned in 2001. 

For 15 years, “numerous government reports on community cohesion and integration have not been implemented with enough force or consistency” concludes Louise Casey’s review of  integration.  The government’s lukewarm response suggests their effort will be as “diluted and muddled” as all the rest.

There’s a deeper reason why governments shy away from the measures that are needed. The report's wealth of data sets out a stark if sometimes contestable picture of a divided society.  But no amount of data can really bring the lives of our fellow citizens to life. As the Brexit vote underlined, this is now a nation divided by class, geography, education, wealth, opportunity and race. Those divisions colour the way we live our lives, the way we see problems in society, the relations we have with others, and our political choices. The report, like many before it, stops short of setting out that reality. It’s easier to pretend that most of us pretty much agree on most things; but just few people don’t agree and they must be the problem. Predictably, much of the early coverage has focussed on the Muslim community and new migrants. If only it were so easy.

According to Casey “in this country, we take poverty, social exclusion, social justice and social mobility seriously” and we do it “across political divides”. Apparently “creating a fair, just society where everyone can prosper and get on” is a cornerstone of British values. Yet for page after page the report chronicles the serial failure of this benign consensus to tackle educational under-performance, and economic and racial disadvantage. If we all agree, how come we haven't done anything about it?

These problems are not certainly easy to solve, but more lip service is paid to tackling them than effort. The practical material issues documented here need addressing, but punches are pulled when hard answers are needed. Given the dramatic impact of mass migration on cohesion, is integration possible while current rates of immigration persist? Can we find the political will to tackle poverty and disadvantage when those who might benefit from the effort are divided against each other by suspicion, race, geography and values? After all, rather than progressive policies producing a cohesive society, social unity is the precondition for the introduction of progressive policies.

We don't actually actually agree on what our “fundamental values” mean in practice. We can all sign up to democracy and the rule of law, but as soon as those are put into practice – see the court case on Article 50 – we are divided. When judges are popularly seen as “enemies of the people” and a vote in an elected parliament as a threat to democracy, in what sense are law and democracy fundamental?

Casey usefully highlights how treating homeless families equally, irrespective of ethnicity and length of residence can create the perception that minorities are being favoured over long standing residents. Our differing views on what is “just” and how “fairness” are defined can tear us apart. Is it fair to favour the newcomer over the indigenous? Is it just to put length of time on the waiting list above housing need? We often don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of other points of view, let alone try to find common ground.

The continual invocation of Britain and British values lends an air of unreality to the report.  Most people in England include British in their identity, but Englishness and English interests are of growing importance. In a worrying development, some areas of England  may be polarising between a white Englishness and an ethnic minority Britishness. Integration won't happen without a shared national story that combines a unifying national identity with the acceptance that we all have more than one identity that matters to us. Ignoring the reality of complex and multiple identities closes off one essential way forward.

None of this means that the criticism of some reactionary and occasionally dangerous ideas and practices in the Muslim community should be ignored and not confronted. But in a country where the established church opposes homosexual relationships and praise for Vladimir Putin's Russia is now mainstream politics it is hard to believe that all our problems can be reduced to the behaviour of a minority of a minority community.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University