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

Lowering the voting age is the best way to protect the franchise we've fought so hard for

Empowering young people is the best way to renew civic and political engagement.

Too many believe that politics isn’t working for them. That those who make decisions are not acting in their interests. And too often, narrow interests win over the wider public interest. Our economy isn’t working either. It never will until we repair our fragile politics.

When I was leader of Oldham Council I recognised that to reform, it must open up. It needed to bring forward ideas and challenges from all those who are affected by decisions taken in their name.

We gave constitutional rights for the youth council to move motions and reports at our full council meeting. We opened up our meetings with live web-streaming and questions from all residents. And we embraced social media, combined with instant comments, which were shown in the chamber during debates.

It opened up democracy and gave councillors an insight into issues which affect young people. But two things stood out. The first was that many of these issues are the same ones which affect the wider public. But they are affected in different ways by decisions or the lack of action by government. Second, and most importantly, while we were engaging young people they had no say over who was making decisions on their behalf.

So of crucial importance to me is how we bolster democracy to weather the challenges it faces today and in the future. Recent events at home and abroad have convinced me of the importance of this. There are two separate approaches that parliament must take. Firstly, we must devolve more power from central government to local communities. And secondly, we must at all costs renew civic and political engagement here in the UK. I’ve come to believe that getting more and more young people engaged in politics is fundamental to realising this second point. And I see lowering the voting age as key to cementing this.

I hear the arguments against this loud and clear. Eighteen is the official age of independence. Eighteen is when someone forms their world view. And 18 is when reasoned, judgemental thought suddenly kicks in. On that basis, the years preceding that are presumably some kind of wilderness of rational thinking and opinion forming. Someone even tweeted at me this week to inform me that under-18s don’t know what they want for dinner, let alone how to vote.

Needless to say, I find all these points unconvincing and in some cases dismissive and patronising.

I speak with people even younger than 16 who have coherent views on politics, often a match for any adult. They even know what they want for dinner! And I am of the strong belief that empowering young people through a wider enfranchisement will speed up this development. Even better if votes at 16 is accompanied by compulsory political education in the preceding years.

So if your argument is that young people are too immature, that they lack political knowledge to be given the vote, or that they aren’t responsible enough – then I say to you, bring on lowering the voting age! As my argument is that empowering young people to vote will help overcome these challenges where they exist.

But where do other countries sit on lowering the voting age? Admittedly, among western democracies, the UK would be taking a bold step-forward. In Europe, it’s only Austria where all 16-year-olds can vote. There are some patchwork exceptions to this closer to home. For example, the voting age on the Isle of Man is 16. And this week we heard that the Welsh Assembly is considering lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections.

Outside of these scant examples, there is little precedent for change. However, we shouldn’t find ourselves cowed by this. Our past is littered with bold actions, proud speeches and even lives lost to win and defend the right to vote.

200 years ago on Tandle Hill in Royton hundreds of protestors, who had travelled from nearby mill towns like Oldham and Rochdale, gathered together. They were preparing to march on Peters Field in Manchester on a summer’s day in August 1819. What was at stake was a greater say in parliamentary decisions, at a time of famine and widespread poverty. Non-land-owning workers were entirely excluded from the franchise. By the end of the day, government cavalry had cut down 14 protesters, and injured hundreds more. In 1832 only men renting or owning valuable land were given the vote. And it wasn’t until 1918 that all men were included in the franchise.

This month we remember the 100-year anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. The sacrifices made during the First World War by our working-class men and boys, 250,000 of whom were under 18, was a catalyst for extending the vote to all men.

Next year we celebrate 100 years since the start of women’s suffrage. In Oldham, Annie Kenney and Emmeline Pankhurst fought tirelessly. They would both be arrested before seeing that privilege granted to only some women in 1918. Today it is sobering to think that women didn’t have the vote before 1918.

And it was only in 1970 that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, allowing teenagers to vote for the first time in the UK. Prevalent then were exactly the same arguments that stop 16- and 17-year-olds voting today.

While we recognise the fight of others, we fail in our duty if we believe the fight for democracy is settled.

So I draw inspiration from how the franchise has steadily grown throughout our history. And I reflect on the acts of courage, grit and determination that have won us that change. With the extension of the franchise have come the liberties, freedoms and values that make our society what it is today. It hasn’t happened of its own accord. Lives have been lost and bold steps have been taken for us to enjoy placing that cross alongside the candidate of our choosing.

This cannot be seen as a way to shift the political debate to young voters either. Many older voters, including many of my friends and family, feel that politics isn’t working for them either. Reducing the voting age isn’t the silver bullet to address that disconnect, but it is vital to strengthening connect between decision makers and those who pay taxes.

I welcome the debate on lowering the voting age. A debate about once again spreading the freedoms and responsibilities of our society to many more people. And I’ll match arguments against this every step of the way. Because I am clear in my mind that defending the franchise and extending the franchise are two sides of the same coin.

Jim McMahon is the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton.

0800 7318496