Uk politics

What is a “Budget for Growth,” and how can one be delivered? These questions have been preoccupying civil servants across Whitehall, policy folk in think tanks, and the press since the coalition announced in November that it would be reporting back on its “Growth Review” in the 2011 Budget. While foreign events rightly moved discussion of the impending Budget further back in last weekend’s papers, there was extensive coverage of the potential for targeted tax cuts and reliefs and incentives targeted at particular industries or sectors. The obvious problem with a number of these is that they cost money, and this is something the coalition does not have in spades. However, even if it did, should it be spending money trying to deliver growth to the economy?

Some commentators have argued that the right way to reduce the deficit is to take on large scale tax avoidance rather than public spending. The argument goes that large companies are shirking their responsibilities, while families and small businesses carry the burden of rescuing the public finances.  Yet the evidence on who is actually avoiding tax does not support this. For example, HMRC data show that three-quarters of the £40 billion tax gap (the difference between the amount collected and the amount that should be collected) is due to VAT, Income Tax, National Insurance and Capital Gains Tax. Reducing the tax gap not only requires a focus on the big end of town but on the activities of many families and small to medium enterprises.

You may have heard of UK Uncut? They’re certainly good at attracting attention: forcing their way into Barclay’s bank the other week and managing to close a branch of TopShop temporarily.   But what they have in noise they lack in substance. New research by the Institute of Economic Affairs exposes how the ‘grassroots movement’ want Vodafone to pay tax in the UK on the profits it makes in Germany. It’s a reasonable principle – taxing companies based on where they are domiciled is fine. But they also want Boots, a Swiss company, to pay tax in the UK on the profits it makes selling items to Britons, from British shops. You can have one principle or the other, but not both – not unless we want businesses to locate elsewhere.

In his Spectator column this week, James Forsyth painted a picture of a government taken by surprise by enemies who have, in effect, ambushed them - the civil service, the civil service's lawyers and the European Union in particular. Clearly the government is frustrated by the “forces of conservatism” and the “enemies of enterprise”, but the difficult truth is that a lot the government's problems are of its own making, and in its own hands to put right. When it comes to the civil service, the government hasn't simply inherited an uncooperative Whitehall. It has strengthened its position, as a conscious policy decision. Francis Maude said it in terms at one of Reform’s post-election conferences.