Those oinking noises sound remarkably like Mark Wallace, official spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.  That sound will reverberate in their ears loudly for a long time…

Peter Bingle has a point doesn’t he? Guido, like Bingle, talks to CCHQ insiders, spin-merchants, activists, media allies and wonks every day – almost all are agreed.  It has been shambolic since January and the Tories are on the back foot.

Examining Bingle’s critique point-by-point:

Ashcroft was an entirely foreseeable problem, Tory high command hoped that because they had squared the Electoral Commission they had buried the problem.  A strategic miscalculation based on wishful thinking.  It completely undermines the “Cameron cleaning up politics” message of financial transparency.  Told you so.

“Nobody knows what the Tory Party stands for any more.” Change is not an ideology, it is a process.  Repeating the word over and over again is not a substitute for communicating thought out policies.  Splitting the difference on policy, a.k.a. Finkism, might not scare off voters but nor does it get the vote out. Being 5% to the right of Blair with a dash of euroscepticism will not inspire people much.  Voters want change for the better. Shadow ministers offering only a change of management and almost no change in policy won’t get the voters on their feet cheering.

Bingle says the advertising has hurt the Tories.  In truth the advertising campaign posters have been mixed.  Adverts need to address voter concerns simply and memorably. Labour might be right – in the digital age do paper posters even work that well?

“What is the strategy?” Steve Hilton better communicate it to the rank and file in a way that inspires confidence.  There is striking irony in his top down diktats about localism, decentralisation, transparency and the importance of feedback in a post-bureaucratic age. Mandelson fights for his strategy from the front, Hilton sends memos from the back room.

Something Bingle didn’t focus on is policy development.  We are weeks from the election and the Tories have still not formulated the policies they are going to fight on.  No, really.  Even when they do announce a policy it frequently unravels.

Guido will give you an example of a policy announcement that is going to unravel.  We are told there will be a pro-business cut in the corporate tax rate, signalling that the Tories want to reduce the tax burden. We haven’t been given the exact details, just the gist of the policy.

Except, according to Mark Hoban, they will claw back the tax reduction by changing the treatment of various tax allowances such that the overall change will be revenue neutral.  The effective rate of tax on corporations will be unchanged.  It is change for the sake of a headline, a financial sleight of hand typical of Gordon Brown.  Most businesses would rather not suffer the administrative upheaval if they are not going to get any revenue benefit.  It is pure Finkism, signal an aspiration and promise to maintain the fiscal status quo.

Finkism is a product of fear.  Fear of losing again.  The Cameroons hoped that power would slip into their hands, they fear that if they do anything radical or bold they will lose.  There is the alternative possibility that if they don’t clearly communicate a message of “change for the better”, not just a change of personnel, they will fail to make a compelling case.  In only one area are they offering a radical change – education – with the result that the government is moving towards them policy-wise.  If the Tories offered a bold change from high tax, high spending policies the government would not be able to match them, voters would have a real choice.  Fink claims that voters don’t believe politicians promising tax cuts. That is not a failure of the policy, it is a failure of politicians to communicate credibly.

Lord Paul put up one fifth of the money for Gordon’s leadership campaign – such as it was. Will he be giving up his seat in the Lords or his non-domicile?  And Ronnie Cohen, PFI profiteer and non-domiciled donor? Is his money still welcome to the Labour Party?

Finally:

1st March 2010

A Statement From Lord Ashcroft

I am making this statement in advance of the release by the Cabinet Office of limited information about the award of my peerage and of the undertakings I gave at the time.

While I value my privacy, I do not want my affairs to distract from the general election campaign. I have therefore decided to release a copy of the letter which I wrote to William Hague, and to expand on what actually happened.

As the letter shows, the undertakings I gave were confirmed in a memorandum to William Hague dated 23rd March 2000. These were to “take up permanent residence in the UK again” by the end of that year. The other commitment in the memorandum was to resign as Belize’s permanent representative to the UN, which I did a week later.
In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation in the first undertaking of the words “permanent residence” was to be that of “a long term resident” of the UK. I agreed to this and finally took up my seat in the House of Lords in October 2000. Throughout the last ten years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue.

My precise tax status therefore is that of a “non-dom”. Two of Labour’s biggest donors – Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also “non-doms”.

As for the future, while the non-dom status will continue for many people in business or public life, David Cameron has said that anyone sitting in the legislature – Lords or Commons – must be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. I agree with this change and expect to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come.

Ashcroft has forgotten about Lakshmi Mittal, another non-dom who, like Sir Ronnie (pictured) and Lord Paul, is inclined to bung Labour a couple of million when the feeling takes him.  Guido has argued that Ashcroft should come clean for years…

See : Ashcroft Should Just Come Clean, Ashcroft Should Come Clean

Via ConservativeHome

Guido is enjoying the to-ing and fro-ing* between Fraser Nelson and the Fink.  Today something Fink said stood out as uncharacteristically crass:

If the Tories were now to cut taxes immediately upon on entering office, what would happen? It would, erm, destabilise the economy, wouldn’t it.

No, Danny it would not.

Imagine, and this will take some imagination, Nick Clegg in No. 10 and Vince Cable in No. 11 the day after the election. They implement their manifesto pledge to raise the tax threshold to £10,000 reducing the Treasury’s take by circa £100 £20 billion.  It would cost about one-tenth as much as quantitative easing and be a far greater stimulus.  That would be £100 £20 billion injected into the real economy rather than foreign bond investor’s portfolios, benefiting the lowest paid the most.  That would inject a colossal boost into the economy,  increasing demand on the high street, to manufacturing and to every consumer facing business.  The effect on GDP and overall growth would be tremendous, not destabilising

Danny might retort with tales of bond yields rising as a result, but bond traders understand that a growing economy supports their coupon payments, whereas a flat or contracting economy is a greater sovereign credit risk. A growing economy can afford to finance a budget deficit if necessary. An over-taxed, low to no growth economy can’t. High taxes, and Britain is a high tax economy after 13 years of Gordon, destabilise the foundations of a strong economy, driving enterprise into the ground or overseas.  Guido remembers when this was ideologically core to Conservative thinking, it was when they won elections…

*If you haven’t been following the debate it starts with Fraser’s lecture to the CPS which Fink responded to.  Fraser came back with this and Fink answered here. Then Fraser gave his response.  This piece refers to Fink’s latest response.

A whole load of left-wing campaigns are pushing the Tobin tax re-branded as the “Robin Hood Tax”.  The only snag is that Robin Hood fought against taxation.

Hood targeted the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham and gave all a flat-rate tax-cut, he also had a taste in snazzy hat-wear to rival Guido’s own.  Hood would surely be turning in his grave to know that his name was being taken in vain by those seeking to raise taxes, shame on them for they are the true heirs to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

They are advocating a global sheriff to tax us all…

Non-domiciled Lord Paul of Marylebone, donated over £355,000 to Labour and £45,000 directly into Gordon’s 2007 leadership campaign. Despite his huge wealth he still found it appropriate to claim £38,000 from the taxpayers in Lord’s accommodation expenses despite, by his own admission, having never spent a night in the property.  He is reportedly set to quit the House of Lords, not over his expense claims, but to avoid tax.

Lord Paul has been Brown’s very own non-dom donor and has been repaid handsomely by Labour with a peerage, membership of the Privy Council and until his recent expenses scandal was the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords. So close is Lord Paul to Gordon that he was willing to personally bankroll the autumn election that never happened in 2007. Paul said “All I know is that if there is an election and the money is wanted, whatever I can pay I will. I am a believer in Gordon Brown and his leadership, and I think he’s the best person in the country.” Hence Guido’s amusement today to hear that Paul is ready to jump ship.  He is considering whether to give up his seat in the Lords to avoid having to pay tax in the UK. Which shows where his priorities really lay…

Labour has attacked Lord Ashcroft while turning a blind eye to the activities of one of their biggest donors. Lord Paul has refused to pay tax in this country yet is greeted with open arms by the Labour leadership desperate to get their grubby fingers on some of his controversially raised fortune.  Paul is ranked the 88th richest man, living, in the UK.  This nom-dom, expenses fiddling, conglomerate owning peer has some interesting skeletons in his cupboard to which Guido will be returning. How he amassed his fortune will turn the stomachs of many Labour supporters…

Last month a co-conspirator in Mandy’s Department of Innovation, Business and Skills sent in a picture of this sign that was guiding mandarins to a training seminar on how to deal with tricky questions. Another co-conspirator put in an FOI request that has revealed the taxpayer coughed up to the tune of £24,985.36 to teach 44 Executive Officers, Higher Executive Officers and Senior Executive Officers how to avoid answering a straight question from the public through a days role-play.

Seems the department weren’t quite up there with Mandy’s forked tongue skills.

On the Today programme this morning Osborne described claims that the Tories would increase road tax to pay for tax breaks for married couples as “bizarre”, saying “it bears no reality to our thinking in this area”.

Hold on, what is this from page 4 of the Tory “Plan for a Strong Economy”?

Looks like a green tax to reduce other taxes on families.  How bizarre…

The Tories are scrabbling a bit to justify their marriage tax allowance plans, they will always be scrabbling to justify themselves on tax during this campaign unless they start making a more optimistic case for tax revenue growth based on policies that kick start the economy rather than just putting taxes up.  They are playing a zero-sum game devised by Brown and Balls, so they have to go through a charade of finding some way of funding the plan.

They have fallen back on green taxes on motorists, yet again.  How many times have they reached for green taxes to fund a spending commitment?

1.8 million voters signed a petition against more green taxes on car users.  Drivers already pay huge amounts of tax, more taxes would be extremely unpopular – when you go green, you lose votes. Think again.

UPDATE : Osborne just denied they were going to put up car taxes on the Today programme. Good. Time for a coffee.