Eurovision it is then.  The score of 4-1 on Sunday is the only scoreline that has not flattered the England football team.  Germany identified the lack of quality in the English game very early in the tournament and I do not understand how everyone else did not.  Chris Waddle has voiced all England’s thoughts on the World cup performance.  There is something seriously wrong.  The English team do not appear to have the ability to pass the ball consistantly like many of the foreign teams, including Ghana, Japan, even America, all of whom have the ability to play themselves out of defence rather than the long clearance adopted by England, which also seems to be their favoured form of ‘attack’.

England’s exit from the competition after a dismal campaign should introduce a touch of realism into the quality, cost and expectations of our local, overpaid and over-rated players.  Managers (both home-grown and foreign) have come and gone since 1966, without success; it can’t all be down to them (although it has to be said, they do pick the teams - and do they pick ‘em?).  If Heskey is a strong contender for the team, I don’t care how fit the squad is, it is not good enough.

Where the fault is (Waddle has a theory) I know sweat FA.  Is it the FA?  Is it the manager?  Is it the number of foreign players in our premier league sides?  Or is it more fundamental?  The flawed concept of protecting children from failing or being on the losing side?  As our standard of living falls, perhaps it will create a will to win - something, even if it is only Eurovision.  ‘Football’s coming home’ should win a few sympathy votes - and show we haven’t lost our sense of humour.

Our footballers are apparently not familiar with the sort of ball being used at the World Cup.  It certainly seems to elude them much of the time.  I wonder if they are confused with the make up of the teams.

Most of the England squad are accustomed to playing with more foreign players in their club teams and I think they are getting confused  about which other players are on their side.   It would explain a few things, wouldn’t it?

What is it about the English that creates this out of character flamboyance and optimism before major sporting tournaments, like the world cup, Wimbledon even?  Most of the time our media is full of gloom and doom (it will return for the Budget) predicting the end of the world as we know it.  We only seem to be ‘happy’ contemplating one disaster after another.  When the weather is good the prediction is either that it’ll be so sunny we’ll all die of skin cancer, or it won’t rain again ’til next June, or, of course,’ it won’t last’.  There is rarely any positive outcome predicted from a particular event.

Why is it then that, like Nelson, (the whole of) England expects the football team to do well and bring home the cup?  On the basis of most of their games I wouldn’t expect them to do particularly well in the FA cup.  Perhaps it’s similar to the unfathomable optimism of anyone who does The Lottery - the chances of winning are so small it is difficult to understand why so much is ‘invested’ in it.  Perhaps it’s to do with our support for the underdog?  It must be to do with our sense of humour - well I think it’s funny.

A good run in the cup is supposed to be good for the economy - Bookies and pubs do well and perhaps women go shopping while the husband is distracted?  What happens in the aftermath of disappointment?  Like bankers, the overpaid stars return to their lucrative pastimes and everyone can concentrate on the mess we are likely to make of the Olympics and on the possible miracle that Fabio will perform in four years time.  Perhaps they’ll do well in the earlier European competition (Eurovision needs a bit of a boost).

And, while England are still in the world cup, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for people to take time off work to watch the matches - provided they’ve booked it as holiday.

The second budget of the year will be more significant than the first.  It will be the first (C)onservative budget for many years but it is likely to be far from (c)onservative.  It may well include a liberal number of tax increases.  Look out for the ‘We knew things were bad, but we didn’t think they were this bad’.  Now is the best time to be severe, when everyone is expecting it.  The only thing holding them back is the danger of stopping any perceived recovery in the economy.

Our predictions:

VAT:

The main rate will increase to 20% with the introduction of a higher rate on certain high-end luxuries.

Income tax:

Basic rate to remain at 20%

Higher rate of 50% to apply to income over £120,000

Personal allowance (up to age 65) will increase more than usual to something like £7,500 (from £6,475) with a promise to increase it to £10,000 by 2013.  The higher allowances for older age groups will rise with inflation.

National Insurance:

The proposed increase of 1% in employees’ contributions will stay but the employers’ extra 1% will be cancelled.

Corporation tax.

Small companies rate will increase by 1%.  This would not be dissimilar to asking employees to pay the extra 1% NI.  Both represent a tax on income.

Capital gains tax.

Capital gains will be taxed at the marginal rate of income tax.  Any gain will be treated as though it is income.

The annual exemption will remain, but frozen so that it will not rise in the future (and become, eventually, comparatively worthless).

There will be some concession to employee share schemes, SAYE schemes as well as to entrepreneurs.

Inheritance tax:

Unlikely to be any serious changes.

Tax avoidance:

The war against tax avoidance will continue.  If it is properly targeted very few would disagree but rules that create uncertainty, such as the IR35 regulations simply complicate and confuse an already complicated tax system.  We can only hope they target the real avoiders - schemes that pretend income is something else - and people who suggest they don’t ‘belong’ here (non-domiciled).

Middle and upper income earners will be expected to contribute to reducing the national debt, benefits will be targeted on the basis of deserved need and there will be help for the lower paid and pensioners.

What does a Lib-Con compromise have in store?  A bit of honesty is called for, less con.

‘Democracy is a very bad form of government - but it’s the best we have’  someone said.  So how do you make democracy fair and make it work, all at the same time?  A hung parliament is not good because forming a government depends on compromise.  It doesn’t seem entirely fair when ‘first past the post’ creates a situation where one party gets 25% of the total vote and 50 MPs compared with another party that receives 28% of the vote and has 200 MPs.   This could be corrected by proportional representation but, on the face of it, this would inevitably result in a hung parliament more times than not.  How would that solve any problems.  It also has to be acknowledged that very small minority parties would be entitled to representatives in parliament.

Not a bad thing to have diverse opinions represented - but not if minorities can control, and possibly dictate, what decisions are made.  To have strong government, with the power to carry out an agenda (for which they were elected) the governing party needs a majority in its own right.  But who then challenges excesses of power, except the members of that party (who are normally expected to do as they are told)?  Idealists would perhaps think that it would be better to have decisions based on strong argument, rather than strengh of numbers; that compromise might create the best result - until you consider that a donkey may well represent a horse designed by a committee.

No, that’s not a misprint, 6th April 2010 is New Year’s Day, the start of another new tax year - and what a year it’s going to be.  A general election announced for 6th May.  How exciting is that?  Lots of new tax rules, the new 50% tax rate, the new 60% tax rate, reduced pension relief for high earners.  We’ve had one Budget already, which appears to have been a waste of time because there has been no time to enact it.  We have another Budget to look forward to, whichever party is elected.

We are having difficulty containing ourselves.  Accountants are fun-loving people (and sadistic).  It is the cruel streak of higher taxes that gives life its edge.  Oh! and what prospects there are ahead for further hurt to be applied!

We would like to wish everyone a very happy and prosperous New Year, but, alas, it’s much more likely to be a preposterous year.  Enjoy the good life while you can - things will only get worse.  You know how the grass always seems greener somewhere else?  At present we are in lush pastures compared to the Earth-warmed, parched landscape to come.  Higher taxes, higher interest rates, squeeze on pensions.  The joy is boundless.

If you use your vote, vote wisely.  I think it’s a toss-up between all the monster raving loonies.

Happy New Year!

Recently, GMTV had a discussion about discipline - in schools and in the home.  To discuss the subject the guest on the sofa was, apparently, a parenting writer and there was the usual input from viewers.  The guest suggested that parents should explain to children the reason for any demands or requests and agreed with viewers’ comments that there is a place for negotiation.  Remember this was a discussion about discipline!

I wondered how it might work on the parade ground at Catterick.

“Well, Sgt major, perhaps if you explained the reason behind your suggestion that I stand bolt upright and lift this heavy rifle thingy on to my shoulder, I might think about it.” or “Don’t wanna do press-ups, I’m tired.”  Can you hear the sgt major saying “Just do five then.”?

I think we may have discovered the reason why there is a lack of discipline and respect for all sorts of authority.  Negotiation? Reasoning? Explanation? - how do these fit in with discipline?  They may be perfectly valid things to do, by way of educating children about life, responsibility and the ways of the world, but they are nothing to do with discipline.

Give a child (almost any age) two good reasons why they should do something, I’ll bet they will come up with two others why they should not.  In the end it’s ‘because I said so’.  Doing things when they are told, because they are told - that’s discipline - and it starts straight away, at the ‘cute’ stage (whenever that was), not when they get candles on the birthday cake.

Of all the questioning words - how, why, what, when, who - the first one kids get to know is ‘why’, as in ” Why should I?” or simply “Why?”.  Children under the age of consent should not be made aware of the word ‘why’.  They should be taught only ‘how’ and ‘when’, as in “How high do you want me to jump?” and “When do you want me to do that?”.

Lord Ashcroft appears to be a perfect candidate for HMRC’s back-dating of rules. My understanding of domicile is that it represents the place where someone ‘belongs’, either by birth or by choice. If someone doesn’t believe they belong in the UK neither do they belong in our Houses of Parliament.

It is unbelievable that positions of power and influence can be acquired in this circumstance. Of course he could afford substantial donations to a political party - having saved so much in tax. What else did his money buy? Very few of us would have been surprised to learn that money donated to the Ethiopian famine relief is alleged to have been misused. There is a general acceptance of corruption in many ‘foreign’ jurisdictions. We should not be surprised to discover corruption wherever there are large sums of money involved.

HMRC have had yet more success in moving the goalposts - and back-dating the move. This would play havoc in the football league. It could play havoc with tax payers generally. Tax liabilities for past years, which are thought to be agreed and settled, may yet be recalculated because of a change in the accepted interpretation of some of the rules. It is bad enough that HMRC can make ‘discoveries’ (of errors) to upset tax for earlier years, but their apparent ability to have a re-think and thereby change the basis of calculation some years in the future is a worrying trend. There should and must be better certainty than that.

The present matter concerns a businessman, Robert Gaines-Cooper, who has been treated as non-resident (in the UK) for many years. He has relied on spending no more than 91 days in the UK in any one year, which has been the accepted test for residency for some time.  HMRC have recently disputed this basis and the courts (so far) have agreed and allowed them to back-date the ruling. HMRC have successfully claimed that the tax-payer has not been non-resident because he had not cut his ties with the UK.  He retained a large estate in Berkshire, where he grew up, and other aspects of his life indicated he remained resident and ordinarily resident in the UK, despite abiding by the ‘91 day’ rule.

It is too early to say what approach HMRC will take with this ruling and how they will try to apply it in other cases - but we must all be aware that HMRC’s powers are changing and their ability to change the rules retrospectively is difficult, if not impossible to guard against.

I suspect that HMRC’s intention is to stop people trying to manipulate tax rules with tax avoidance schemes in the knowledge that the schemes are likely to be overturned retrospectively. Schemes are often arranged in the certain knowledge that their life-span is limited. The schemes will have little point if their life-span is nil as a result of back-dated legislation or interpretation. I think I would applaud that - but whose judgement determines what is effective tax-planning and what is tax avoidance? And who gets caught next with an unexpected back-dated tax bill? (and lawsuit?).

Is it only me that really doesn’t care which category Cheryl Cole fits into?  Why all the fuss?

As for the new ITV comedy drama by the same name (’Married Single Other’ - not Cheryl Cole) - it did it for me.  The proper critics are being critic snobs.  Whether or not the script was predictable, whether or not the characters resemble anyone we know, whether or not the young lad’s script seemed plausible - it worked.  I’ve never met any child like those in Outnumbered - but are they entertaining?  It may not be Shakespeare! - of course, there’s the rub.