Lambert Chapman LLP make Pre-Budget Report predictions

On our main site we produced an article making predictions on the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report. Our material came from a number of Lambert Chapman personnel and the full text of their thoughts is included below. We would be delighted if you wished to add your own comments underneath.

Chris Harman 

Colin Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently said ‘It is right that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax.  However, there are a minority who continue to seek ways to avoid paying their share.  This is unacceptable.  It is unfair on the majority of taxpayers, undermines fiscal sustainability, and reduces funding for public services.  This Government will not tolerate tax avoidance schemes or tax evasion in any form, and will act promptly to tackle both of these’.

 From that statement which includes tax avoidance I must put as one of my top predictions that:

• HMRC will take the view that many things that are tax planning will, in HMRC view, be considered as tax avoidance and therefore many simple and standard tax planning actions will be disallowed. 

Other predictions:

• Corporation Tax : Small Companies rate to stay at 21%.  Main rate to stay at 28%.
• Income Tax : A 60% rate to be introduced for income above £250,000.  Environmental issue ; People who commute to work in their car and who are provided with free parking by their employer will have a taxable benefit on the provision of the parking space unless they also transport a passenger to their workplace.
• Capital Gains Tax : The rate to increase to at least 25%.  The Exemption to elect for a second home to be a Principle Private Residence (PPR) to be abolished.  PPR to be exempt only up to a fixed level of gain and any PPR gain over that level to be taxed at a rate that is less than the full CGT rate. 
• IHT : The £nil rate band to increase to £750,000.  A 50% band on Estates over £5,000,000.  Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief to be capped.
• NIC : No changes.
• Stamp Duty : The £175,000 starting level for residential houses to be extended to £200,000 w.e.f 1/12/2009.
• VAT : The 15% rate will continue until 30th June 2010 from when it will be 20%.  The reduced rate of 5% for domestic heating will be increased to 10% w.e.f 1st January 2010 (I must get my next lot of oil ordered!)
• Wealth Tax : A new tax which will be 0.25% on assets, anywhere in the world, owned by a U.K. domiciled resident where their Open Market Value at 31st December each year exceeds £5,000,000.  The rate will be increased or the excess level will be reduced in the tax year during which people emigrate.
• The proposed alignment of our fiscal year to be moved to a calendar year and therefore inline with much of the world.
• Beer and spirit duties : The duties will remain the same but steps will be put in place to set minimum selling prices so that supermarkets can’t sell cheap alcohol.
• Road Fund Licence : Increases on ’unfriendly vehicles’.  The lowering of the emission bands for ‘friendly vehicles’.
• Funding for the building of more Universities to start in 2013.  This will be because more people will have to have a ‘degree’ before they can undertake their chosen work* and will also be seen as giving the Construction Industry a boost following on from the Olympics building work.  Measures will be brought in so that ‘one man band’ and ‘labour only’ construction workers will have to be employees and not self employed if they are to work on any such projects.
• The ‘remittance basis’ for U.K. residents who are not U.K. domiciled will apply to those who have been U.K. resident for five of the last seven years (instead of 7 of the last 9 years).
• Long term unemployed without any qualifications will be offered a cash inducement to travel to interviews and jobs (for the first year of work). Those who have studied and worked will have to get on with it without any help). 

I heard on the radio this morning that all new nurses will, by 2013 (funny that is after the Olympics!) have to have a degree before they can become a nurse.  I know that they have to undergo learning and need a degree or a diploma to be a nurse (they can start nurse training with no qualifications), but, the radio report only mentioned a degree so is a diploma out of the window?  Isn’t nursing a vocation?  I can foresee other trades will be pushed towards having to have qualifications i.e a butcher needing something in the field of chemistry combined with biology!

Gill Philpott and the Tax Team

Capital gains tax rate to rise to 25% to cut the differential between income tax and capital gains tax which has in the last year led to tax payers seeking to tax events as capital rather than income

To assist the property market the retention of the £175,000 Stamp Duty Land Tax exemption

Introduction of anti avoidance legislation aimed at removing tax advantages of employee benefit arrangements

Another deferral on the introduction of the income shifting rules due to difficulties in drafting the legislation

A measure to penalise ‘fat cat’ city bonuses – perhaps in the form of a punative National Insurance Rate,

and of course the perenial favourites years measures to promote green issues and measures to penalise the drinkers and smokers and drivers of fuel guzzling cars

Something we would like to see but don’t think will be introduced profit averaging for all businesses and not just farmers and artists to help businesses even out profits, tax and therefore cashflow between the good and bad years.

Mike Carabine

Mike Carabine

The standard VAT rate is due to go back up to 17.5% from 1 January 2010. However I predict the increase will be delayed 1 or 2 months but will rise to 18% (possibly even as far as 20%).

Potentially reducing the range of supplies qualifying for VAT zero-rating, blaming EC legislation whilst increasing the amount coming into Treasury coffers.

More attacks on tax avoidance schemes.

Corporation Tax for small companies to rise to 22% as was meant to happen from 1 April 2009. Rates for large companies to continue to fall.

Nigel Whittle 

Increase the Capital Gains Tax rate to 30%

Lisa Potter 

I believe that Government will be playing their cards close to their chest.  With an election around the corner they would be suicidal to make any radical announcements beyond those already in place without further risking their chances of being re-elected.    

 The one announcement to keep an eye out for will be the VAT rate from 1st January, I believe that this may be announced at a higher rate than the 17.5% previously in place.   Regardless of what the rate is, businesses will once again suffer from the inconvenience of the administration burden as a result of the change and many will remain confused as to what income falls under what VAT regime.

 I believe that the 50% higher rate will be fully implemented for forthcoming tax periods.   As for corporation tax I would like to see some changes to the rate for smaller companies, larger company’s have benefited from decrease in rates whilst the smaller company rate has increased.  In light of the current climate this should be addressed to assist those businesses that are in more need of the assistance.      

Overall I think it will be a non-eventful Pre-Budget report based more on the protection of their re-election chances than changes to legislation that will lose them votes.

Richard Thomson

With the next election looming, I think they will be looking for increasing support from voters whilst trying to increase revenue, by delayed measures and targeting higher earners.

Therefore unlikely to increase VAT, Corp tax etc in short term.

Likely to have notional ‘feel good’ announcements:

• Gift to pensioners – extra winter payments,   tax benefits etc.
• Revision of tax credits with increase to lower incomes.
• Further adjustment to ISA’s and encouragement of savings.

And will also have:

Increasing tax on wealthy – perhaps reducing the £150K 50% band.

Increasing NIC on high earners – increasing rate, upper band.

Focusing on Green issues and tax incentives, with additional tax charges for those not being green.

Increase to CGT rate of 18%, which is relatively low.

Revision to IHT to assist middle England – which as house prices have fallen, won’t be as dramatic as many claim.

and of course:

preventing Income shifting, introducing NIC on close company divi’s, increasing tax avoidance schemes etc.

Nick Forsyth asks “How much is enough” when it comes to concert ticket disbursements?

I’ve been buying tickets for over 30 years and in that time I’ve come to consider that I might have been abused more as each year passes. I know how much I’ve paid as I have a collection of programmes including ticket stubs and I can tell you that a Wembley Empire Pool concert cost £4 a ticket in 1978 and a heck of a lot more these days. What I find really disconcerting is not the price of the ticket but the add ons that seem to increase in both value and number as time passes.

At one time as I remember you would get charged a fee that then became a fee per ticket and then started to increase in value. You then had postage added onto the cost as a further extra and now you can add “to your door before the kettle boils” for another fiver.

Last night I bought tickets to see Billy Connolly with Ticketmaster and had two options, post for a fee or a link for the same fee. I chose the link and have received it by email. What this allows you to do is to print off your own tickets and take them to the concert. I’ve been involved in a concert with paper tickets and it is really scary. Some people have a normal looking ticket and you have a piece of A4 paper. I didn’t apply for them so when I was handed my piece of A4 I was ready to go home but we walked in without any trouble – in fact it was as easy as when I saw David Lee Roth at Hammersmith and we walked in through the main entrance – having paid a tout – without any tickets at all behind a member of the show security, making people with tickets wait whilst we got in, to stand in the stalls.

The more I think about it the more it occurs to me that the link is more effective but also close to a con. Surely I am using my own paper and toner cartridge to print this ticket and depending upon the colours it might cost me more to print it off than the fee I’ve paid. So it boils down to whether the link is cost effective? If its price mirrors the cost of postage then clearly not, but then again it is Ticketmaster so you expect premium pricing.

I’ve also noticed that certain ticket prices have shown a huge hike recently. Possibly because a lot of the artists I consider seeing are getting on a bit and their pensions aren’t doing too well on a 0.5% base rate but then again maybe not. Surely the industry wants to get its act together and look at setting a reasonable price for the event to include all these disbursements so that we the general public don’t feel cheated when buying tickets to see them.

The Car Scrappage Scheme – is it for you?

The car scrappage scheme was introduced at the last budget until 31 March 2010 in an effort to provide £300 million support to the car industry. It follows on from schemes that have been operating successfully in some European Countries. Essentially you can get £2,000 for trading in a 10 year old car that you have owned for at least a year for a new vehicle. £1,000 comes from the government and the balance from the vehicle manufacturer. With cars always being a touchy topic we asked Nick and Chris to put forward points in favour or against the scheme.

For: I’m no car enthusiast so for me the vehicle is designed to get one from A to B in the maximum of comfort. I am hopeful that the scheme produces increased orders and allows employment to be maintained within the car industry in the United Kingdom.

Safety is an important point. Whilst I look back warmly to travelling around the country in a Ford Cortina or a Hillman Hunter it does not mean I need to repeat the experience. Whilst classic cars look lovely I have to confess I don’t feel comfortable in them and even with the safest of drivers I am not convinced we will get round the next corner.  A 10 year old car might not necessarily present such a problem but we do forget that a previous car does not have the brakes that our current model has!

Comfort comes a strong second to safety in my book. If we spend time in our car surely we want to be as comfortable as possible. I am sure that the current model for the majority of cars is more comfortable and therefore preferable to the one being scrapped!

The green issue is also an important consideration. In the small car market I am sure that huge strides have been made in the last 10 years to make the engines more efficient and with car taxation being changed over from the old CC method to the new CO2’s continued efforts are being made to reduce the emissions that are harmful to the environment. What gets overlooked is the miles travelled to bring vehicles into the Country but this is a political hot potato, along with food miles, that will be debated more and more as time passes.

The majority of people want to drive the newest vehicle that they can. When I started driving you aspired to a new vehicle but knew it was a distant dream. Long journeys were planned with spare parts in mind or not even contemplated and starting the vehicle on cold winter mornings a lottery to say the least! Youngsters have never experienced these problems and there is no reason to suggest that they would want to start. Affording the vehicle and insuring it are the current problems but that’s another issue altogether!

Against: I look at the car scrappage scheme as a classic car enthusiast, someone who is concerned for our environment and as a Tax Partner of Lambert Chapman LLP. The three don’t mix. I recollect we were told the car scrappage scheme was to boost the UK car industry and take older vehicles off the road in favour of newer, safer and potentially greener cars.

Let me break down this sentence into the following:

“UK Car Industry”

I consider that the UK doesn’t have a car industry anymore, at least, not of the importance it once was. We used to be a world leader in the car industry but by a mixture of complacency, poor management and over enthusiastic union power, it was destroyed. The car scrappage scheme certainly brings newer cars onto the road and a lot of them are the small lower end market vehicles which, by the very nature of their manufacturers, means a lot of our money is leaving these shores. I recently saw a newspaper report that a certain Japanese manufacturer was having to get its work force to work overtime so they could build enough cars to ship to Britain in time for the new batch of UK registrations.

“Newer Cars”

Why do we have to love “newer cars”? Why don’t we look to having well built cars that last? We are preoccupied with fads and fashion.

“Safer Cars”

 I agree that if cars are poorly maintained they become unsafe so why not channel some of the money into resources to make sure the authorities can finance more rigid checking of more vehicles to ensure they are safe? A modern car is easier to drive than an old car but if the driver adapts their style an old car, driven correctly, is safe (maybe a purge on unsafe drivers is needed?)

“Greener Cars”

I am not convinced on this. I said I was a car enthusiast and my classic car is a 1972 Rover V8. People may say that it is a gas guzzler and not very green but I counter that argument by pointing out I am driving 37 year old metal. There hasn’t been the cost of using fossil fuels to destroy the old vehicle and refine metal to make a new vehicle (never mind the transport costs, etc of new vehicles). Our Government introduced, in April 2002, a 100% capital allowance relief on cars with low emissions. The 100% only applies to new cars so a second hand car doesn’t qualify for the enhanced relief. That is not green as it does not encourage recycling!

I don’t see the car scrappage scheme as really being the answer. I feel that the money could have been better spent in supporting industries that generate wealth for our country. There is also the impact on small businesses who rely upon making parts for old cars. Many of those businesses are in Britain and close to the old car manufacturing establishments. As at August 2009 it was reported that there has been over 35,000 new cars ordered because of the Government scrappage scheme. I am surprised at the number which means 35,000 less opportunities. If the green issue is to be addressed then why is there not a heavy charge on new luxury motor cars or why did they not use the car scrappage money as an incentive on new green vehicles that really are green and are being produced in the normal course of replacing cars?

Recently there was a report that some manufacturers have increased their car prices because of the car scrappage scheme so that they end up being in the same position. That is disappointing but from an economic point of view, who can really blame them?

On a final note, I know of a number of good classic cars that have gone into the scrappage scheme. The scheme means they must be destroyed so it is likely there have been some good, running and reliable old cars that provided transport to a family and the vehicle isn’t going to depreciate any more and could possibly be appreciating. Will the replacement cars depreciate? I suppose one way of looking at it is that the owners of similar models of cars that are in turn classics will find the value of their classic has increased. I could be one of them.

So there you have it – but what do you think?  If you wish to add your own comment at the foot of this article.

Uncle Audley reviews Harman’s driving!

I’d given Uncle Audley a wide berth fearing he would be like a coiled spring over the Baroness Scotland case but when I called to see how he was he’d just read a piece about Harriet Harman that had re-stoked his boiler!

 “You know where to find me, ….know where to find me, well I ask you is this the sort of behaviour we should expect from our Government ministers?”

 “But it was in the Paper Uncle,” I said, “and they are not always accurate in their reporting” Big error on my part!

 “Now look here this was The Times (Harriet Harman faces quiz over prang)not some red top rag. And it suggests that it was an accident caused whilst driving using a mobile. What an example. The woman has never been able to stick to the speed limit and now drives away from a car she has hit. It makes you wonder whether she would have stopped if no one had seen her?  No doubt the book won’t be thrown at her by the Prime Minister just like the Baroness Scotland who I cannot fathom why remains in her post as our Attorney General.”

 “Oh dear,” I thought, “now I’m for it!”

 “Why someone in such high office would take into employment an illegal immigrant beggars belief. And what we don’t yet know is whether we as the tax payer have picked up the cost as part of an expenses claim? Granted she was fined the maximum sum of £5,000 but surely she and the Prime Minister have to accept that if you cannot set the right example and having failed so badly resignation is the only answer. What would happen if you acted for a large company with a decent sized board and the one responsible for employing the staff stepped out of line so badly. He would probably get the sack and the company would have to pay the fines. Am I wrong or have things changed so much from my day?”

I had to accept that Uncle was probably right – unless the Board had taken the risks together – but I kept that thought to myself for fear of another tirade.

“Unfortunately, it was the same with the Tories. The third term leads to all manner of misdemeanours and a failure to do the right thing. At least in May the Country decides – if we have the energy to vote for one or other of them when we get there!” and with a click he was gone. I hadn’t got as far as asking after his health but concluded that he was his normal self and therefore OK. Having dealt with my family duty I returned to the garden to prepare for the autumn.

Lambert Chapman LLP’s John Smith-Daye says, “I am not a gambling man but……”

As anyone who knows me will tell you, I am a typical male chartered accountant – I have been called “tight fisted”, “mean”, even “boring and unadventurous” – I prefer to call myself “prudent” and “cautious”, two words much used by our beloved (?) Prime Minister, particularly during his stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

However, there is an opportunity coming up that may to some be considered a gamble, but to me is all but a dead cert. I am willing to bet my monthly pocket money – yes, up to £2.50 – on the VAT rate remaining at 15% beyond the end of the year. I have heard rumours that the temporary reduction might be extended by a few days to help the retail industry with the January sales.

But – Lo! What is that on the horizon? Do I see an election in the very near future? And do I perhaps feel that the Government may try to win votes by currying favour with the Electorate At Large? And am I really a cynic?

Answers on a postcard please, with the usual £10 note stuck to it with sticky tape, to me at our Maldon office. Don’t send them to my home address, please – my wife might get hold of them.

So will John be right? If you haven’t got a postcard handy leave him a note below:

“Not many People know that!”

Earlier this year Sir Michael Caine railed against the introduction of the 50% top rate of income tax by the Chancellor. “If the top rate goes beyond 50%, then I shall leave the UK” he was quoted as saying.

I have news for Sir Michael. He needs to start packing his suitcase now! The top rate will be 51%. Sir Michael had forgotten about the 1% national insurance hike which the Chancellor introduced a few years ago.

In fairness, Sir Michael is not the only one to overlook this. The Chancellor tends to as well. This is pretty much the highest accolade for a stealth tax.

Yet, for people with income just above the £100,000 the actual marginal rate is going to be 61%.

Of course, Sir Michael can simply leap on a plane and change his residence at a moments notice. That sort of pre-emptive action is not possible for must British taxpayers.  What they can do is to plan to minimise impact of the tax hikes when they come in on 6th April next.

That is indeed where we might come in. We are looking for the opportunity to advise businesses on what can be done. If you need some advice give us a call on 01376 326266.

Is the recession over?

We’ve read on various web sites and newspapers that the recession is over, in fact our own website ran a business news article from no less an authority as The Institute of Chartered Accountants telling us so. But is this really correct?

Economies don’t turn on and off like light switches they need time to produce trends. Our experience of local retail before the holiday period was one of disappointment and other businesses were not reporting massive trend changes on what they had previously been experiencing.

We would be interested on your thoughts as business people as to the trends you are experiencing and whether you believe the recession is over? Please comment in the box below.

Paul Short looks at Take Home Pay

At little while ago I did an article for the web site trying to demonstrate that take home pay was not always a good indicator of someone’s pay package. It all depends on the extras. Since then, we have had the furore over MP’s expenses (cue my web article of 15 January 2007).

MP’s have been at it for a long time. Their base salary does not look anything super duper. But then add on the expenses and gross these up at their marginal rate of tax because they are tax free and then add on the copper plated pensions, provided out of the public purse, plus a few other perks and you have a formidable pay package, which if maximum allowances were claimed could be in the region of £355,000 a year.

Now there is something of a witch hunt on MP’s at the moment. We should remember that many of the expenses are authentic and justifiable and should not be regarded as part of their pay package but some are not. Even so, some MP’s pay package will come to a tidy sum. It is, of course, hugely tax efficient. All the benefits within and outside of Westminster are tax free, leaving some modest exposure to 40% tax on the top slice of their Parliamentary salary.

Now let us compare their situation with that of one of the purported high earners whom I shall call Gordon. I am still frustrated that MP’s define the rich and wealthy in terms of their income. They do not seem to be able to grasp that wealth and riches are a consequence of having capital. This takes me back to a web article I wrote in February 2006, comparing family A (zero income but huge capital) with family B (high income but no capital), with family A qualifying for all Brown’s welfare handouts. Anyway, back to Gordon. Gordon has an income of £200,000 a year and is reviled for being rich and wealthy. Gordon is self-employed, though. Out of his £200,000 a year (which he has only really been earning in the last year of so) he has to start funding for his retirement in around 10 years time.

To make up for lost time, Gordon is putting in £50,000 a year. It should give him a reasonable pension but nothing on the scale of an MP. Although Gordon has to pay tax on all of his earnings, the bulk of it at the current top rate of 40%, he has to retain at least £30,000 of post tax income in his business to help the continuing finance of its working capital. The alternative is to go to the Bank and become heavily geared.

Gordon is also having to finance his two children through university. They are in their first and second year respectively. It is expensive but Gordon doesn’t mind as he puts a premium on education and wants his children to graduate and have the best opportunity of securing a good job. Gordon lives in a reasonable four bedroomed house within commuting distance of London. It is very nice but far from a mansion. It was worth some £500,000 a year ago but Gordon thinks it might only be worth £425,000 now. He still has a mortgage of £150,000 on the property although he expects to clear this within the next 10 years. Nevertheless, it represents a significant monthly out going.

Gordon has always been strong on protection and having adequate insurance in place to safeguard his family and his house. That is another heavy out going. Gordon’s family run three modest cars and they do like to have one foreign holiday a year with possibly another in the UK. Gordon finds that all these commitments means that he does not have that much disposable cash left at the end of the year.

Gordon works 50 to 60 hours a week on average on his business and feels he needs the holidays to re-charge and refresh himself. Do you or I go and tell Gordon that he is rich and wealthy and that is why he is going to be paying three times as much tax as his struggling local MP?

Uncle Audley considers Quantitive Easing and suggests “Don’t ask Gieve!”

 Uncle Audley has been scathing about the performance of Mervyn King and the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England.  In his view they have reacted far too slowly to the gathering storm.  It seemed obvious to most people in the country from the middle of 2008 that we were in a recession.  Indeed Uncle Audley was, even then, going on about the danger being depression.  Unfortunately the only D word coming out the Government was of a downturn. 

Yet the number of members at the MPC at this time were actually pushing for an increase in interest rates, not a reduction.  The sole voice arguing for base rate reduction was David “Danny” Blanchflower.  Now of course they have all changed their tune and we now have a base rate of 0.5% in play.  There is not much more to go and the Bank of England have moved onto Plan B which is the quantitive easing policy. 

Uncle Audley takes the matter on:

“Quantitive easing does sound a little more reassuring than printing money.  I suppose I could say it is just semantics and we have some spinning here.  Nevertheless I know there is a difference and quantitive easing is not quite the same as printing money.  The latter does give immediate connotations of inflation.  Printing money is the first step along an inevitable path to that end. 

What I do find astonishing is the comments by Sir John Gieve who is the outgoing Deputy Governor of the Bank (maybe thank goodness for that).  He is reiterating the point that inflation will be kept low.  Apparently this will require the Bank to start raising rates before it is obvious on the street that the economy is getting better.  Now, with the best will in the world, how are we to believe that the Bank will recognise the situation before those people directly affected.  We already have had the situation where the MPC were far far far behind the pace in terms of reducing rates.  Why should we think they will be any better in recognising the need to raise rates before everyone else at the sharp end?  They hardly inspire you with confidence and the smart money is on the Bank of England moving too slowly so that inflation proves to be well and truly back.  I think it was rather a case of “Do not ask Gieve”.

Uncle Audley waxes lyrically about Public Enemy Number 1!

We had a family meal for Mother’s Day and Uncle Audley was present. Having enjoyed his meal and the wine and brandy afterwards he started to wax lyrically. 

 

“Who is public enemy no 1 in this country?  No prizes for putting Sir Fred Goodwin in the frame as the one most likely to.  Poor old Sir Fred must be reviled the length and breadth of the land.  Well, perhaps, not so much “poor”. 

 

He does make a convenient scapegoat, though, doesn’t he, least ways if you subscribe to the view that the current financial crisis is down to a few greedy American bankers with a bit of UK support.  We are a faithful ally not just in terms of the military. 

 

We should also ask a few more questions.  Who was it who recommended Fred for his Knighthood “for services to banking”?  Was Gordon Brown involved in this?  Sir Fred’s descent from hero to zero over four years or so has been pretty dramatic.  Perhaps, though, his services to banking were not quite so exemplary as people thought, though enough to dupe the best Chancellor over the last hundred years.  It looks like it. 

 

Sir Fred is not the only one getting a nice pension.  Gordon qualifies for a very tidy sum when the electorate finally eject him.  What is it?  £90,000 or so? 

 

Now you may not know it but the Government has put a block on the amount of pension fund the rest of us can build up.  It is frozen at £1.8million until 2015.  If a fund goes over that then there is a penal tax rate of 55% on the excess.  Do bear in mind we are talking about the value of the fund.  That fund has to be invested to generate the pension for you to take.  The annual pension is going to be an awful lot less. 

 

I believe Gordon is entitled to a pension fund of around £1.75million once he becomes an ex Prime Minister – not bad for what might prove to be less than three years work.  I think he will also get a useful supplement as a long term serving MP.  So how about Gordon giving back some of his pension in acknowledgement in his part in creating the crisis.  You might argue that Gordon is more culpable than Sir Fred.  Forget it.  Mr Prescott and Ms Harman are not going to leap into demand action.  Gordon, himself, is in self denial.  The Conservatives won’t do anything.  You can always be hoist on your own petard. 

 

I would not expect Sir Fred to give anything back.  He is a hard nosed Scottish banker.  There is as much chance as a hard nosed Scottish Prime Minister offering an apology for his part in the fiasco.” 

 

So is Uncle Audley correct – let him know your thoughts in the box below: