Nick doesn’t mention IHT.

Surely this tax is the prime example of a tax where a lower rate would collect more. Potential victims of this tax would cease to trouble to avoid IHT at say 20%, which at 40% they currently are prepared to put considerable effort into.

At 40% IHT is considered by many as confiscation, so encourages actions and activities, which have little or no purpose other than avoiding this unfair tax. In comparison with other countries this rate is high, and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Portugal, Sweden and Singapore have all eliminated this tax.

The seriously wealthy will have placed much of their wealth in Trusts, Farmland or other exempt holdings, so in most instances this tax is barely touching very large concentrations of wealth but falling on the prosperous rather than the wealthy, on the unfortunate rather than the astute. So this tax is neither efficient in raising revenue nor addressing inequality.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

Hi Sam

Old enough to have voted in the first Referendum. Not bitter, nor having any affection, perverse or otherwise for Brussels, merely concerned that Brexit, which was in large part caused by Johnson’s opportunist career move, will not end well.

With the final outcome being very different from his promises of 2016.

Dear Nick
I suggest the chances of either “Taking Back Control” or “getting Brexit done to unleash Britain’s potential” being successful are at best remote, so counting both as illusions is reasonable comment, not an untruth nor deliberate trolling. I guess you prefer to travel hopefully but I fear you will be disappointed.

As David pointed out - If we cannot be trusted to stand by agreements reached four months ago, we won’t be trusted to comply with vague assertions not to lower our social or environmental protections in the decades ahead.

So the No Deal breakdown if it happens will at least be a mutual responsibility, though in my opinion the UK should take the major share of the blame due its unwillingness to understand or accept the EU’s legalistic approach.

David is right, the landscape has changed beyond recognition in a very short from No Deal being a one in a million chance, to it being the option that is being actively pursued for cynical short term political gain.

The snake oil salesman has twice succeeded in selling the Electorate an illusion, in 2016 it was take back control and in 2019 it was get Brexit done and unleash Britain’s potential. The only way out before he is exposed a con man is the breakdown of talks blamed on the EU.

It surprising that John Redwood fails to include IHT in his list of taxes to which the Laffer curve applies. Surely this tax is the prime example of a tax where a lower rate would collect more. Potential victims of this tax would cease to trouble to avoid IHT at say 20%, which at 40% they currently are prepared to put considerable effort into.

At 40% IHT is considered by many as confiscation, so encourages actions and activities, which have little or no purpose other than avoiding this unfair tax. In comparison with other countries this rate is high, and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Portugal, Sweden and Singapore have all eliminated this tax.

The seriously wealthy will have placed much of their wealth in Trusts, Farmland or other exempt holdings, so in most instances this tax is barely touching very large concentrations of wealth but falling on the prosperous rather than the wealthy, on the unfortunate rather than the astute.

So this tax is neither efficient in raising revenue nor addressing inequality.

The snake oil salesman has twice succeeded in selling the Electorate an illusion, in 2016 it was take back control and in 2019 it was get Brexit done and unleash Britain’s potential.

Is there a cynical calculation that by the time of next Election the people will have forgotten that about the promised bright sunlight uplands of Brexit? Will enough political hullabaloo have been made to give the appearance of achieving the People’s Will?

By 2024 the UK will have had a dose of economic reality, will the People really thank this Government for fulfilling its populist agenda when the consequences are so damaging.

This Government is deliberately penalising Business in order to pander to Populism, its objectives on Immigration, the EU trade deal, avoiding the level playing field and the ECJ make no economic sense, but are populist bluster, jingoistic flag waving. Even suggesting an Australian style EU trade arrangement (ie WTO terms) looks to be perverse at a time when the future of WTO is uncertain.

The UK intends to fiercely reserve its independence to do Trade Deals, but for what purpose? It may well be that these yet to be achieved FTAs, tailored to suit the UK, are no better and quite possibly worse than those achieved by the EU on behalf of all its members. It is a fact that those with the greatest economic clout do the best trade deals, and the EU has extensive experience and expertise in this arena, the UK does not (we have subcontracted this task to the EU for 40 years). So this prize, which will consume much effort, may turn out to a disappointment. In any case, surely it is Business not Government that sells its Product and Services abroad, why deliberate choose to ignore Business interests, whose overarching priority is the closest possible trading relationship with the EU in favour of nebulous global opportunities?

It is wishful thinking that Brexit will unleash Britain’s potential. There is almost no evidence that the UK was held back by the EU, this is an emotional argument without substance. However by 2024 the Tories new found friends in the North and Midlands will have tasted the consequences of a hard Brexit, and will still be waiting for the benefits to be unleashed. The snake oil salesman will be seen as a con man and may struggle to sell his illusion for a third time.

Letwin was wisely attempting to put a No Deal exit out of the Government's reach, he never voted against Brexit unlike Boris.

EU rules have not cost millions of jobs, in any case didn't the recent Tory manifesto promise to have rules and regulations at least equal to or ahead of the EU. However both jobs and the currency will suffer if the UK doesn't achieve an FTA with the EU.

Not sure what trick we conjure up by using our Sovereignty wisely, but on current form it won't be third party FTAs.

David makes some good points.

Julian Smith gets the push, because Boris Johnson wasn’t listening in the cabinet meeting which covered the resumption of power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Again Boris is not across the detail.

As David points out No10 is in the process of extending its influence over the Treasury, however at the same time as it intends to control EU negotiations. Does Johnson have the application to master the complex issues involved with the EU, whilst overseeing the new Chancellor? He appears temperamentally ill-suited to master the intricacy either of these tasks, but to simultaneously manage both is almost certainly beyond his capabilities.

Boris has been quoted as saying that UK Business leaders had been “ wasting their time lobbying government to abandon the promises made to the British people”. Which suggests this Government is nowhere near being interested in growth at the moment.