How the tax and benefits system should be structured has been a hotly contested issue in liberal circles over recent years. The IFS today released a study commissioned by the Mirrlees review of the British tax and benefit system.  The FT picked up on one aspect of the story - that a higher tax band of £100,000 plus is unlikely to raise much, if any, revenue ('Targeting rich will not work, says study').  However, the study is much broader and a better summary can be read in the IFS's own press release.

We're still going through the detail in the report , but its interesting how much the ideas seem to dovetail with our own work on welfare issues which can be read in 'Working on Welfare' on the CentreForum website.

Also in today's news

If you thought the Labour party might be in crisis, read Jackie Ashley in The Guardian today who will confirm all your suspicions. In her article, 'If the rebels prevail, Brown could be ousted in days', she maps out the terrible consequences for Gordon Brown of the 10p Income Tax rebellion.

"The Tories, it seems, will line up with an amendment from Labour's Frank Field to insist on a compensation package for those who will be worse off under the new tax rates. If Labour lost that vote, it would be all up for the prime minister."

The whole piece is well worth reading.  It seems amazing that one of Brown's strongest supporters should be so negative.  The likely explanation comes towards the end of the piece:

I am 100% against the official government view and, with every instinct, on the side of the Labour rebels. But disaster is looming and the real parliamentarians have carefully to weigh in the balance what they now do, and ask how much likelier it will make a Tory landslide a year hence.

So in actual fact the whole piece is really a message directed at troublesome MPs, and those that goad them on, to be loyal.  However, the fact that a commentator has to paint such a lurid picture of destruction in order to pull them back from the edge shows just how bad things are at the moment.

Fresh from last week's rubbishing of the Lib Dems, Simon Jenkins this week writes an article that, in many ways, could only be written by a Lib Dem.  The cause of his ire this week is the Planning White Paper:

Blair's dismantling of local planning under the 2004 act is clearly to be completed under Brown. His ambition is simply to de-democratise the future development of Britain. When he next makes a speech about wanting "empowered communities and enabling rather than centralising government", someone in the audience should blow a raspberry and shout "hypocrite". The Tesco Clauses betray big business's grip over Labour

The Times fills in more of the details about what is upsetting Jenkins so much ("Proposals give supermarkets an easy ride to out-of-town centres")

Also in today's news

• David Howarth gives an update to the Lib Dem position on nuclear power ("These nonsensical arguments for nuclear power") More of Howarth's reasoning can be found in CentreForum's Britain After Blair.
  
• If you've been following The Tories squabbles over grammar schools you will want to read "Cameron should look to his Right" by Conservative Home editor, Tim Montgomerie.  The message is that the Tory right are wanting to flex their muscles - but backed out from doing it this time.
  

The question will be put this evening as to whether MPs want to replace Trident - or more specifically - the submarines that carry the Trident.

Much of the comment in the papers today is rather predictable.  The Telegraph's leader backs the Prime Minister (Defending ourselves in an unpredictable world); The Guardian a couple of days ago urged holding back from making a decision now (Labour's looming rebellion).

However, the leader in the FT today reads like it was written by Nick Harvey - endorsing pretty much fully the line espoused by Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey in the Lib Dem's Trident debate in Harrogate a couple of weeks ago.

"Extending the lives of the current submarines would save money. Even if that proves impossible, delaying a decision on replacement until 2010 would allow it to be taken after the next review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. After that, the government may need to back a replacement nuclear deterrent. But it has failed to convince that the decision is needed now." The Financial Times - Leader

It will be interesting to see how much credit Ming and his team will be able to get for the moral victory of a close vote in tomorrow's papers.  It won't be easy.  No matter what Labour MPs think about the issue - the idea that they they might be giving Ming's team a boost will no doubt keep many with the Labour whip.

Also in today's news

• The Telegraph are watching YouTube to see how the US primary elections are playing out.