the burden of this tax will fall. Surely, this is a point that should be analysed on a programme such as Newsnight. Lawson said (and, again, all credit to him -- he did his job well) that there was a two to one majority in favour of this tax. It all goes to show that the better you disguise a tax the more people favour it -- this is not an especially moral position! We then have the interview with Peter Altmeier (17:50) where Paxo was on very poor form. He started by asking Altmeier whether it had been estimated how much the tax would raise. He said "no" and suggested that discussions were just beginning. Paxo got the same answer to a question about how many jobs would be lost and then queried -- but did not press when Altmeier moved on to a different issue -- whether he was aware that the British government was saying that the European Commission suggested that 500,000 jobs would be lost. A better briefed journalist would not have referred to George Osborne's reference to an EC report, he would have thrown the facts from and implications of the EC report repeatedly at the interviewee: especially as the interviewee was from Europe and justifying an EU measure. For example: There is an estimated fall in GDP 1.8 per cent as a result of the tax. Given this, and after allowing for the fact that other taxes would be replaced (e.g. stamp duty on