TaxPayers' Alliance will have to fill vacuum left by Tories

Daniel Finkelstein (who is running a new blog called Comment Central) discusses Tory tax policy this morning in his regular Times column.  Danny seems to agree that governments can cut taxes without damaging services but that the Tories are wise not to make the argument this side of the next General Election:

"Tories have to win office and then prove their point... They should play down the tax issue but cut taxes in office. Then if they are right, if the tax-cutting theory proves correct, the Government will provide an unbeatable combination — faster growth, lower taxes, better services... Tax cutting can be simultaneously a good thing to do and a stupid thing to promise. Winning policies and election winning policies are not always the same thing."

Danny's view is certainly a respectable one and widely held amongst other Cameroons (who do not believe that oppositions can easily lead public opinion on any issue).  But am I the only one who thinks that there is something a little dishonest about this strategy?  I wonder if voters will be looking for more authenticity and transparency from their politicians in the rapidly-approaching post-Blair era?  Perhaps I have a too romantic view of politics.

Where I know I strongly disagree with Danny Finkelstein (and we've had a similar disagreement before) is in his idea that the Tories have already tried to make the case for tax cuts and haven't succeeded.  He writes:

"The fierce signallers believe that the way to change voters minds is to start making the case earlier in the Parliament and devote more time to the case for low taxes. The quiet men should turn up the volume. This relies on the frankly ridiculous assertion that Tories have not been doing precisely this for years."

Danny Finkelstein was chief policy adviser to William Hague during Blair's honeymoon years.  It is undeniable that Mr Hague and other Tories made some very good speeches on tax but these never became the kind of grassroots campaigns that are really capable of shifting public opinion (and which the TaxPayers' Alliance is beginning to build).  It is also true that we were still in the early days of Gordon Brown's spending experiment.  As voters have borne the record tax burden but seen so much money wasted they are more open - as the recent Taxpayers' Alliance poll suggested - to a tax relief message.  Neither were the Hague years consistent in their tax cutting message.  There was the infamous tax guarantee which had to be abandoned under pressure from Michael Portillo.

The Tories weren't much better during the last Parliament.  At the last Party Conference before the 2005 General Election Oliver Letwin made a speech which downplayed the possibility of tax cuts.  Noone would believe significant promises of tax cuts, he told the conference.  When a few timid tax cut pledges did come - a few weeks before polling day - voters hadn't been persuaded of the case for them.  As Lynton Crosby said: You can't fatten a pig on market day.

2pm update: Danny has replied to my post on his blog.  The TPA has also addressed Danny's article.  In his post Danny says that because voters don't trust politicians to cut taxes there is little point in promising them and the Tories should simply cut taxes when in office.  I'd accept that if I really believed the current Tory leadership had a heartfelt commitment to cutting taxes after winning the election.  I don't have that belief.

Comments

[William Norton]

Finklestein's article gives an arresting example that selling tax cuts in the past was like selling the Tivo TV recorder - the business folded because the public didn't understand what a wizard gizmo it was. Quite right.

But doesn't the rest of the article precisely miss the point about the TPA poll - i.e. that the Tory Party missold tax cuts (and that it is wrong to avoid tax cuts now just because it was bungled in the past)?

Agreed, an aggressive/incompetent tax cut policy could scare soft voters back into the arms of New Labour. But Finklestein is, in essence, saying: the Titanic hit an iceberg; no one will trust ocean liners again; so let's keep very quiet for now and then when we're elected suddenly announce we're in the ocean liner business. I can see just as many problems with that approach. What is a Shadow Chancellor going to say after every spring Budget and autumn Pre-Budget?

[hf]

The danger with standing aside and leaving it to the TPA is that they follow one of the insights from their research and form their own party.

So we end up with another UKIP type party that attracts away some of our core voters and gets filled with people who develop a deeper hatred for their former party than the "tax hiking parties".

[Simon Chapman]

Danny's main point (illustrated by comparing the relative successes of Tivo & Skyplus technology, as befits a Murdoch stable entrant to the debate) is that "Sky Plus came along offering the same service but more subtly and as part of a package."

Precisely Danny! This is exactly the TPA point. Since 1997 the Conservative party has demonstrated stunning - Tivo-esque, you might say - incompetence in marketing the idea of tax cuts. It has tried to do so without any reference to a wider narrative ("part of a package") about public service reform, sustainable tax levels, or the revenue-increasing impact of lower tax, to take but a few examples. The proposed tax cuts in 2001 in particular had no coherent feel or stratgic objective to them, but appeared to have been plucked almost at whim out of the hat.

What the TPA is saying is that tax cuts can be marketed successfully, but only as part of an overall, internally consistent & coherent, strategic approach.

There is a world of difference between that and either Danny's wilful caricature of the TPA position as simply being "the quiet men should turn up the volume", or his trust-reducing prescription that DC should say one thing in opposition and do another in office.

Danny, I fear, seems to be scarred by his experience of being involved in a Tivo approach to selling tax cuts. Sorry to say, but I think Oliver Letwin may be as well. Both of them should have more confidence in David Cameron's Sky Plus marketing skills.

[MH]

Whilst I find the rest of Dave's politically correct agenda (A-list, 3rd world poverty, hug a hoodies) simply nauseating, this actually makes me angry. There is a profound economic and moral case for lower taxes. The public are showing in poll after poll that they believe they now pay too much tax and that which they currently pay is poorly spent. As Jeff Randall accurately said in the Daily Telegraph recently, if the Conservative Party cannot find one single £ to cut from the current bloated state machine, what is the point of its existence. I think the answer now clearly is none at all.

[kingbongo]

I think the Fink is right and I don't think it's dishonest either. DC has stated consistently that taxes will be cut as and when the economy grows. I think John Redwood found this position to be in line with his own thinking when he was on the radio on Sunday.

If the TPA formed a party it would be an expensive waste of money. At least it would provide another home for Chad Noble when the UKIP experiment fails.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes and a smaller state. That goes for all wings of the party. Some however beleive that tax cuts should go further and faster to boost growth.

I'd prefer to see a party in power which aims to reduce tax complexity and achieve an honest relationship with the voters on how much they are taxed than a Bush style instant rebate with no reform of the public sector. The example of Ireland that John Redwood has used is instructive in many ways. They played a long game and didn't go for an instant fix. Once people saw the effect of the reforming/tax rebating agenda it gained in popularity.

[Sean Fear]

The problem is politicians have "form". It is so easy to believe that because you are in office, not only is public money being spent wisely, but also that you know how to spend it better than taxpayers do.

So, IMO, unless you pin politicians down to pretty clear commitments on this issue, you are most unlikely to see any form of tax reduction.

All the mood music from the current party leadership suggests to me that they are quite happy with the current level of taxation, even if they want to simplify taxes somewhat.

[Denis Cooper]

It really shouldn't be this difficult. Your house is uncomfortably cold, so you turn up the thermostat. After a time you find that it's getting warmer than it need be, so you turn the thermostat back down a bit. You also discover that somebody has opened several windows, since when much of the heat you've been putting into the house has been wasted, and you insist on closing those windows to keep the house warm while cutting the heating bill.

However you can only use this kind of parable if you're prepared to openly admit that the house was too cold in 1997. Which it was, because as Cameron should know from his time in the Treasury the government had been faced with falling tax revenues and rising social security payments and had been forced to turn down public expenditure to limit the budget deficit, which was the result of the longest and deepest recession since the war, which was itself the result of trying to link sterling to the German mark. But by the time of the 2001 election it was already possible to see that taxation and public expenditure were beginning to over-shoot.

[Jon Gale]

If a govt comes to power and immediately cuts taxes it has to either slash public services to balance the books or borrow for years until the tax cuts have an effect.

What a Cameron govt should do is get into power, start cutting waste, reducing demand (fixing the broken society etc.) and de-regulating industry, (maybe a few tax cuts to stimulate the stock market), then when the economy benefits they can share the proceeds of growth between better public services and tax cuts. Hey, that would make a good soundbite!

[Chad]

UKIP will assume this small government, low taxation role.

It is that simple.

The new UKIP leader is elected next week, then it will be full steam ahead with this domestic agenda.

[Jack Stone]

Like David Cameron the new UKIP leader should adopt a new slogan for his party "Vote UKIP get Brown!".

[Editor]

Let's not make this a discussion about UKIP!

[MH]

I still think that Private Eye's cover in January was spot on. A picture of Dave with the name: Tony Blair. A picture of Tony with the name: Dave Cameron. A caption underneath: The World's First Face Transplant.

I pity those sad Conservative members who still think Dave will turn about to be much different from Blair.

[George Hinton]

A committment of lower taxes and a smaller public sector wage bill should be given.
This would at least allow a Conservative government the freedom of manouvere, without the millstone of immediate implementation.
But taxes form only one step in the necessary staircase of action that a new government would have to undertake to restore faith in political process and standards.
The Fink is yet another SIG that are so divisive and splittist.

[Chad]

Tim,

It is hard not to when the title of the thread is about filling the low-taxation vacuum as the conclusion that it will be filled by the TPA is wrong, imho.

UKIP will be specifically aiming to become the low tax, small government party, and it seems a bit skewed to discuss the vacuum but not be allowed to mention a political party, rather than a pressure group that is seeking to fill the void.

I'm excited. It means that there will be a party, unequivocally fighting for this approach.

This seems relevant to the thread?

[Will T Power aka The Orator]

Who was that MP who lost his seat for saying the same thing before the last election?

The naivety of this secretive approach is that Conservatives think that tax cuts is a policy only they can propose, and the timing of the issue is up to them to decide. My money says that Labour will not only promise tax cuts before the next election, but will actually cut tax. It wont be my much, and there will be promises of more after the election which might not happen (renegged under pretext of a economic downturn or something) BUT it will be a clear message that Labour is achieving the efficiency targets that they were banging on about at the last election.

Oliver Letwin was too. He costed all sorts of efficiency drives under Micheal Howard. The money spent on that investigation was obviously wasted because the Tories are now too scared to even talk about efficiency in public services. Cameron takes the side of the public service against the nasty and horrible (and beloved) John Reid.

If the tories want to keep quiet on tax then fine, but they should still talk about inneffiency and waste and failure, and hold the govt to account. The message will be clear, the tories are better managers and less wasteful than labour because they are more competant. An urang-utan armed only with headlines from The Sun could make this argument stick in the present climate.
Leave it to the people to make the link between competance, less waste and less tax, and to vote for it.

I know you can do this with the blessing of your boss, DD. When do I get a job as advisor BTW? My brilliance and foresight are going to waste here.

[DavidTBreaker]

DF uses the example of the unsuccessful Tivo well but wrongly. He partly makes sense, although in doing so concludes that we need to be dishonest with the public. But there are differences.

People didn't understand Tivo, and I don't even remember the advertising he suggests was so widespread. It was new technology and takes time to spread through word of mouth. I've had Sky+ for several years and still few have heard of it, but gradually they will. Plus Sky advertises it well, with on screen demos. The British are also fairly technophobe.

People do however understand tax cuts and reform, and hopefully we can market that well. In short, tax cuts aren't Tivo video recorders.

[tpa response to fink]

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/news/individual_blog.php?post_id=332

[Tam Large]

I am beginning to wonder what the Cameron Party (I don't call it conservative any more) is actually FOR. It seems that getting Dave and his chinless wonders fancy new jobs in government is the sole aim.

There was a time when Parties got elected to Do things, and STOP things. Now there is just a genial and ambivalent, politically correct, smoke-screen.

The late Conservative Party once (back in the 70s and 80s)actually believed in things and had principles. No wonder the "stay at home" party is growing.

[Mark Fulford]

Since 1997 the Conservative party has demonstrated stunning - Tivo-esque, you might say - incompetence in marketing the idea of tax cuts.

I think it's fairer to say that the media demonstrated stunning imbalance and would not allow coherent talk about the tax cuts and the supporting arguments.

I’ve said it before and I’m going to say it again: tax cuts can initially be funded by borrowing, cutting service or cutting waste. Arguments for borrowing and cutting service are politically unwinnable. That only leaves cutting waste – something that nobody believes we can deliver.

The only way to deliver tax cuts is to first deliver waste cuts, and there’s no point or need to talk about waste cuts. Even if we could overcome the scepticism, cutting waste doesn’t require a mandate.

With the limited airtime that we get, it’s far better to talk about Conservative ideas that normally get drowned out when there’s any promise of tax cuts.

[Chad]

It's Cameron's party, and he can, and is taking the party in the direction he chooses and thinks will make it more electable.

However it does mean (whether you agree with the strategy or not) that the Tories are no longer the natural "low tax" party.

Fair enough if that is what you support. However, with that baton discarded, it is equally valid for UKIP to pick it up and run with it.

It all presents a wider range of choice to the electorate which can only be a good thing.

At least it means us unequivocal taxcutters will have a political party in UKIP, as a clear champion of the low-tax cause.

[Og]

I think Sean Fear at 10.28 has it right.

It takes a special politician to cut the burden of taxation when the economy is somehow rumbling along, as this one is. They just love spending the money. Their power of patronage is reduced by lowering state spending and they dislike the thought.

So tax reduction is a long way off, even under a Tory government. It is not helped by the idiotic and disingenuous soundbite "putting economic stability ahead of tax cuts", which is a hostage to fortune - when and if they ever reduce tax levels, the media might justifiably ask: "so when do you expect the economy to become unstable as a result of this Tax cut?"

Economic policy is the conservatives' most exposed and undefended position right now. Do not be surprised if ANY of the other parties outflank them on taxation come the next election. Dave and Osborne wailing "but WE are the true party of lower tax and smaller government" will be a singularly pathetic sight.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Quite right, Editor. If people wish to sing the praises of UKIP, they should do so at the leading UKIP discussion site (run by Anthony Butcher at www.ukipforum.co.uk) rather than playing the same old tired tunes on almost every thread on this Conservative site.

Back to the topic at hand, the trouble with Conservative tax cut promises is that Labour have become far too effective at promulgating the myth that tax cuts will be funded by swingeing cuts in front-line public services. By openly making a strong commitment to the public services before promising tax cuts, we can hope to take the sting out of such lies when we are in a position to promise tax cuts.

[Chad]

Just as a clarification: As you know Daniel, that forum is loathed by the UKIP leadership and is not a reflection of the party views. An official forum will be starting soon.

[Sean Fear]

I too think it's possible that the next Labour leader will offer some small symbolic tax cut, as a way of outflanking us on the Right.

FWIW, I just don't think the current leadership of our party sees anything wrong with current levels of taxation. I think it would be most unwise to assume that if they got into power, they would reduce the tax burden, even if they did switch it around a bit.

So, like Chad, I think it is a good thing if another party does put the case for tax reductions during the course of this Parliament.

[malcolm]

Hear hear Mark Fulford.

DVA.I've said this before and I'll say it again, you're a naughty boy!

George Hinton, when I was at school a popular term of abuse was to refer to a fellow schoolboy as a 'splitter' not a 'splittist'.A splitter was second only in the lexicon of abuse to a 'grass' who was someone who had got a fellow pupil into trouble with a teacher. As you can imagine a grass was guilty of a fairly heinous offence and his life would probably be made a misery for a while. A mere splitter was often forgiven after a punch on the nose.

[Denis Cooper]

"By openly making a strong commitment to the public services before promising tax cuts ... " - and by openly admitting that because it had put European politics ahead of sound economics, the Major government had left public services in an under-funded and shambolic state which needed to be rectified.

[David Belchamber]

"...but they should still talk about inneffiency and waste and failure, and hold the govt to account. The message will be clear, the tories are better managers and less wasteful than labour because they are more competant".

Will @ 11.25, we have numerous examples to demonstrate the truth of your first sentence. Can anyone produce any examples to satisfy us as to the truth of the second?

[Prodicus]

Biggest difference between Cameron and Blair is that Cameron's honest. I think the electorate may have spotted this.

[Denis Cooper]

Or maybe the biggest difference between Cameron and Blair is that the electorate hasn't yet spotted that beneath the spin and the smarm they're much the same.

[tapestry]

If Cameron's honest, Hague's not to be trusted.

[Winnifred G Nutt]

"You can't fatten a pig on market day."

No indeed. We need to be honest and forthright with the voters and state loud and clear that we will put tax cuts before public services.

Messing about with 'efficiency savings' isn't exactly going to set the world alight is it?

That's why we should announce that a Conservative Government would abolish the NHS and use the savings to reduce the top rate of income tax below the bottom rate.

That should get the message across. But alas we can hardly expect such clarity from mealy-mouthed Mr Cameron.

[Derek]

What happened to the James report. That thorough and expensive document produced by the Party? Have the leadership now decided that James got it wrong, or is this another area alongside the EU and immigration, where we are now keeping our heads down. Publicly I try to defend our leaders and Built to Last, but it is becoming a struggle.

[Oberon Houston]

This seems to me to be a no-brainer. We must not allow Labour to continue to propagate the fear in people that we don't care about ordinary folks and simply want to cut taxes to benefit the rich at the expense of public services. Labour have been so effective on this that we would be made to open this up again after all the great work Cameron has done to close it down.

I am not talking about the debate over whether reduced taxation is good or not, I think we just need to be sensitive to the politics of this debate and show some tact for a change. There is a very big difference between policy debate (internal), and political expediency. For two long too many people in the party have not recognised that there is a difference and foamed at the mouth to the electorate and scared the witless. Egged on by geering gleefull Labour politicians all the way into the bear pit. Now, I think the leadership are fully aware of these issues, but there are many 'old sticks' in the party who have only one tune to dance to, we need to lock them away from the public!

[James Sproule]

The assertion that public services were “under funded” in 1997 simply does not bear economic scrutiny. To justify being under-funded, we would have to know what “properly funded” would have been. To Blair, “proper funding” was simply raising the UK spending on health to the EU average, he did not care about outcomes, only inputs. Depressingly, we were too demoralised and discredited to effectively raise any questions as to what the Government was doing. No business could ever present itself to investors with what amounted to a demand for a pay rise and no promise of reform, but that is what we as a country accepted in 1997.

We now know that much of the extra spending since 1997 has been wasted, but equally we have to acknowledge, it will be extremely hard to recoup it (as this would entail either impossible pay cuts, or highly desirable, but politically difficult cutting of state sector workforce). Where to from here? Well castigating the TaxPayersAlliance (remember candidates, we were forced to disassociate ourselves from the TPA in the run up to the last election) seems a bit excessive. The TPA represents a broad strand of conservatism every bit (or more) legitimate as the Countryside Alliance. If the present leadership wishes to be cautious, fine, but at least quietly encourage others to test the water on our behalf.

Longer term we can (and must) win the argument for lower taxes. We should not be discouraged as we are pushing on an open door and campaigns such as ‘saving the pound’ showed what an effective campaign from the opposition (and our friends) can do. If the solution is getting creative about where we might find the money to afford such a desirable outcome, well then, like any business facing a crisis, we must get thinking.

[Mark Fulford]

James, to have an argument about tax cuts you need to find somebody who wants to pay more.

The only question that needs answering is how to deliver tax cuts. At the moment we haven't got an answer so, as you say, we could do with some creative thinking...

[Denis Cooper]

James, there's no doubt that as they were then structured public services had been underfunded for some years prior to 1997, owing to the exigencies of the economy and the mounting national debt, and that therefore a catch-up period was necessary and over-due. The fact that Blair cared more about being able to boast about inputs rather than outcomes doesn't alter that.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, Malcolm and Oberon, you make good points but I only wish I had your faith in politicians....especially Tory politicians of a patrician stripe such as Ken Clarke or David Cameron. I don't. They have "form" as Sean Fear puts it so well. IF UKIP can present a genuine alternative on this, then good luck to them. It would make a change from the three main parties constantly cross-dressing and ducking challenging issues in challenging terms.

I also don't believe that you can promise one thing out of office and then do another in office. Labour will be quick enough to paint you as both dishonest and a "wolf in sheep's clothing". The strategic logic of keeping your head down and not raising the tax cutting issue at all is that you must keep on keeping your head down....even if and when you win office. After all, the left aren't going to drop their mantra that tax cuts means cuts in frontline services simply because you are in office. Quite the reverse, especially as any Tory Government in the foreseeable future is unlikely to have a large majority.

If you want to challenge the left, then you have to change the terms of the debate. All the raw material you need is available on the website of the "extremely right wing" Reform think tank (former director Nick Herbert MP). Problem is that, although the pretend otherwise, most Tory MPs don't want to change the terms of the debate because they are very comfortable with the status quo, as Sean Fear rightly points out.

[TaxCutter]

If Cameron is honest why is the party still in the EPP?

The truth is that Dave is increasingly an irrelevance. The wider party and the educated public accept the cases for tax cuts, DD sets the tone for law and order, the A list got ignored, and people laugh at his windmill and holidays to India.

The blog-driven Conservative party is ignoring Dave and determining its own agenda and that definitely means cutting taxes.

[Tongerai Sabaku]

Look, as the middle classes see the value of their earnings - and assets, particularly houses - rising faster than both the level of inflation and tax increases, we can never win hearts and minds on tax cuts. Public services come first - that's where we need to fight.

The fact that we are now suggesting raising tax thresholds to the principal benefit of the most well-off is laughable.

[Simon Chapman]

The comments above about inputs, outputs & outcomes are very important. In the voluntary sector whenever we approach grantmakers to seek funding their primary interest is in outcomes - the difference that their grant will make to the problem it's intended to address (they are of course also interested to ensure our budget is reasonable and realistic).

As a party we should be making much more of this, and framing the terms of public spending & public service reform debate much more in terms of outcomes than we are currently managing to. At the moment, when we talk about maintaining growth in the public sector, it's solely in terms of inputs - which is Gordon Brown's approach. It would be more effective to start talking about how we will produce significant growth in output, and better still, outcomes. Apart from anything else, human-scale stories about outcomes are much more persuasive than Brown droning on about all the Billions he has wasted.

[tpa-answers-fink again]

the TPA has now answered DF's answer to the tpa's post on his original article - their argument is convincing...

Tim whjat do you think on this debate...??

[Mark Fulford]

I also don't believe that you can promise one thing out of office and then do another in office.

Michael, I'm suggesting precisely the opposite. We shouldn't talk about tax cuts until we can deliver them without borrowing or cutting service. i.e. Don't make promises you can't keep.

If Cameron is honest why is the party still in the EPP?

To gain support, Cameron took a calculated risk that he would be able to deliver on his EPP promise. Unfortunately he underestimated Angela Merkel’s desire to thwart him and her influence. The lesson is that politicians should have a bullet-proof plan before making promises. And yet here’s a whole bunch of people wanting him to promise tax cuts, which are far harder to deliver!

[Chad]

The key point is that taxcutters should no longer pin their hopes on the Tory Party as it has chosen a new path which it is perfectly entitled to do.

With UKIP soon to assume the "low tax" domestic political role, we'll have greater choice and we'll be able to see how the electorate responds.

That seems reasonable and democratic to me.

[Tongerai Sabaku]

I do not know where this simplistic argument that we should focus on 'outcomes' because Labour doesn't comes from. Labour have introduced many outcomes-driven principles into public service delivery - they are called targets! Also, in PFI contracts, providers are paid precisely in terms of outcomes. The real problem is about process: procurement, contracting out deals etc. Pretending that Brown is deliberately 'wasting billions' of taxpayers' money is totally unpursuasive. We still need to satisfy the electorate that we are committed to protecting and strengthening the public services they cherish, because at the moment we aren't trusted on this.

[TomTom]

Look, as the middle classes see the value of their earnings - and assets, particularly houses - rising faster than both the level of inflation and tax increases, we can never win hearts and minds on tax cuts

Yes but their debt is increasingly rapidly too...........inflation in house prices is how the excess liquidity is being soaked up. In time all prices will rise as suppressed inflation breaks cover

[Tongerai Sabaku]

Exactly my point Tom Tom - the current climate is no way near right for a tax cutting agenda and does not look likely to be for some while yet. The electorate are not a group of economic forecasters and unfortunately this is something Brown understands, unlike the taxcutters amonst us. It's pragmatic politics that succeed in times such as these. Ideologues continually say we fail to win the argument because we're not 'making the case' properly - it's actually that nobody's listening to you.

[Chad]

"the current climate is no way near right for a tax cutting agenda and does not look likely to be for some while yet. "

Well, let's ask the people who are struggling to pay their monthly bills who face higher mortgage repayments as rates start to rise without the prospect of being able to borrow more as a result of stagnant or falling prices whether they would like some more of their own money back to stop them from drowning.

Taxes are too high.

It is our money and we want it back as for much, we believe we will spend our own money more wisely than politicians.

[Mike Broadbridge]

It certainly IS our money Chad.

I'd like to know the source of this "received opinion" that tax cuts are unpopular.

They aren't. Everybody benefits.

[Tongerai Sabaku]

Of course it isn't that tax cuts aren't popular - it's about how are they paid for. Labour trounced us at the election for this, saying our cuts had to come from cuts in public spending, which they did. In the present climate, most people prioritise public services, esp education & health, whether they use public provision or not, over a penny here or there off the tax bill. Go have a look on any pollster website - public services and national security are uppermost on the list. We need to be pragmatic about capturing people's priorities.

[Chad]

" Go have a look on any pollster website -"
I'm sure that this is more a result of no party (rather than a few individuals within it) passionately making the case for tax cuts and thus seeking to change opinion, not float on it.

Once we have UKIP making the case for loe taxes, I'm sure it will lead a change in public opinion.

However, we don't need to hypothesise as soon we will be able to see what happens for real!

[Mike Broadbridge]

No. We need to promote conservative principles. They stood us in good stead at election after election and will do so again.

The fact that we're now leading in the polls proves that this assertion is nonsense. Anyway, many of the target voters we're capturing barely use public services.

Lbour started to beat us because we gained a reputation for incompetence and sleaze. That's Labour's reputation now and we need to capitalise on our success by forging forward with the tax-cutting policies the nation expects.

[Yet Another Anon]

It is hard not to when the title of the thread is about filling the low-taxation vacuum as the conclusion that it will be filled by the TPA is wrong, imho.
Unless they launched an armed struggle, formed a party to stand at elections or forged a strong alliance with another party it would be hard to see how directly they could change things, as a lobby group they can hope to influence major parties (and minor parties and Independents although they could be a slow track to power, UKIP certainly is the largest of the Other parties).

[Denis Cooper]

"... many of the target voters we're capturing barely use public services ..."

The logical conclusion being that they might as well be shut down altogether, given that the people who do use them are unlikely to vote Tory. Anyway that would save money, and as we know everybody benefits from tax cuts.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, good point but in some ways, I think you are being too honest. Isn't it the case that Labour and the Lib Dems (just like our good friend Jack Stone??) will ALWAYS characterise ANY reduction in taxes as a reduction in services? For these people, high taxes are an end in themselves, not a means to an end and in a sense they are right: the money isn't literally tipped down the drain even if it doesn't deliver value. You can only counter these inevitable slurs if you have prepared the ground....and that takes a coherent message reiterated over years using every means of publicity possible: a task which the Tory Party has not even begun even though Reform has done all the spadework for them. Contrast Tory ineptitude and indolence with the effectiveness of the No campaign against the Euro, in the teeth of a Government PR offensive backed by the Lib Dems, the EU, many businessmen and the usual Tory culprits.

[Sean Fear]

"Contrast Tory ineptitude and indolence with the effectiveness of the No campaign against the Euro, in the teeth of a Government PR offensive backed by the Lib Dems, the EU, many businessmen and the usual Tory culprits. "

And indeed, the campaign against regional assemblies.

Like you, I don't see how it will be possible for a Tory government to reduce levels of taxation, unless it has put the case for it beforehand. A Conservative government that broadly accepts left wing arguments in opposition (public spending is investment, tax cuts mean cuts in Schools 'n' Hospitals) will find itself highly constrained in government.

[Tired and emotional]

The argument I think is that the ground can only be prepared in office.

[TomTom]

most people prioritise public services, esp education & health, whether they use public provision or not, over a penny here or there off the tax bill.

but they resent Council Taxes which are regressive with houses in the £500k + bracket paying modest sums compared to average homes.

The Student Tuition Tax is another, the Prescription Tax of £10 per item gross; the Pension Tax; the Inheritance Tax expropriating homes; the silly calculation whereby Tax Credits ie Benefots are classed as a "tax reduction"

[Michael McGowan]

The argument that the ground can only be prepared in office has no basis. I refer again to the No Campaign against the Euro and the Campaign against Regional Assemblies, both run against a strong Government with a huge majority, highish pollratings and a PR machine which was only too willing to deploy the usual smears of racism and xenophobia. In any case, once in office, the usual pressure of "events dear boy events" is only too likely to deflect a Government with no sense of purpose.

[Will T Power aka The Orator]

["...but they should still talk about inneffiency and waste and failure, and hold the govt to account. The message will be clear, the tories are better managers and less wasteful than labour because they are more competant".

Will @ 11.25, we have numerous examples to demonstrate the truth of your first sentence. Can anyone produce any examples to satisfy us as to the truth of the second?]

David @ 12.31: I needed to quote your quote in order to reply to this. On this point what I'm saying is that the government is being successfully portrayed as totally incompetant on immigration, foreign crims etc by the right-ish newspapers, the real opposition. It would be pretty darn hard to appear MORE incompetant than they are seen to be. I refer you to my third sentence:

"An orang-utan armed only with headlines from The Sun could make this argument stick in the present climate."

[Monday Clubber]

"Like you, I don't see how it will be possible for a Tory government to reduce levels of taxation, unless it has put the case for it beforehand."

100% correct Sean. We need to be making that case now.

Reading some of the euphoria (on another thread) currently greeting Labour's troubles I feel that more than ever there is a need for grown-up politics in the Conservative Party, and that means POLICIES.

Many of the lightweight element do not seem to appreciate how tightly our present popularity is tied in with the complete collapse of Blair's reputation. He'll be gone before long and that's when Cameron will be truly tested.

We have to put country before party - every time.

[Michael McGowan]

Of course...that is the only principled and honest approach. I see that Cameron has now attacked globalisation and said that it, not immigration, is the cause of low wages. This is of course economic nonsense: they are both two sides of the same coin and globalisation is the one thing that offers the undeveloped world a real chance of prosperity.....not the kind of aid projects favoured by Bob geldof and the left.

In any case, what is Cameron proposing as an alternative? Reopening the mines? Victorian protectionism where third world imports are suppressed to preserve British jobs?

In one sense he is right because many jobs which have been done in this country can now be offshored very cheaply, especially as India and China produce more and more highly-qualified English-speaking graduates. All of this should be a wake-up call to a serious opposition which should be demanding serious reform of the education system so that our children are equipped to compete in a global economy. Instead of which.....

[TomTom]

said that it, not immigration, is the cause of low wages. This is of course economic nonsense:

I'd love to know who tutored him, but he probably only took Philosophy & Politics at Finals.........this refutation of Supply & Demand shows why he had to work in PR rather than Finance.

Why is the Govt refusing to renew work permits of foreign nurses ? Because they have 80% unemployment among new British nursing graduates.

Why do so many people enter Britain......they are being recruited by private recruiting firms to undercut the minimum wage

[Mike Broadbridge]

Immigration and globalisation are two sides of the same pernicious coin.

Both are bad for Britain's small businessmen. It's time we Tories took a leaf out of the book of the late M.Poujade and stood up for struggling small businesses against faceless corporations.

For every enlightened ASDA there are umpteen unenlightened conglomerates, and it's unlikely that the Chinese and Indian giants of the future will share the "ethical" values that have become increasingly important in the west in recent years.

[Alexander Drake]

The argument that the ground can only be prepared in office has no basis. I refer again to the No Campaign against the Euro and the Campaign against Regional Assemblies, both run against a strong Government with a huge majority, highish pollratings and a PR machine which was only too willing to deploy the usual smears of racism and xenophobia. In any case, once in office, the usual pressure of "events dear boy events" is only too likely to deflect a Government with no sense of purpose.

But Michael didn't those campaigns enjoy some (small) support from within the "huge majority" of the Government? It wasn't a straight us:them thing. It's also worth reflecting on the Countryside Alliance's (sadly unsuccessful) campaign to protect foxhunting, against the same government - a government that was far more passionate internally about that issue than regional assemblies!

Moreover, you're right that those campaigns enjoyed success while the Conservatives were in opposition, but they were single-issue campaigns without political baggage in the same way that the Conservative Party has with much of the electorate's mind when it comes to tax.

I suggest the Cameron Government (I like those words together) would be smart to play its hand like this once in power:
1. Check the books;
2. Come clean with the punters on how bad Labour's stewardship has been, with examples that one can only provide when one has run of the books;
3. Map out the strategy to fix this via reforms such as tax reform (don't use 'cuts');
4. Use incumbency to map out a three-four de facto campaign plan to turn Conservative views on taxation reform from being a 'negative', excessively 'Right-wing' attribute to a positive for both the Country and the Party.

With a plan like this you woudln't have to worry about 'events' sidetracking the Cameron Government too much - although politics is a pretty reactive contact sport, is it not?

[Chad]

"don't use 'cuts'"

As a keen fan of Lakhoff and generally using "tax relief", I've got to say, that I think it is now time to start saying it how it really is.

If you want tax cuts, just say so and argue your case.

If you can't or do not want to argue the case for tax cuts, then, fine, that's your choice, but don't expect a subtle nudge and a wink, or ambiguous phrase to carry the low-taxers along with you as soon you will be competing with a "does what it says on the tin" approach.

I don't want a nudge and a wink, I want a party to passionately argue the case for tax cuts.

I understand that is not the Tory Party now, which is fine, but there needs to be a reality check with some here who think the party will still be able to count of the support of the low-taxers.

[Alexander Drake]

No one said building an electoral coalition to secure a change of government was easy, Chad...

[Mike Broadbridge]

I suggest the Cameron Government (I like those words together)

I may like it well enough if it happens.

Taking it for granted now is sheer hubris.

Does it not occur to you, Mr Drake, that this kind of arrogance was one of the reasons which brought about the current demise of the last Conservative government?

It has also done for Blair. His arrogance when he returned from holiday helped precipitate his present crisis.

Returning to the main point of the discussion we are a party of low tax or we are nothing. At present we have no policies worth the name. Our current success may prove to be a bubble, partly propelled by our own new face at the top but mainly brought about by Blair's problems.

Soon he will be gone. Our fox will have been shot.

I want to see an end to New Labour and a Conservative Government , but I want to be certain that there is clear blue water between the two.

At present that is by no means certain.

[Mike Broadbridge]

Chad. I gather you are a former Tory who defected to UKIP. Is that correct?

Rather a loss to us I would say if the good sense I've been reading in your posts is anything to go by.

[Chad]

Hi Mike,
That's right, but I certainly don't see the need for hostility between the two.

The centre-right should be focussed on battling the left, not each other.

I'm in a different party, UKIP, and that party is going to be pushing a clear domestic low tax, small government agenda which many conservatives will agree with.

It's not us versus you, it's Centre-Right values versus left and I want the c-r to be proud to state its case, not let the left set the terms of the debate.

[Jon Gale]

Michael McGowan,

"In any case, what is Cameron proposing as an alternative? Reopening the mines? Victorian protectionism where third world imports are suppressed to preserve British jobs?"

Well we could trying reading what he said:

"In a recent speech in California, Tony Blair made an important point about globalisation which I very much agree with. He said:

"The response to globalisation can be free trade, open markets, investment in the means of competition: education, science, technology. Or it can be protectionism: tariffs, tight market regulations, resistance to foreign takeovers".

He defined a choice between the first option which he called an open economy and the second option, a closed economy.

Faced with that choice, the only option is indeed an open economy in an open society...

...It is also our responsibility to tell not just the truth about the open economy - that it is the best way to prosper in the globalised world.

We must tell the whole truth - that globalisation has losers as well as winners, and that open economies must be matched by strong societies...

...So we can't just celebrate the benefits of globalisation.

We must also be honest about its costs, because the alternative is that people project their fears and anxieties on to other ethnic groups or other countries.

For example, sometimes blame is placed on immigrants who are thought to drive down the wages of those with fewer skills.

But globalisation drives down those wages even without immigration.

We cannot have it both ways.

We can't argue that globalisation is a massive transforming force, but then pretend that the transformation is always and in every way benign.

We must recognise our moral obligation to the people and the places left behind."

[Mike Broadbridge]

Thanks for acting as Cameron's megaphone.

Cameron describes the problem. It seems to me that he is offering no solution whatsoever.

Chad. Completely agree. I must admit I did vote UKIP in the Euro election and may well do so again.

[Jonathan M Scott]

we need to put economic stability before short-term tax cuts

and then and only then can we tackle this issue.

But if we give Labour "tax cuts/public service cuts" on a plate it will be one heckuvan own goal that could, John-Smith-Shadow-Budget-like, cost us the next general election.