That's a porky pie, Mr Osborne

Dominic Lawson, former Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, has written an excellent article in this morning's Independent in favour of Lord Forsyth's Tax Reform Commission.  It's behind the Indy's subscription wall so you'll have to buy a copy of the newspaper to read Mr Lawson's whole argument.

Before the article gets to the Tax Commission Mr Lawson pens these telling few paragraphs on the way in which the Tory leadership is misrepresenting Margaret Thatcher's 1979 manifesto:

"In his characteristically good-humoured way George Osborne recently chided me for something I wrote about him in this column. I had argued that he was talking nonsense when he claimed that Margaret Thatcher "did not promise tax cuts" in the 1979 election manifesto. The shadow Chancellor insisted that there had indeed been no cast-iron pledge to cut the overall tax burden in Thatcher's first manifesto as Conservative leader, and that he had considered asking Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson to back him up on this.

So in the same friendly spirit I now draw George's attention to the following letter in the most recent issue of The Spectator: "Pressed to promise tax cuts during the recent Conservative Party Conference, both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were anxious to point out that Margaret Thatcher didn't promise tax cuts in 1979. What the 1979 Conservative Manifesto actually said was 'We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success.' I hope we can now take it that the same non-promise will feature in the next Conservative manifesto. Yours sincerely, Nigel Lawson."

Nevertheless, George Osborne, David Cameron and Francis Maude, the Tory party chairman, have continued, if only in this matter, to follow Josef Goebbels' dictum that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

This particular porky is not for the benefit of the people as a whole. It is designed only to appease traditional Conservatives who have grown increasingly restless at the absence of any tax-cutting agenda on the part of the new leadership of their party; but such Tories would need to be not so much traditional as senile, to fall for this peculiarly shameless rewriting of history."

There are two other articles on tax that make it worth your while buying The Independent.

First is Jeremy Warner's piece noting that the parties are becoming very difficult to differentiate on tax:

"If tax is no longer a defining political issue, you have to wonder what is. Competence, I guess, is what it now comes down to. Which party and which leader does the electorate most trust to run the country competently? It is hardly an alluring choice."

Second is former Tory MP Michael Brown's warning:

"But the question is not whether the country can afford tax cuts. The country can no longer afford to pay the taxes demanded by government from the population. Britain's tax burden is growing faster than that of any other European country, with middle-class taxpayers working nearly half the year for the state. Failure to reduce, simplify and make fairer the burden and collection of taxes is actually reducing economic activity, lowering economic growth - and even reducing the total amount of revenue collected." 

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

As soon as she became leader Mrs T (no, the original one) went out of her way to argue the case for lower taxes- in her Conference speech in 1975 she said "Let me give you my vision: a man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as servant and not as master"

Nobody was ever in any doubt about her intentions.

[Stuart Raven]

Some very cutting (Ha!Ha!) remarks there.

And much good sense was also talked on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon by Lord (Nigel) Lawson.

The Cameron/Osborne duo (+Maude) seem to think everybody's out of step except them. It's time they came to their senses and had the humility to accept, not only that they're outvoted and outgunned, but they're just plain wrong.

Otherwise, I fear the results will be dire indeed.

[Deputy Editor]

There's a photocopy of that paragraph of the 79 manifesto on LibDem Voice.

[Chad]

The title should be "That's a lie, Mr Osborne." as there is nothing funny about the official opposition being caught out by their own side deliberately lying to the public.

[William Norton]

I thought we'd knocked this one on the head months ago:
previous manifesto commitments

[Chad]

Cheer up though, let's make today a positive day for Britain.

Tear up your tax'n'spend Tory membership card and come and join UKIP.

* The Low tax party
* pro selection in schools
* education vouchers
* medical insurance to really solve the health issue and breed self-responsibility
* small government
* controlled immigration
* oppose extension to state funding of political parties
* International vision beyond regionalist clubs like the EU that keep Africa poor,

If you vote for values not a rosette then clicking here will help deliver the policies you believe in.

[Sean]

I wonder if George Osborne is trying to follow the lead of Australian Treasurer Peter Costello in the preceeding years before entering Government? Promise stability and economic growth and in the first budget eliminate the structural deficit to create a balanced budget.

Then again, that would take guts and conviction.

[James Maskell]

William, some people like to have selective vision and spout the same old rubbish even though we know its complete bollocks.

The reason why Mr/s Average Brit accept this rubbish is because they are in the main not political junkies like you or I, or like the other frewuenters of this site. Therefore they wont be aware that until December last year we believed in tax cuts... They read what comes in the newspapers, and the only things that appear in the papers are the quotes from GO and DC. And the leaders of the Party would never lie to the British Public in exchange for the keys to power now would they?

[Stephan Shakespeare]

"If tax is no longer a defining political issue, you have to wonder what is."

Before the last general election Tim Montgomerie organised a series of meetings in which various types of 'moderniser' were brought together. In one such discussion, I argued that democracy requires contending parties to offer differing accounts of the key issues, and differing solutions, otherwise the voter has no real choice.

Some of those present - now highly influential in Cameron's circle - ridiculed my argument as if I had meant that a policy against crime would therefore have to be countered by a policy in favour of crime.

But I think my contention is proving right: voters are turned off by too much similarity of view, which diminishes democracy to nothing more than the choice between a one bunch of careerists and another. Why should people care if Gordon or David gets the job they really want if it makes no real difference to the future of this country?

If there are no real choices - between different solutions to crime, different approaches to economic management, different visions of a harmonious society - then what is the point of politics? You might as well leave the choice of Prime Minister to a selection panel of wise old judges, or indeed to a reality tv programme.

If our leading politicians refuse to come up with dynamic alternatives to the big questions of the day, then we are disenfranchised.

I wouldn't be quite so annoyed if our political system allowed for the creation of new political parties, if it gave platforms to new voices, and didn't so heavily advantage incumbents. It is noteworthy in this context that both Labour and the Conservatives are seeking to further entrench incumbency by proposing increased state funding for their job-quests.

In a healthy society, there is a tension between different points of view, a battle of ideas that makes it more likely the bad will lose and the good will win. A healthy political party would have a thirst for that battle, not an enduring fear.

[Chad]

I agree 100% Stephan and if you listened to Nigel on the James Whale show last night, or on Sunday AM, you will see that he has something that cosy Westminster establishment of Brown, Cameron, and Ming do not; he sounds pissed off and ready to fight.

He's far from perfect, but he is honest, has good values and is seeking to fight for real opposition.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I have skim read TRC report, and some of it seems fair enough, but some of it shows a complete lack of thought or understanding.

Twenty experts battled over this for a year, and to be honest I prefer the UKIP tax manifesto. Which took one bloke about three months to write.

[Chris Mclaughlin]

We all want our money back.The state should take no more than 25% of our money.

It is not the place of the state to run our lives.Why is the Party trying to go Vegan when the country wants red-meat.

There is nothing immoral about wanting to take responsibility for your own life and there is nothing morally repugnant about tax cuts for all. Central office needs to read its Hayek rather than Marx.

[sjm]

What is so difficult for the Shadow Cabinet to understand?

You just stand up and say:

"When in power, we will abolish the following 175 quangos, saving £X00000, we will abolish the following 10 govt depts, saving £X0000000, we will abolish the Arts Council, saving £X0000000, we will privatise the BBC, saving £X000000000000 etc.

By making these savings, we will be able to cut some taxes and still spend sensible amounts on Health, Education and Defence."

There you are, next Tory manifesto, and it's free of charge too.

[Old Hack]

What saddens me is that Labour is so discredited that we could make plain our intention to prudently reduce the overall tax burden and easily defend our position against a lame duck government that is seen as deceiptful and incompetent.

We have all to play for but we are too shit scared to take the field.

It's either that or Cameron and Osborne are actually playing for the high tax team.

[David Boothroyd]

The idea that taxation in Britain is running at an unsustainably high level is plainly a ludicrous one. The economy is hardly starved of investment and there is more than enough loose money in the consumer sector to start everyone worrying about inflation (interest rates likely to go up by 0.25% at the next MPC meeting). Moreover the present level of taxation is hardly high in historical terms - it was much higher during the first two Thatcher terms in the early 1980s.

I don't see the fundamental difference between proposing large tax cuts to be funded over the course of a Parliament by economic growth, and proposing large scale extra spending to be funded over the course of a Parliament by economic growth. However, the Labour Party was crucified by the Conservatives at the 1992 election for promising the latter. How are the Conservatives now going to get around the problem of appearing to promise 'free' (in the sense of there being no corresponding spending cuts) tax reductions?

[Grand Central]

sjm - that is exactly the approach taken in 2005 - protect certain departments, but spend less than Labour overall by cutting waste and therefore cut taxes.

It wasn't believed then and there's no reason to think it will be believed in the future. It's not that people don't believe government wastes a lot of money, they just don't think that any other group of politicians would waste less.

[Mark Wadsworth]

sjm, brilliant! Get it emailed off to CCHQ pronto! Does anybody think that sjm has missed anything important?

[Chad]

"Does anybody think that sjm has missed anything important?"

Yes. He's sending the email to the wrong party.

He might as well bang his head against a wall.

[James Cleverly]

I have to disagree with the fundamental premise of this article. A promise to cut income tax at every level is not the same as a promise to cut the overall tax burden.

In the 1979 manifesto income tax was going to be cut but VAT extended. That manifesto was about shifting what was taxed, moving away from taxing work and towards taxing spending. GO & DC have already said that they will cut taxes in some areas (stamp duty and family related taxes) and balance that with tax increases in others (green taxes).

We have already seen the Mail (not a left wing paper the last time I looked) describe the Forsyth report as “Tory team’s blueprint for £21bn of cuts. Until the argument has matured you can hardly blame the leadership team for treading carefully.

And before accusing me of not understanding that lower taxes boost the economy, I am well aware that they do that is why I am a Conservative. But please remember we need to win over the people who do not yet believe that, just as Maggie did in 1979.

[Graham D'Amiral]

I don't think George Osborne has ever claimed the 1979 manifesto didn't promise tax cuts, what he did was quote Margaret Thatcher when she pledged that she wouldn't be prepared to continue with tax reductions if they meant unsound finances.

It's that key point of sound money that is guiding our policy, we believe in low taxation there is nobody in the party who is making the case for a high tax economy, but what we aren't going to do is make unfunded pledges to cut tax designed to grab a few headlines, that would be irresponsible. People I believe do want lower taxes but they also want the reassurance that they won't come at the expense of the stability of the economy or be funded by slashing investment in public services.

We aren't going to repeat the mistake of the last two elections where we saw a programme of tax cuts as a substitute for a coherent and well thought through economic policy. Just look at the way Ed Balls jumped all over the tax commission report, the best christmas present we could give Gordon Brown is a foolish commitment to upfront and unfunded tax cuts.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Grand Central - of course people don't trust politicians.

But there's nothing like reminding the voters of a couple of hard facts, e.g. Government spending 97-98 £323bn.
Projected government spending 07-08 £583 bn.
That's an 80% increase or 45% after inflation. Or an increase in spending (and tax) per person from £5,300 to £9,700.

£9,700 per person per year is a heck of a lot of money. Voters like me who struggle to imagine what they spend £9,700 on, per person, per year, are voters who might seriously consider not voting Labour.

[George Hinton]

No tax cuts, no votes, no tory government.
It's very simple.
If Dave wants to form the next government and go to Buck Palace then he must bring in an agenda which includes tax reform, and some measure of reducing public sector spending.
If he really wants to get in, then promising a referendum on continuing EU membership will guarantee victory and ensure that no votes are lost to UKIP.

[Arthur Crawford]

Stephan - you ARE being ridiculous. Parties should state what they believe - not the opposite of what 'the other lot' are saying.

Of course, there is a serious problem with our democracy in that the general public cannot get the political outcomes they want on an issue-by-issue basis.

The solution is the one put forward by Saira Khan's excellent Your Say organisation - direct democracy.

[The Orator]

Right! I'm sick of this. You all sound like a bunch of anti-war journalists that think that the more you go on about something the more likely the person with legitimate political power is going to cave in. TB has proved that you can endure this kind of badgering forever. He is also DC's hero so you know what to expect on the issue of tax.

To get this point across someone is gonna have to sacrifice themselves. Someone big. DC would welcome the decision of people like Tebbit to leave the party, but if it opened the floodgates to the exit of many of the grassroots members - and, more to the the point, drew press attention to the exodus that I believe is already underway then Cameron's position would be weakened. I know that will reduce the chances of winning the next election still further but let's face it, a Conservative victory would not help the country if this is the direction the party is going in. Davis was right to say that if we aren't in it for the country we dont deserve to win as a party.

It's time to put up or shut up for the right-wing of the Tory party. I'm right-wing, I'm proud to say so, and I'm outta here.

[Og]

Yes, Graham D'Amiral, I saw "the way Ed Balls jumped all over the tax commission report". He was still jumping up and down a day later, like a man with St Vitus' Dance.
He was gibbering like a fool and being completely disingenuous, saying over and over that it was Tory policy, rather than the report of a commission set up by the last Conservative leader. He could barely string a coherent sentence together and did his party and his master no service at all.

The failure of Cameron and Osborne to have the courage of their (long-held) economic conviction is deeply dispiriting, and in my darker moments I hold them in contempt for their spinelessness.

To use the reaction of Balls to the tax commission as a reason to support the current Tory economic approach is preposterous.

[Andrew Woodman]

Over 70% of our laws coming from the EU is the problem with democracy and why people feel there vote means less and less. Although Saira Khan's campiagn is admirable, it's pointless while we remain in the EU.

Portillo told it the way it is on This Week last night. While the public fail to grasp that reduce tax-more wealth creation-more money for public services, we're beating our head against a brick wall because Labour will just send out people like Balls to say the Tories will chuck your dying grandmother out of hospital. It's a major problem we face, and while no one makes the economic argument for tax cuts, one we will continue to face.

[tory tax cutter]

James Cleverly and Graham D'Amiral have the same sheep-like attitude to the current party leadership that got us a leader who does not agree with Conservative Party members about taxes in the first place.

Mr Cleverly: Osborne didn't merely claim that the party in 1979 didn't promise to cut the overall tax burden. He went further, saying we didn't promise tax cuts.

Mr D'Amiral: Osborne has precisely said that the 1979 manifesto didn't promise tax cuts, not simply that tax cuts could not be undertaken if they meant "unsound" finance.

Let's wake up to the reality that we have a politically inexperienced Shadow Chancellor and Party Chairman who revealed their contempt for the party members and Tory voters to whom they spun this untruth:

George Osborne said:

"The Conservatives did not promise tax cuts in the 1979 election and said they had to sort out the public finances first."

Francis Maude said:

"If you look back to the Thatcher years, she never fought an election with a commitment to tax cuts. You will look in vain through three Thatcher manifestos for any commitment to cut taxes."

These were not off-the-cuff remarks but said during organized interviews with senior, respected journalists.

[Chad]

"and while no one makes the economic argument for tax cuts, "

The TPA are.

UKIP are.

Lord Forsyth is.

It's just the Cameroons who aren't.

[James Cleverly]

David Davis (who I supported in the leadership race) promised large tax cuts if he became leader. The majority of the party didn't vote for him.

David Cameron made it clear that he would "share the proceeds of growth". If a promise of tax cuts wasn’t enough to swing an election within the Conservative party why do we believe that it will swing an election across the whole country?

PS

Tory Tax Cutter (not your real name I hope) I am no sheep.

[tory tax cutter]

"Tory Tax Cutter (not your real name I hope) I am no sheep."

But apparently incapable of admitting your mistake.

It isn't the case that Domonic Lawson is confusing a promise to cut income tax at every level with a promise to cut the overall tax burden, as you earlier claimed.

Domonic Lawson, supported by his father who was Thatcher's Chancellor from 1983 to 1989, correctly points out that Osborne falsely claimed that the Tories did not promise to cut income tax at every level rather than merely claiming that they did not promise to cut the overall tax burden.

[Mike Christie]

"If a promise of tax cuts wasn’t enough to swing an election within the Conservative party why do we believe that it will swing an election across the whole country?"

Indeed! As I posted yesterday, I voted for Cameron in large part because I found the idea of promising quantified tax cuts 4 years in advance to be naive in the extreme.

Cameron staked out his policy clearly and was voted party leader by around 2-1. People voted for different reasons of course, but the man making up-front promises of tax cuts was soundly beaten even amongst the party membership. Doesn't bode well for an General Election.

[Michael McGowan]

There is no point having a substantive debate with CCHO about tax. When the chips are down, Maude, Cameron, Letwin and Osborne, along with many other Tory MPs, are desperate for power at any price. They have been in opposition for nearly a decade and will ditch any ideology that gets in the way of regaining power. If there is a hung parliament, they will seek to do a deal with the Lib Dems which will push them decisively leftwards. They have no idea what to do with power once they have got it, other than to enrich and empower themselves and their friends. This is the ruthless pragmatism which the Tory Party exhibited for most of the twentieth century. The career politicians don't care if in the process they create a third social democrat party because they are not interested in offering the public a real alternative. Having said that, the public doesn't have to vote for them.

[tory tax cutter]

"People voted for different reasons of course, but the man making up-front promises of tax cuts was soundly beaten even amongst the party membership. Doesn't bode well for an General Election."

This misses the point. Osborne and Maude are saying the party did not make "up-front promises of tax cuts" under Thatcher. That was a lie. That lie has now been exposed.

[anon]

Oh look! A squad of "people" from UKIP, claiming to have left the party in disgust, with nothing better to do than tell a (sorry) disinterested world that they've left a winning party and joined a nuthouse. Oh look! Another squad of people squabbling about what was written in the - and this beggars belief - 1979 manifesto. Oh look! Same "argument" repeated ad infinitum that if we only spell out how we'll save untold billions by scrapping the BBC etc then voters will flock to our colours, with the same historical illiteracy being displayed as ever. I can't even be bothered writing "we tried that approach at the last two elections" because I can predict the response "Yes anon," (but said slowly, as though to an idiot who didn't actually experience every election campaign of his adult life in detail), "but we backed away from pushing that agenda far and fast enough, that's why we lost". Others as well will affect mock disgust at my referring to UKIP as a nuthouse ("you find UKIP unpleasant. Actually it's the way you refer to them that *I* find unpleasant", as though I'd get out of bed to have an actual discussion with a UKIPer).

Do go ahead, don't let the sheer predictability of every word you write prevent you from enjoying the venting of your awfully large spleens. Just remember to sign off as Heinz Kiosk.

[tory tax cutter]

"Oh look! Another squad of people squabbling about what was written in the - and this beggars belief - 1979 manifesto."

Er, that would be Osborne and Maude, who brought it up to make false claims about it.

[Michael McGowan]

Presumably "anon" is the pseudonym of Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo?

[Dave B]

Sim said:

"What is so difficult for the Shadow Cabinet to understand?

You just stand up and say:

"When in power, we will abolish the following 175 quangos, saving £X00000, "

This HAS been said, by Caroline Spelman - Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=132610

[Richard Weatherill]

Well, "anon"' I'm completely won over by your cogently argued post. It it's all so "predictable" I'm surprised you bother to read the thread.

Heinz Kiosk

[malcolm]

I'm sure I'm going to regret asking this but who the hell is Heinz Kiosk?

[Given Up]

The hard evidence is there to support Tax cuts, it is not theory.

What Portaloo said last night was terrifying in it's cynicism and terminally crass in it's stupidity. He and by assumption the Modernisers are prepared to lie intellectualy and factualy,just to obtain office in the case of tax cuts.....and now it seems that they are even prepared to lie about a Tory party manifesto.....which leaves them wide open to the question, what else will they lie about.....

As to having a fear of the likes of Naughtie, Humphrys or Dimbleby the easy answer to them, is to throw their hypocracy in their face...... "well of course you like the idea of tax, you earn 1/2 million pounds a year from a punative tax on the poor such as single mothers"......

[Richard Weatherill]

Malcolm - a character that featured in Peter Simple's "Way of the World" column in the Daily Telegraph. If memory serves, he was supposed to be a German psychologist who ended his talks by shouting "We are all guilty!" as his audience ran for the exits.

I'm not sure why "anon" felt him to be an appropriate reference. (I always preferred Alderman Foodbotham myself!)

("Peter Simple" was actually Michael Wharton.)

[Sean Fear]

Anon is our old friend Anonymouse.

Mike Christie is right. The Party voted decisively for a left winger as leader, and they must live with that choice.

[James Maskell]

Its not Anonmouse. Anonmouse accused everyone of being racism Islamophobes...

[James Maskell]

That would be racist Islamophobes...

[malcolm]

Thanks Richard. Heinz sounds like the German student from Harry Enfield.Hilarious!

[Simon Chapman]

The Party is getting into quite a tangle, as Simon Hoggart's piece in the Guardian illustrates (see Homepage for a link).

If we decide not to write the 2010 budget now, which is sensible, that self-discipline must be applied consistently. We cannot commit to tax cuts now - but nor should we commit not to cut them. By saying, as he did yesterday: "We will not be promising reduction in taxation at the election. Any changes in taxes will be revenue neutral", George Osborne was in fact making a start to the 2010 Budget.

This business about re-balancing the tax burden to ease the pressure on families whilst penalising pollution is also something of a tangle. The Evening Standard made the point yesterday that green taxes tend to hit the poor harder than they do the rich - so many lower-paid families might in fact be worse off. The huge hikes on fuel duty that Steve Norris predicted recently are one example. Reportedly, party spokesmen were unable to identify any green taxes that did not have that effect.

Our economic policy rests heavily on the notion of "stability". "Sustainability" would surely be a more useful (and Greener) concept to apply. The big issue we face is whether our current tax burden is any longer sustainable - whether in terms of impact on families, international competition, or however you care to measure it. We cannot now predict that in 2010 the tax burden will be at a sustainable level.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Anon 12.05. You are missing the point.

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. The Tories lost in in 97 on "sleaze" (and Nulab have made them look like choirboys in comparison) and "divisions over the EU" (isn't it worse to have completely ruined a whole country, to wit Iraq?).

"Banging on" about quangoes and stuff is not so much to make the Conservatives look good as to completely discredit Nulab and all their cronies. Who do you think is on all these quangoes at £100k a year for one monthly Board meeting?

[Mike Christie]

"Who do you think is on all these quangoes at £100k a year for one monthly Board meeting"

I'm sure there are plenty of semi-retired Tories boosting their pensions with the odd stint on a Strategic Health Authority board and the like. We need to be careful of the 'they're all as bad as each other' angle.

In our last GE campaign we did a very good job of persuading people not to vote Labour.

If I remember right, less people voted for Tony Blair in 05 than voted for Kinnock in 92.

We just forgot to tell them why they should vote for us instead.

While its fun to bash the opposition (and a bit like shooting fish in a barrel at the moment), we need to concentrate on proving a credible alternative and a positive vision of the future.

[Sun reader]

The Sun put it best.

Why vote Tory?

[ratbag]

WHEN, please, did the Sun say "Why vote Tory?"
- - - - - - - - - -
Today's Cameron article in the Telegraph makes me think he's running a bit scared. His fault was not to have enthusiastically acclaimed "these wonderful tory tax proposals most of which we will work towards implementing as we can" He could THEN have sounded caution about not treating it as a budget blueprint.

The trouble is he gives no impression that he thinks taxes are too high and cutting them is a good idea in itself - let alone a necessary precursor to getting the economy in shape again. He has no concept of economic dynamism and treats the issue as a zero-sum game.

And with his short record he has lost the trust of many core activists. Broken promises don't come cheap

So UKIP it may have to be!!! Anon thinks this is "a winning party" and UKIP "a nuthouse".

1. They have the policy on Europe preferred by most Tories (MORI) and very many Labour and - now it seems - the CBI!!
2. They have tory policies on tax and localism (Chad has written on this)
3. They are hampered by our FPTP electoral system but with abstentions becoming the norm this may no longer apply.
4. They have a very fine dedicated lot of members. Their snag is the dreadful - despicable - leadership. So ????/

Definitely NOT a Nuthouse.

[John Hustings]

What is disappointing is the sheer dishonesty and unscrupulousness of the Tory high command and their followers. Not just in saying things they don't believe, and portraying those who refuse to go along with those lies as extremists, but also in their willingness to rewrite political history, and go along with the BBC/leftist line about the Tories' past.

Watching Michael Gove on Head2Head on the BBC makes me squirm. A so-called Conservative desperate to out-compete Polly Toynbee in slating the Tories' past (racist, xenophobic, homophobic, obsessed with the rich etc), just to make his own boy look good.

This dishonesty will catch up with them eventually, and they will lose many friends and much loyalty from those they're supposed to be able to count on.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Sun Reader you mean the same newspaper that said vote Labour when the tories offered tax cuts in 2001 & 2005.

[conservative activist]

Perhaps because of their political inexperience--only a year and a bit at the frontline of politics--Cameron and Osborne are having trouble connecting with voters on tax.

Another three points on our opinion poll rating is nothing like enough to win a general election--Francis Maude has been honest about that fact at least. This is not to mention how the party has disappointed in by-election performances.

Tony Blair was chosen by the Labour Party in part because of his appeal in the South--where Neil Kinnock and John Smith found it hard to connect. The current leadership has the same problem outside of the South.

It might be better if Cameron and Osborne took a more supportive role behind someone with more experience who has a better read on public opinion and could better connect with the Midlands, North, Scotland and Wales.

FYI The Sun editorialized against the party's tax position yesterday, ending with the comment "Why Vote Tory?"

[Off Message]

I don't think the UKIP people are UKIP voters at all. They are New Labour stooges trying to split the right. If UKIP didn't exist Tony Blair would have invented them.

Splitting the Tories is the one hope of a collapsing Liberal Left establishment to hang on to power. How many of our posters are genuine right wingers (who can't understand the point of compromise) and how many are left-wing trolls I wonder? Do the genuine activists not realise that we have a first past the post system. Voting UKIP is electoral suicide for the right.

If I was a Labour black arts specialist then I would use the more powerful Conservative blogosphere against itself. Stir up the intransigent and set them off on a trip off the cliff.

Just for the record and slow learners: Cameron and Osborne have promised to cut taxes. They are different from Labour who haven't and won't.

Cameron will not make specific up-front promises however because he doesn't know what state the public finances will be in when the election finally comes AND because it offers a political target to Labour that isn't necessary.

But, and it's a big but, as the economy grows Cameron and Osborne are committed to reducing the rate of tax while also investing in public services. Conducted well this sharing of the proceeds will allow a virtuous circle of lower tax rates stimulating greater economic growth which will also produce greater tax take for public services.

So just stay positive, promote the case for lower taxes within and without the Tory Party and make sure everyone realises that David Cameron is our best and only hope. Vote Conservative and don't stop until New Labour is just a nasty memory.

[Mike Christie]

For someone whose handle is 'off message' that was a remarkably on message (and accurate and sensible!) post.

[Ben Redsell]

Yet more rubbish on here from an aggressive rump who have lost all connection to the real world and are desperate for some left wing paper to use their diatribe as 'evidence' that the Tories haven't changed. As someone asked earlier, why are we repeatedly arguing about 1979 (an election a few months before I was born) or the 92/97/01/05 elections? We are in OPPOSITION. We believe in different things to Labour. We cannot do any of the things we want to do whilst in OPPOSITION. Labour is ruining this country, yet a small minority of the Conservative party seems determined to argue that we should change a position that is finally working. Get with the program people. We are winning. If we are ahead in the polls, maybe that is because David Cameron is saying things that the people of Britain want to hear? Had that occured to you? Or is it that you actually want a government that only ever does what YOU want, not the majority.

[Ben Redsell]

Off message at 1548 that's a much more coherent argument than I was able to make. Sorry for the rant. Just frustrated that so many people on here want to do down the party I love - the only party that can save us from Gordon Brown's hellish Government.

[James Maskell]

"Off Message", arent you ignoring the environmental tax increases weve already promised?

[wrong]

"Cameron and Osborne have promised to cut taxes"

Just for the record for the blind followship tendency, they have done nothing of the kind.

They have said public spending will increase, regardless of the rate of growth. Letwin, for example, says sizeable increases in education and health are planned.

They have said they will "share the proceeds of growth"--if there is any--on reducing taxes and increasing spending, but that could mean anything--sharing it 1% on reducing taxes and 99% on more spending. And they don't mean growth in the economy when they say this they only mean growth in revenues that result from economic growth.

They have said they will raise unspecified "green" taxes that will hit voters where it hurts and that they "may" reduce taxes on "families" (doesn't sound like an income tax cut to me) and "business."

And they have lied and said that this is what the party did when last in opposition.

[Og]

The bit about UKIP was more Off Trolley than Off Message.

I accept that UKIP are very badly led and poor at spotting liabilities who give them a bad name, but they are one of the few parties who do what it says on the tin.

I have never voted for them, but I can see the attraction to those who consider the EU an expensive and dishonest organisation whose stated goals logically relegate nation states' interests to second spot.

Better off out.

[michael.mcgough]

LIE or poor research ,either way it smells,just like the broken commitment to leave the EPP and the launch of the pre and post natally moribund 'Movement for European(EU) Reform'.
No wonder the UKIP tills are ringing.

[Chad]

UKIP being libertarian-right draws in new members from both the LibDems and Tories.

However, just IMHO, tactically, a weak Tory Party, consumed with infighting, as would be very likely after a 4th consecutive defeat when different strategies have been tried and failed , would be advantageous for the long-term growth of UKIP in its own right as more people will take the time to listen to our message.

For me, the Tory party (leadership) has stopped being about values and is just about power. If UKIP vote-splitting also removes its potential for power, then what do you have left?

Nothing but memories.

So for me, helping the tory Party to a 4th consecutive election defeat is a short-term but necessary goal for the long-term aim of seeing a values-based libertarian small gov challenger to not just beat Labour, but to beat them on our terms so we can actually deliver our values which I believe the public are warming to.

Nigel though is not focussed on the Tories but all voters, particularly those who have given up voting all together.

I think the Tory Party is now a roadblock to small government reform. It means one more term of Labour, but that is a lot better than a whole generation of labour or labour-lite governments.

UKIP will stop the Tories winning. I think that is certain and it is foolish to dismiss UKIP.

[just a thought]

Wasn't ignoring UKIP the strategy at the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election?

I don't think blaming the people who don't choose to vote for us is going to work.

[ratbag]

"Off message" seems off target too. He says "I don't think the UKIP people are UKIP voters at all." What does that mean? Who does he think they are? 700k at the General Election and 2.6m in the Euros?

And we Tory core activists (ex-t"c"a: ?) are not likely to come back on board by rudeness from Cameroons like "O:M:". Electoral suicide? Cameron and his rich clique in Notting Hill and murdering the party every day - beaten into 3rd place by the BNP!!! Since that is so we might as well vote for a party that at least believes what we believe. That way we'll get a proper leader who actually IS a Conservative and win the time after when Brown has ruined the country.

Ben R: thinks the party's strategy is "finally working." Not in the polls it isn't! With EVERYTHING the Labour party touches turning to ashes, for Tories here to be pleased with a LOSING 3% lead is pathetic. Ben also thinks that those who are true Conservatives are "an aggressive rump" - They're the majority both here and in the party outside (see Bromley!) And we're not likely to become enthusiasts by Ben being rude.

[Geoff]

Osborne is right.

The manifesto promises to cut income tax, and to raise VAT.

The overall level of tax was not pledged to be reduced.

Fin.

[wrong]

"Osborne is right."

Wrong on three counts.

Osborne didn't claim that the 1979 manifesto pledged not to reduce the overall level of tax, like you say (this pledge was not made in 1979 in any event. He claimed that it did not promise tax cuts. And the 1979 manifesto only pledged to cut income tax, it did not pledge to raise VAT, only to simplify it.

He said:

"The Conservatives did not promise tax cuts in the 1979 election and said they had to sort out the public finances first."

The 1979 manifesto said:

"CUTTING INCOME TAX

We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success; tackle the poverty trap; encourage saving and the wider ownership of property; simplify taxes - like VAT; and reduce tax bureaucracy.

It is especially important to cut the absurdly high marginal rates of tax both at the bottom and top of the income scale. It must pay a man or woman significantly more to be in, rather than out of; work. Raising tax thresholds will let the low-paid out of the tax net altogether, and unemployment and short-term sickness benefit must be brought into the computation of annual income.

The top rate of income tax should be cut to the European average and the higher tax bands widened. To encourage saving we will reduce the burden of the investment income surcharge. This will greatly help those pensioners who pay this additional tax on the income from their life-time savings, and who suffer so badly by comparison with members of occupational or inflation-proofed pension schemes.

Growing North Sea oil revenues and reductions in Labour s public spending plans Will not be enough to pay for the income tax cuts the country needs. We must therefore be prepared to switch to some extent from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending. Value Added Tax does not apply, and will not be extended, to necessities like food, fuel, housing and transport. Moreover the levels of State pensions and other benefits take price rises into account.

Labour's extravagance and incompetence have once again imposed a heavy burden on ratepayers this year. But cutting income tax must take priority for the time being over abolition of the domestic rating system."

[Mike Christie]

"CUTTING INCOME TAX

We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success; tackle the poverty trap; encourage saving and the wider ownership of property; simplify taxes - like VAT; and reduce tax bureaucracy.

It is especially important to cut the absurdly high marginal rates of tax both at the bottom and top of the income scale. It must pay a man or woman significantly more to be in, rather than out of; work. Raising tax thresholds will let the low-paid out of the tax net altogether, and unemployment and short-term sickness benefit must be brought into the computation of annual income.

The top rate of income tax should be cut to the European average and the higher tax bands widened. To encourage saving we will reduce the burden of the investment income surcharge. This will greatly help those pensioners who pay this additional tax on the income from their life-time savings, and who suffer so badly by comparison with members of occupational or inflation-proofed pension schemes.

Growing North Sea oil revenues and reductions in Labour s public spending plans Will not be enough to pay for the income tax cuts the country needs. We must therefore be prepared to switch to some extent from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending. Value Added Tax does not apply, and will not be extended, to necessities like food, fuel, housing and transport. Moreover the levels of State pensions and other benefits take price rises into account.

Labour's extravagance and incompetence have once again imposed a heavy burden on ratepayers this year. But cutting income tax must take priority for the time being over abolition of the domestic rating system. "

Read it all for yourselves!!

[malcolm]

Is this argument about what happened in 1979 really worth having at all.If memory serves me right (I was only 18 at the time)one of the first things the Thatcher government did was to increase VAT substantially thus increasing the overall tax take. I doubt that was in the manifesto
For me a commitment to balance the budget and a commitment to reduce wasteful spending are infinitely preferable to a commitment to reduce the tax take whilst in opposition.

[tory tax cutter]

In June 1979, one month after Mrs. Thatcher's first election victory, Geoffrey Howe as Chancellor cut the top rates of income tax from 83% on "earned income" and 98% on "unearned income" to 60% and cut the basic rate of income tax from 33% to 30%, setting a long-term ambition of 25%.

He also raised VAT rates from 12.5% and 8% to a single rate of 15%.

The former (reductions, not actual rates) had been promised. The latter did not break any promises (and had been hinted at).

The current leadership are not just arguing against tax cuts that produce a lower tax take, they are against pledges to cut income tax. They are also saying that the party did not offer such tax cuts in 1979. Wrong.

[malcolm]

Oh they (the Thatcher gov't) hinted at it so that's alright then. Let's deal in hints rather than promises.I'm sure the electorate will love that.

[Graham D'Amiral]

so what the Thatcher Government did was rebalance the tax system then, interesting idea

[Jeff Randall]

Some people appear to need a bit of remedial learning help.

Thatcher did not rebalance the tax system, she cut taxes overall as a percentage of the economy, 1983-1990. The cuts in income and corporation tax were worth more and were more significant than the 1979 hike in VAT.

Thatcher made promises which she kept to cut taxes--promises that, as Nigel Lawson points out today, Cameron is not prepared to make.

Perhaps these two not yet fully matured politicians should stop hiding behind her skirt and say we disagree with her and are proposing a different strategy to hers?

[Stuart Raven]

Glancing through the posts today it's obvious that the vast majority of us are opposed to the Cameron/Osborne axis of socialism.

The few exceptions seem unable to express themselves without a rather unpleasant display of vitriol

It's good to see that the Tory Party's coming home.

And for the information of the bilious dissidents, it's called democracy.

[Stephan Shakespeare]

"Stephan - you ARE being ridiculous. Parties should state what they believe - not the opposite of what 'the other lot' are saying."

Andrew Crawford, of course I think parties should state what they believe. I wasn't suggesting that they should say the opposite of the opponents for the sake of debate! That, as I indicated, was the asburdist version of what I said.

My point is precisely that parties should state what they think - and Conservatives think differently from Labour and should therefore develop that not hide it. What what the Conservative leadership is doing is constructing non-statements because they're frightened of pursuing their - that is, Conservatyive - principles. If we think things are fine as they are, then why bother to be in politics? If we think they should be different, then let's say clearly how.

[Mike Christie]

Stuart, you make me laugh.

Speaking of democracy, David Cameron was quite up-front about his tax policy. He won the leadership election by around two-to-one. That's democracy.

I'd like you to quote any of my 'unpleasant vitriol' while I've been defending the Cameron/Osborne tax strategy.

Coming form a man prepared to label anypne who has dabbled in drugs at any time as 'degenerate' amongst some of your other rather forthright views I find it bordering on comical.

[John Hustings]

The problem is that Cameron and Osborne are not saying what they believe. As Portillo spelt out last night, stability before tax cuts is a nonsense, but it's what the electorate (apparently) want to hear, because the truth is beyond their tiny little minds.

[James Maskell]

Jeff, Id love to see Cameron and Osborne do that. They'd pick up credit for having the courage to pick this as the big fight, but could they win? They arent really winning the argument over taxation at the moment. They'd rile the right wing and Cameron will definitely have the media attention. He'd have the audience, the fight on a major internal issue...why not this one?

[James Maskell]

Mike Christie, the leadership vote argument really doesnt work. We dont know how the members of the party voted in terms of issues. This was the very excuse given to those opposing the A-List, that we as a Party voted for Cameron so we have to accept it. Thats whats known in the real world as bullshit, but politely known as a fallacy...

You can vote for a Party leader but choose not to support what they come out with at a later date if you dont agree with it. Voting for a Leader is a whole different business to voting on an issue, especially one like taxation policy.

[Mike Christie]

James I appreciate your argument. Everybody who voted for Cameron will have done so for different reasons. However the fact remains that Cameron was democratically elected by a large margin on a platform that included this tax policy.

To start acting all shocked and hurt when he refuses to change his mind on a central part of his strategy seems a little naive.

[tory tax cutter]

"To start acting all shocked and hurt when he refuses to change his mind on a central part of his strategy seems a little naive."

I agree with this.

But for Cameron and the other two to make out it was also Thatcher's is dishonest.

[James Maskell]

Im not shocked or hurt about Cameron deciding to dig his heels in...its not the first time he's done this. The problem in doing so is that he's just going to attract media criticism, especially when he tries to put more meat on the bone that is our economic policy framework. The more intellectual media will tear it apart. They know they can do this. you can see some hints of this already. Cameron is lucky that the media broadly supports him. What happens once the media honeymoon is over?

[spagbob]

today david cameron wrote this in the telegraph - "If we inherit a situation in which government debt is high and rising, cutting taxes could risk making the situation worse. A short-term, unsustainable dash for growth would be rightly dampened down by the Bank of England with higher interest rates."

now i am right wing, support cutting taxes and so on, but its time we realised that cameron is right here. i am doing a degree in economics and economic theory clearly shows us that if you cut taxes, you increase the amount of money in people's pockets, it you do that then people spend more - this means aggregate demand will rise - which leads firms to raise prices which causes inflation. the larger the tax cut and multiplier affect, the larger the inflation increase. THIS WILL LEAD TO INTEREST RATES RISING!!! so from an economic point of view david cameron is right after all - i beleive im right in thinking he actually got a degree in economics and politics when he went to university (correct me if im wrong) and therefore he knows what he's talkin about. so lets stop accusing him of not understanding economics - from what i've learnt in economics he seems to be right a lot more than all these calling for tax cuts - dont call for them unless you agree with higher interest rates - and therefore more bankruptcy's coz that will be the effect. tax cuts can only be interest rate neutral if you do something to change the supply side of the economy i.e. do something to improve land, labour or capital e.g. like cutting unemployment benefits - and that takes a long time to achieve.

so lets start supporting cameron instead of undermining him - yes he beleives in tax cuts and the tax burden is too high, but he wants to be responsible and thats what we should expect from a conservative government.

[David Banks]

Theres nothing wrong with politicians lying , as long as they are 'sincere' when they lie. Well thats Blairs line on iraq anyway

[tory tax cutter]

It might be good for them that they are lying, at least for now, but it's not good for us as Conservative members and voters.

Conservatives should be very clear at what kind of administration is being proposed by these people: it's nothing like Thatcher's.

[Given Up]

spagbob

Google up the Laffer curve and then get a decent Professor who isn't stuck in Keynesian thinking.

Forsyth was asked ysdy by Andrew Neill if there was an example of a country that had cut taxs and destabalised it's economy....he said there is not a single example anywhere, anytime.

[Richard]

"it you do that then people spend more - this means aggregate demand will rise - which leads firms to raise prices which causes inflation. "

But the Government will be spending less. So although some prices may rise, others will go down, balancing out the effect. Furthermore, a lot of people prudently decide to save the extra money.

There are many different schools of economic thought. The fact that you are learning economics at university does not mean that everything you are being taught is indisputable. Once Keynesianism was all the rage, now it isn't. I did A Level economics but I didn't just accept everything I was told at face value. Here's an interesting alternative view on the Multiplier:

http://www.mises.org/story/1889

[michael mcgough]

"Speaking of democracy, David Cameron was quite up-front about his tax policy. He won the leadership election by around two-to-one. That's democracy."

He was quite upfront about leaving the EPP soonest too but didn't keep his promise.That's not democracy that's a con.

[spagbob]

given up

1)i have learnt about the laffer curve already and i understand it - i said i support tax cuts, but cameron is right that it will lead to higher interest rates. the laffer curve is about how tax revenue is maximimised, not about demand nad interest rates in the economy.

2)i am learning neo-liberal/ classical economics, not keynesian economics. this is the teaching of classical economics.

[spagbob]

"But the Government will be spending less. So although some prices may rise, others will go down, balancing out the effect. Furthermore, a lot of people prudently decide to save the extra money."

richard, thats a good point. however, david cameron already promised not to cut spending so there would be no balancing out.

secondly, cameron also mentioned the huge government debts. the more debt the government is in, the higher interest rates will be as the bank of england is the governments banker. if you cut taxes, and incur extra debts, this also pushes up interest rates.

[ratbag]

Since interest rates will probably be on 6.5% by Easter and taxes will have to go up in Brown's last (?) budget all of this is academic. My grouse with Cameron is that his lips move but his heart's not in what he's saying. He doesn'r WANT tax cuts.

And spagbob every country that has cut taxes even while in deficit has seen tax revenues rise. It alters the economic climate. Even GWBush did just that.

And there are other things to stop a runaway boom - - - eg: make larger percentage repayments on credit cards mandatory etc etc. That's one thing that so far we've kept out of the clutches of Brussels.

[spagbob]

"My grouse with Cameron is that his lips move but his heart's not in what he's saying. He doesn'r WANT tax cuts." - rubbish - he wrote in the telegraph today that he did.

"every country that has cut taxes even while in deficit has seen tax revenues rise. It alters the economic climate. Even GWBush did just that." - i agree, my argument is not that it wont increase revenue, but that it will increase inflation and therefore interest rates.

"And there are other things to stop a runaway boom - - - eg: make larger percentage repayments on credit cards mandatory etc etc." - good idea!

[spagbob]

i'd also like to make one more point - "economic stability" means having an economy where there are no busts/recessions, OR economic BOOMS!!! these things are smoothed out.

[John Hustings]

Mike Christie,

The accusation of dishonesty being levelled at Cameron is not particularly that he is leading differently from his campaign bid, it's that he is misrepresenting the past history of the Tory Party (and this Mrs Thatcher issue is only the latest of many examples), and that he does not even believe what he is saying.

So I'm not clear particularly what difference it makes to say that we knew he'd be left wing when he was elected.

[Deputy Editor]

Minor point which I've said before: we should do our best to introduce the phrase "tax relief", rather than cuts.

[Given Up]

spagbob

All that thinking is assumeing a static economy, ie: the gu'mint income is 100 , if I cut taxs by 20 I must balance by 20 elsewhere, to maintain 100.....but an economy is dynamic how else can it grow or contract.

The Laffer Curve is not about maximiseing tax income, it is about finding the ideal minimal rate of tax, which thus stimulates the economy most,by allowing individuals to spend their money how they please and which is invariably much better than any gu'mint is able to do, which just happens to produce the maximum level of tax.

Thus having cut taxs by 20, the economy will produce more than 20 in tax...It's happening now in the US, unfortunately spending is not being that well controlled, but tax cuts are produceing far more income.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842

[spagbob]

"The Laffer Curve is not about maximiseing tax income, it is about finding the ideal minimal rate of tax, which thus stimulates the economy most,by allowing individuals to spend their money how they please and which is invariably much better than any gu'mint is able to do, which just happens to produce the maximum level of tax." - it is about maximising tax income - up to a certain point increasing the tax rate leads to increased revenue, but after the optimal point, tax revenue begins to diminish because people are less inclined to work.

"Thus having cut taxs by 20, the economy will produce more than 20 in tax - thats an assumption" - it could produce less!

[Og]

Spag, can you tell us what effect the Australian tax-cutting environment of the past 10 years has had upon their interest rates? And if you consider this to have been poor/destabilising/imprudent economic management by Hawke and Costello?

[from Dominic Lawson's article]

Three months ago the US Office of Tax Analysis published its investigations into the effects of the federal tax cuts enacted in the period 2001 to 2003. That non-partisan body argued that without those tax cuts, three million fewer jobs would have been created and real gross domestic product would have been up to 4 per cent lower. That economic growth has, obviously, generated a gigantic increase in tax revenues, which in turn has been used in part to reduce the budget deficit - America's is now smaller than Britain's when expressed as a percentage of GDP. It may be true that America's economy has inner dynamics which are in some ways different from our own. But exactly the same virtuous circle of tax simplification and cuts, especially within the corporate sector, has led to unprecedented economic growth in Australia - a growth which has enabled public expenditure to be increased even as the Government debt has been wiped out

Perhaps the most telling comparison - and one which particularly impressed the Forsyth Commission - is that of Ireland. At the end of the 1980s, Ireland was close to being an economic basket case, and its per-capita GDP was less than two-thirds of the average for countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Following a dramatic cut in corporation tax, from 43 per cent to 12.5 per cent, and the flattening of income tax down to just two bands, Ireland has prospered, to the stage where now the average Irishman (not that there is such a person, of course) is 25 per cent better off than the OECD average. Meanwhile, although Irish public expenditure as a percentage of the country's GDP has fallen, it has grown rapidly in real terms. Those who have a theological devotion to the idea that public expenditure should never reduce in proportion to the economy as a whole will not find that satisfying; but to the real human recipient of public expenditure it is the actual amount that counts: a smaller slice of a much bigger cake tastes every bit as good.

[Given Up]

spagbob

The Laffer curve, ie tax cutting, has worked everytime it has been applied. It is not arcane theory, it is reality.

Also you seem to think that tax is good, it is not, we should all strive to force gu'mint to take the minimum amount of tax, as people/Co's are far better at investing/spending their money than gu'mint is...anyway it is our money.

Have a good weekend....I'm off for now.

[William Norton]

Given Up Forsyth was asked ysdy by Andrew Neill if there was an example of a country that had cut taxs and destabalised it's economy....he said there is not a single example anywhere, anytime.

UK 1979-81? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "destablise". The problems then stemmed from losing control of expenditure + over-tight monetary policy (which was another matter altogether).

You see - it all comes down to control of expenditure.