Osborne welcomes Redwood-Wolfson report but declines to commit to its tax recommendations

Interviewed for the Today programme at 8.10am Shadow Chancellor George Osborne gave a broad welcome to the report on economic competitiveness that will be formally launched later today by its co-chairmen, John Redwood MP and Next's Simon Wolfson.  Mr Redwood sets out the ambitions of his report in an article for today's ConservativeHome.  Mr Osborne has ruled out any immediate acceptance of the Redwood-Wolfson recommendations on abolishing inheritance tax on the main family home and on other tax cut suggestions which would see corporation tax cut to 25p and stamp duty on shares abolished.

Mr Osborne said that he liked the overall look of the report but that he would now need time to consider its detailed recommendations.  He said that his two basic approaches to economic policy remained the same:

(1) Tax was only part of economic policy.  The quality of transport infrastructure, the levels of skills and Britain's planning rules were other important determinants of Britain's competitiveness and the Redwood report had useful ideas on these topics.
(2) No risks would be taken with Britain's economic stability and all tax cuts would have to be funded from the proceeds of growth.  The Shadow Chancellor told Today that he was not a pure 'supply-sider'.  He said that tax cuts had, in the past, paid for for themselves by generating extra revenue but he was not willing to 'punt' that they would.

Mr Osborne said that he nonetheless believed that low tax economies such as Ireland were generally higher growth economies and he would hope to be a tax-cutting Chancellor.  He said that lower business taxes were particularly important and hoped to be able to pledge lower rates of corporation tax that would be paid for by possible simplifications of the tax system that were being drawn up by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

On IHT the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged that it was a very unpopular tax but he would not commit to its elimination now.  He said that raising the threshold or reducing the rate of inheritance tax would also be options that a future Conservative government might enact.

Mr Osborne said that this report was not a move away from the kinder Conservatism of recent months.  It had to be seen in the context of Iain Duncan Smith's earlier report on social justice, he said, and the forthcoming Gummer-Goldsmith report on quality of life issues.

Not for the first time there has been confusion over Tory tax plans.  Some newspapers such as the Daily Mail (above) and yesterday's Evening Standard have appeared to think that the Tories would embrace the call to scrap inheritance tax for the main family home.  Other newspapers, like The Times, appear to have heard George Osborne's caution.

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

'He said that tax cuts had, in the past, paid for for themselves by generating extra revenue but he was not willing to 'punt' that they would.'

Shows rather a lack of boldness and entreprise.

[James Maskell]

The BBC leads with the inheritance tax proposals and seesm to concentrate purely on that single proposal. Redwood did well (again) this morning on BBC1 in discussing the proposals.

Osbornes response seems to indicate that we are going to be reluctant to take up a lot of the proposals. It sounds too much like the reaction to the Forsyth Report.

[Edward]

This is absolutely fantastic. As I and others have said all along the policy groups will come up with good, solid and wide-ranging policy proposals from which the leadership can then triangulate and build a broad coalition for government. The Party's response to the reports will show how we are on the centre-ground whilst coming from the right.

We will show the country how we are sensitive to "right wing" issues, but at the same time holding strong for those who don't see them benefiting them.

[MH]

I am stunned. As the heir to a million pound fortune, I thought Boy George would be very eager to look at abolishing inheritance tax. Then again, maybe he and multi-millionaire Dave are so rich, they don't mind paying a chunk of IHT to the Treasury. Pity their concern does not extend to looking afte the rest of us who don't fall into their very fortunate position.

[Oberon Houston]

This is the weakness with the policy group set-up. They write a report, publish it and then there is an open debate on the findings published daily in the papers....oh yes we will, oh no we won't.

All fine - except to the voting public uninterested in detailed policy debate it looks like we are all over the place. Hardly a formula to build trust and convince the sceptics we won't sell their grannies to fund a cut in super-tax. Look I'm not complaining about the policy groups, I think on the whole they have done a great job, and the debate is just what's needed. It's just that we need to look from the outside in too?

[James Maskell]

One concern I have stemming from Osbornes comments is the referring to sharing the proceeds of growth. While all of us political animals know very well what is meant by that, it was brought up at one time and explained in one of two speeches and since then, weve avoided discussing it. The risk with this is that a lot of the public would have missed it and this will be completely new to them. Perhaps its time for Osborne to re-set the debate about this and to re state the differences between sharing the proceeds of growth and Labours own economic strategy. If this is to be a key facet of economic policy under a Conservative administration, wouldnt it be useful to explain more than once to the public how this would operate?

[englandism]

Yes, Today R4 led with the proposals that would shout 'nasty party' to the max. I expect the Grauniad to start threading vigorously to drive yet another coffin nail home.

Inheritance tax is easily avoided via the seven year survival game and those lovely trust funds and then we are told that it is only relevant to 6% of the electorate.

@TIM MONTGOMERIE: Editor of ConservativeHome.com

Tonight you have the platform to appeal to 85% of the electorate. Populist it might be but you may want to mention 'England'. You have the context of the Scottish national conversation kicking off so the opportunity is ripe (see Telegraph).

The promo for tonight mentioned this site taking 650,000 hits last month.

englandism.com last month took 120,000 hits expressed as 10,000 meaningful visits and all we do is bang on about England.

Here's some comprehensive background material:

http://www.englandism.com/latest_news.htm

Anyhoo, good luck Tim.

[Equilibrium]

Screw triangulation Edward, and learn from GWB who succeeded by ensuring people knew what he stood for, even when they did not agree!

The Tories are instead trying the well-worn Blair trick of using warm weasel words to effectively trick people into voting for them in the false belief that the words were genuine.

Unfortunately, we're now wise to that Blair deception and that is why the Heir-to-Blair Cameroons are currently set to help to increase Labour's majority.

[Tony Makara]

The main thing here is to get the balance right. If the Conservative party shuts down expensive Labour gimmicks like the wasteful New Deal, which has cost the taxpayer billions, it will free up money to be used in other ways. I believe tax cuts can be made possible by a large scale pruning of wasteful Labour projects.

On the question of Britains economy stability, I fear the future Conservative government is set to open up a pandorax's box of woes with underlying inflation, brought about by debt fuelled growth, as a core problem. The first two years of office might literally be about 'Taking stock' and looking at ways to rectify the economy. Nontheless closing down failed projects like the New Deal ought to be done right away, to free up money.

[Tam Large]

Of course Osborne is wary - these are true Conservative polices and would improve the economy and well-being of this country greatly. Osborne and Dave Bl-ameron would never adopt Conservative policies like this in case someone accuses them of being Conservatives. I expect lip-service and then quiet shelving.

Well done John Redwood and team - if only you guys (and gals) were in charge.

[Ken Stevens]

Intellectual purism to prevail over attractive electoral pragmatism?

Maybe best to move over to a Think Tank career than continue in high office with a political party that purports to be seeking election.

I appreciate that working parties need to produce discussion documents. Perhaps however these should be kept out of the public domain until the party hierarchy has resolved which aspects to adopt as policy. Such openness of preliminary thoughts, whilst commendable in principle, in practice gives the appearance of muddle & confusion; it presents an appearance of squabbling rather than calm consideration. Even if you subsequently accept various recommendations, the impact on the ordinary voting public will have been dissipated.

..and of course Brown could now do something with IHT while you're still pondering, thereby stealing your thunder and facilitating the continuance of a one-party state!

[Tony Makara]

James, Growth has to be related to productivity. Labour have wrecklessly created growth in debt and spending has been the driving factors. This inevitably is leading to too much money chasing too few goods and inflation. Again the main thing is to get the balance right so that equilibrium price levels are sustained. The market also needs to be allowed to cool when necessary. Labour have used credit to sustain artificial growth merely to milk headlines.

[Oberon Houston]

James Maskell | August 17, 2007 at 09:37: A good post James, you are right, the shared proceeds needs re-visited, especially since Labour cannot effectively counter it.

Tony Makara | August 17, 2007 at 09:44: You are right here, Welfare to work schemes don't work very well, and the New Deal is a system the tories considered long before labour and rejected it. But we need to be careful that we are not labeled as hitting the most vunerable. We need convincing alternatives too.

[Equlibirum]

"the shared proceeds needs re-visited, especially since Labour cannot effectively counter it."

Why would Labour bother to counter a flimsy Hilton marketing phrase that the ceo of the TaxPayersAlliance has dismissed as meaningless?

[David Cooper]

"He [George Osborne] said that raising the threshold or reducing the rate of inheritance tax would also be options that a future Conservative government might enact."

Feeble. What might Nigel Lawson have said in a similar situation? Most likely something along the lines of "I acknowledge that IHT is an iniquitous tax and I will look to abolish it as soon as it is practical to do so within the first term of a Conservative government." Or possibly something bolder. Either way, a pledge that would appeal to many of those who had thought voting had become pointless.

This only proves again that George Osborne is out of his depth and out of touch.

[Tory T]

In my opinion, ConHome has got this story completely wrong.

Osborne is signalling that he will indeed accept this report. He will want to make sure the tax cut is funded in other ways.

The BBC online link quotes George Osborne as follows:

"Mr Osborne told BBC News: "I've got to make sure that we can afford it, that the country can afford it, that it is consistent with economic stability, that it's part of a coherent economic programme.

"We are looking very closely at reform of inheritance tax and capital gains tax." "

Sounds like a yes to me, Editor!

[James Maskell]

We arent going to abandon the term sharing the proceeds of growth and since it formed a central part of Camerons own philosophy regarding a future Conservative administration, we might as well flesh it out and explain it. Meaningless it might be, but we are stuck with it so we might as well find a way of making it work.

[Oberon Houston]

Darling is now on the news saying that

"if all these tax proposals were implemented, then there would need to be serious cuts in public spending and instability at a time when we need it most. The public are rightly concerned about this."

What nonsense, but we need to effectively counter it or it will stick. The shared proceeds plan is the only way to do this Equilibrium and is not a gimmick, I'm surprised you see it as a simple marketing ploy.

[Deus Ex Machina]

''Well done John Redwood and team - if only you guys (and gals) were in charge.''

Oh Dear Tam Large oh dear, do you really you wish that were so? obviously you enjoy permanent opposition, we can become like the DPJ in Japan.

anyway, in my opinion Osborne is playing it right, you cannot just start raging about tax cuts, economists know that when you cut corporation tax the economy may grow and tax take actually increases but you have to appreciate what the electorate hear when we talk about tax cuts.

Blair won the debate on public services being well funded by taxation, you might not like it but its true, it seems the leader's office is the only section of the party to grasp this

[Editor]

A couple of journalists are complaining to me that they were only briefed on the report after 4pm yesterday afternoon and the briefing was not as clear as it could be. That late briefing contributed to the mixed understandings we see in this morning's press.

[Tory T]

Oberon,

you will get the core Cameron policy; more taxes on aviation and pollution for example, perhaps on gambling, smoking, etc, and then this abolition of IHT and CGT reduction.

That is what Osborne is signalling today.

I am as Cameroon as you but this is good solid politics and wholly consistent - tax the bad, not the good, reposition the tax system.

[Tony Makara]

Oberon, What you say is true. The New Deal promised so much and delivered so little.

Under the New Deal the unemployed were promised training and have ended up working 30 hours a week in a charity shop for an extra 15 pounds on top of benefit, that is 50pence an hour, lower than child labour rates in the thrird world. If anything the New Deal has exploited the vunerable.

I've always maintained that the 'Community Programme' of the 1980s was a good idea. The unemployed were given a 12 month contract to work for a real wage on social projects. This gave the unemployed guarenteed work for a year, plus experience and a reference.

The New Deal has completely failed and has now become a gravy train with those who administer it on a very handsome income.

[Equilibrium]

" I'm surprised you see it as a simple marketing ploy."

I was quoting Matthew Elliott, head of the TPA, Oberon.

The phrase is meaningless *without* an indication of what the aimed split of the share will be, the crucial detail that the Cameroons refuse to provide, that is essential to 'flesh it out'

Share the proceeds of growth? 50-50? 99-1, 70-30? 1-99? etc. Will it result in a bigger state or a smaller one? Will the tories reduce the government spend as a % of GDP?

If the Cameroons are too timid to pledge a smaller state (% state spend of GDP)and not rule out a larger then really what is the difference from what we currently have?

[Tory T]

Tim,

"We are looking very closely at reform of inheritance tax and capital gains tax."

Is that a misquotation of Osborne by BBC news, then? Because to me that could not be clearer that he will say yes to this after considering the full implications, ie, after finding some "bad" tax raises to balance it.

[ACT]

I'm so very gald to see that after a summer break Tory T is back with us. I don't know if anyone else had noticed, but whenever the party is doing badly, Tory T isn't about, but when it's soar, soar, soaring away, he's always around. Which leads me to conclude that we only do well when he's posting on CH. Or something like that.

[Equilibrium]

The simple question for Osborne:

At the end of your first term of government, will Government spend as a % of GDP be lower than now?

If a Conservative chancellor can't deliver a smaller state then what is the point in electing them?

[Tory T]

Just consider me the party's four leafed clover, ACT.

I've posted, although somewhat less in the summer break.

[Editor]

I'm sorry Tory T but I haven't heard anything bankable from George Osborne yet and I don't blame him for that. He would look weak and inconsistent if he embraced John Redwood's recommendations immediately after saying, for the last 18 months, that there would be no up-front, unfunded tax cuts. We will have to wait for a Chancellor Osborne and I'm then hopeful that we'll get all sorts of tax reliefs from those famous proceeds of growth. I'm off to the press conference now - after which I may know more...

[George Hinton]

What's wrong with DC, does he not want people to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn. To retain in families the assets accumulated net of tax, to pass on to issue as a right rather than to the state.
Or is it more sinister, got it, he doesn't want to put the tax accountants and their spawns of adjuncts out of business.
Yet again DC is vacillating and showing very dangerous leftie/centrist symptons. Please realise that you cannot take on Gordo by trying to share the central ground.

[Tory T]

I agree Ed, he cannot just accept these proposals.

What he can do and I am guessing will do is accept these proposals as soon as enough "bad" taxation is found to pay for them.

That will satisfy the need of the Cameron project to be authentic and yet Conservative.

[Treacle]

It says a lot about our presentation/co-ordination when we have to indulge in a lengthy debate about what we THINK the Shadow Chancellor was saying about Redwood's report.

If our Shadow Chancellor can't (or doesn't want to) make himself crystal clear on such a potentially good set of proposals and leaves his own Party confused what message if any are floating voters taking away?

Let's hear it for the PR and Brand marketing boys

[Jake]

Dear Ed ,

Back in the days when the clamour for equal treatment for England was less pronounced ,ie about 2 years ago ,I once had a brief corridor conversation with Mr Osborne re the Barnett Rules , bias against England in British government funding and political representation and taxation .

He wasn't saying much . One thing he did say was " that is a matter for them " ie the Scottish parliament and the application of the 3p in the £ which they have never levied in Scotland because it is easier to get the money out of England .

Perhaps you could challenge him further on these things .

[Curly]

Surely this dithering over acceptance of policy proposals, along with the inordinate wait for them in the first place, is one of the reasons behind the failure to harden our support amongst the undecided voters.

At times we appear to be floating as much as they do.

[James Maskell]

If thats true Editor, then thats very bad briefing by Osbornes lot. We need to have briefed them at least 24 hours before so they could digest it.

Labour has already come out with its attacks even before the report came out (a local Labour weblog came out attacking on Wednesday) mostly relating to the health and safety and employment legislation proposals. We need to be better organised. This report is one of the more influential ones in terms of affecting policy.

I understand the point about dithering. But the alternative is that we might be choosing our policies before the reports come in which leads to a confused country which isnt sure which policies are Party policies and which ones are simply recommendations not yet adopted. We have enough time to wait for the Policy Groups to report back with time to consider our manifesto.

[Chris Palmer]

Tim, while you're probably right that George Osborne would look 'weak' if he gave Redwood's proposals the go ahead after 18 months of 'sharing the proceeds of growth'; had he not listened to all his advisers so closely, he would not be in this position in the first place.

I hope too that you're right when you say that Chancellor George Osborne may introduce tax cuts based on the proceeds of growth - however, we both know that what he might/maybe/perhaps/will think about doing is not exactly a decisive vote winner.

[James Maskell]

BBC: Policy Group's proposals at a glance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6951105.stm

The Competitive Challenge site is irregularly updated. If someone tracks down ther URL to the report itself, please post it here.

[jorgen]

"sharing the proceeds of growth"

This combined with the "redistribution of wealth" Cameron announced in 2005 mean that the Tory Party still is leftist, if not socialist.

It also means that the Party will lose the next many elections. It certainly won't get my vote.

[Opinicus]

@Tory T
Is that a misquotation of Osborne by BBC news, then? Because to me that could not be clearer that he will say yes to this after considering the full implications, ie, after finding some "bad" tax raises to balance it.

This is what is inept. Abolishing IHT is a major issue for the right of the Party and the core vote more generally. This is a vote energising policy and the first really good news to emerge from CCHQ for ages. I am all set to praise DC, gagging to be on message and helpful. Up and down the country a thousand desert cacti (aka lost Conservative voters) are waiting to bloom again.

Instead, we get this presentational horlicks and pr**k tease.

[TomTom]

So the mantra is to share the proceeds of growth

What about investing in growth or do we simply wait for the shades of the moon for the economy to grow ?

[James Maskell]

Thhe BBC seems to be having a problem with chipmunks on the video of Redwood talking about the proposals...

[James Maskell]

Full report now out. At 15mb its a big file.

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/ECPGcomplete.pdf

[The Wilted Rose]

I guess one of the issues here is that Redwood and Wolfson are more credible and convincing than Osborne. It maybe is time to re-consider how reducing taxes can revitalise the economy; which is going down under Labour. You can read the full Competitiveness Report at the link below and it's even worth scanning it, as there are some thought-provoking proposals.

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/ECPGcomplete.pdf

Good to see some embryonic policies emerging, given the last 10 years of Labour Policy but No Delivery!

[The Wilted Rose]

Sorry, James Maskell, you beat me to it :-)

[Yet Another Anon]

If the Conservative party shuts down expensive Labour gimmicks like the wasteful New Deal, which has cost the taxpayer billions, it will free up money to be used in other ways.
Yes, although it seems that the days of New Deal expanding are over and that in fact New Deal is being wound up slowly in favour of other new projects.

Under the New Deal the unemployed were promised training and have ended up working 30 hours a week in a charity shop for an extra 15 pounds on top of benefit, that is 50pence an hour, lower than child labour rates in the thrird world. If anything the New Deal has exploited the vunerable.

I've always maintained that the 'Community Programme' of the 1980s was a good idea. The unemployed were given a 12 month contract to work for a real wage on social projects. This gave the unemployed guarenteed work for a year, plus experience and a reference.
I am suspicious of all these schemes that pay people money from the state to work in private sector or charity jobs because this ends up being merely an expansion in big government - under numerous schemes going back to the Manpower Services Commission such schemes in many cases displaced real jobs, it was very nice for the employers who got involved because they then saved money on the wages, naturally this encouraged them to use such schemes as a form of cheap labour and so actually if anything depressed wages and made employers reliant on the state in the same way as the unemployed who the scheme was intended to give more independence to - so higher public spending and a failure to achieve the programmes aims. This is something that many people right across the political spectrum have come to realise, many of whom used to favour such schemes.

If people are going to be paid by the state to do something then they have to be achieving something clearly for the public good and it has to be at such a low level that people will not be encouraged to see it as an end in itself.

[James Maskell]

No problem, Wilted Rose. BTW, I dont think Ms Alexander is the brother of Douglas Alexander. For humour value I wished that was the case but sadly I doubt it is.

[Mark Fulford]

I haven’t been able to download the report yet, but how has Redwood been able to include recommendations about inheritance tax in a competitiveness report? Did he step outside his brief, or do we see motivational problems in the undead workforce? I’d have thought that knowing you’ll inherit a pile is a disincentive to work so I’m with Traditional Tory on this... each should stand on their own two feet.

[Simon Denis]

Osborne, Cameron and co are the pits. Their handling of this issue, like all the others is amateurish to the point of farce. First they ditch the tax cutting agenda with a lot of guff about stability. Then they send Redwood off into the back end of some office, clearly with a view to getting rid of him for a while. Hey presto, Redwood returns with a clutch of sensible policies which happen to conflict sharply with everything that team Osborne has been telling us for the past few months. Result? The wobbly centre is frightened away by Redwood; the core vote is revolted yet again by the way in which he is dismissed and more generally the party doesn't seem to know what it wants. To some, moreover, it will look shallow, cheap and opportunist. And why? Because Cameron's cronies are obsessed with repeating the tricks of Tony Blair. Bad generals always steal the tactics of their opponents from the last war and that is what is happening to the tory party now. Blair's tricks worked because of long, deep anti-tory propaganda, abetted by the Beeb. His party was willing to say anything in his support because world events had utterly discredited Labour's central belief system. Finally, Major and the Europhils had made a complete mess in 1992. When will the stupid "modernisers" get it into their heads that none of the above obtains for David Cameron today? Probably never. They are nothing but Westminster village idiots with no sense of the wider world or of the deeper history.

[voreas06]

I have just heard Darling spouting about Hospitals and Schools being closed. Whoever is next up on TV about the report needs to say that Labour is closing hospitals specifically targetted on Conservative voters, and that is a depth that Conservatives would never sink to. Also if you want to know how we would pay for possible tax cuts, scrapping ID cards and saving £20bn on something that won't work and is on the level of Orwell's 1984 in terms of its authoritarianism may be one way.

[The Wilted Rose]

James, at first I thought it was so unbelievable that you couldn't make it up. But see, for example, 'Brother and sister act ' (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1385595.stm ) and even on Wendy Alexander's site - http://www.wendyalexander.co.uk/2006/10/03/about-paisley-north/ - she admits Douglas is her brother. Would you admit if he was your brother? :-)

[James Maskell]

Just flicking through some of this report. Some very good stuff in this report. A statute of repeals each year, including looking at how EU directives and such affect competitiveness.

[James Maskell]

"We would hasten to add that Ms Alexander is coincidentally the brother of Douglas Alexander".

[Tory T]

After the press conference it is time to update ToryDiary, no?

Osborne behaved just as I said he would. He gave every possible indication of a "yes" to IHT abolition specifically and of swingeing cuts to business taxation, whilst promising to pay for it with "green taxes", because of the horlicks of an economy he will inherit.

So that's a "yes" to Redwood on IHT and business tax cuts. Can we correct? A transcript of Osborne's response should be available. But Tim was there, so he heard it!

[James Maskell]

Osborne will publicly decline no recommendation because that would become the story rather than the report speaking for itself. Its no suprize he was so positive then. I suspect a fair amount will be dropped. Brown will pick up a fair chunk of the report though. The part about the Bank of England will come in handy for Darling. Also the section about public finance and the key rules Brown brought in.

[The Wilted Rose]

James, whoops, dreadful typo, misread your post too. Thanks :-)

[TomTom]

I have just heard Darling spouting about Hospitals and Schools being closed.

Damned good idea Alistair. Get on with it.

If we cannot afford to run hospitals because Roman Abramovitch pays no taxes in the UK or because footballers are being leased to clubs through Channel Islands companies, it is obvious we must close down public services so as not to discourage talent like Russian billionaire football club owners.....40% Premier Clubs are now foreign owned.

We cannot have Socialism getting in the way of foreign billionaires buying up football clubs by having them pay any taxes....far better to crush the native population and threaten to close down their schools and hospitals if they rebel

[Scotty]

"We would hasten to add that Ms Alexander is coincidentally the brother of Douglas Alexander".
No surprise that she was Brown's favoured choice for Scottish Labour leader!
Her brother Douglas is one of Brown's trusted little cabal.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

A move in the right direction. I agree with Tory T on this.