Further proof that the public mood on tax has shifted

Further to the debate on tax sparked by Philip Hammond's Sunday Telegraph interview, within the detail of today's YouGov poll with the 16% Tory lead there are some numbers that will hearten the 79% of Tory members who want tax relief funded by tougher control of public spending:

Comments

[Happy Tory]

The time has come to start being a bit more aggressive on tax. 2014 is definitely too far out. It might take a year or two to get Labour's profligacy under control, but by 2012-13 we should certainly be proposing tax cuts.

[North East Tory]

I always find it interesting that people who comment on here are under the impression hey have an intricate understanding of the public finances and in fact know better than our MPs and CCHQ on issues of policy.

Just be pleased the party are talking about tax cuts and be quiet with your know it all attitude.

[Alex Swanson]

I always find it interesting that people who comment on here are under the impression hey have an intricate understanding of the public finances and in fact know better than our MPs and CCHQ on issues of policy.

This kind of sentiment is appropriate only to the type of political organisation where people address each other as "Comrade". And in particular, my experience is that knowing more than the mass of Conservative (or indeed Lib Dem or Labour) MPs on any particular topic generally requires little more than a few hours of spare time and the ability to read.

[Opinicus]

Hilton is fighting last time's war with last time's weapons.

What he needs is another child quickly and his full entitlement to paternity leave.

[Steven]

What Conservatives must be really careful not to do is to appear too ideologically committed to tax cuts at all costs (literally).

In tough economic times, it can appear to ordinary non-political families out there ill-judged, dogmatic, narrow-minded political insanity to trade in stability and caution for recklessness. It just comes across as pandering to the wishes of a few who can afford to take the risk. And where is the money supposed to come from anyway right now?

No one doubts the Conservatives' instincts are for lower taxes, but when appropriate, and when it's responsible to do so. Surely that's the proper attidude for an aspirant (and increasingly likely) government.

[Alex Swanson]

What Conservatives must be really careful not to do is to appear too ideologically committed to tax cuts at all costs (literally).

But there's no actual reason for anybody to believe them to be committed to tax cuts at all. Let me repeat what I posted elsewhere today: the Conservative Party has never promised any substantial reduction in govt spending, and when in power, has certainly never done it. Any pretense otherwise is entirely left-wing propaganda and - and it is important to remember this - propaganda which will be endlessly repeated whatever the reality.

From this point of view, it would actually be better to promise substantial tax cuts now, because then the leadership would at least be engaged in battle on a particular position, whereas at the moment everything goes to the enemy by default, and much of the general public can be led to believe anything at all.

[Philip]

That all the extra tax-payers money spent on health and educdation has led to falling education standards, ward and A&E closures etc etc must explain the figure of 60% of voters (who are already feeling the squeeze through rapid prices rises of essentials) who think it must be possibile to cut taxes without harming public services. However I presume the other side of the coin is that Goerge Osborne may be trying to show economic responsibility by not cutting income taxes until it is right for the economy (e.g. perhaps tax cuts would put more money in the economy making it more likely the BoE would increase interest rates?), and won't harm front-line public services. But the question is whether this will really take until 2014? Also I understood that he may want to concetrate on tax relief for business first?

[David Sergeant]

"the Conservative Party has never promised any substantial reduction in govt spending, and when in power, has certainly never done it. Any pretense otherwise is entirely left-wing propaganda, and it is important to remember this"

Posted by: Alex Swanson | March 16, 2008 at 17:08

Absolutely. So much so I some times wonder if some of the more vitriolic tax cutters posting here are Labour trolls trying to bounce Osborne in to promising cuts, prior, of course, to Ed Balls appearing on several BBC programmes. It's the fact that they get at Cameron rather than Brown which is suspicious.

[TFA Tory]

Ben Brogan shows that Hammond is a liar on Thatcher and tax cuts - http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/03/actually-thatch.html.

As bad as Tony Bliar - Blue Labour Blue Danger!

[Richard]

"In tough economic times, it can appear to ordinary non-political families out there ill-judged, dogmatic, narrow-minded political insanity to trade in stability and caution for recklessness."

As someone with a mortgage to pay off who is concerned about the tough economic times ahead, tax cuts are very much on my agenda. How will this be funded? Well a look through the Taxpayer's Alliance's book on government waste would be a good start. Seeing as government spending has increased by over £100 billion since 1997 I'm sure there's room for cuts somewhere. I note that JSA is about £50 a week - as much as I used to earn doing 8 hours in Tesco on a Saturday. It should be cut to a level that encourages people to work. Then there's those expensive sculptures being purchased for NHS hospitals. And the endless numbers of non-jobs.

[John Leonard]

I always find it interesting that people who comment on here are under the impression hey have an intricate understanding of the public finances and in fact know better than our MPs and CCHQ on issues of policy.

Just be pleased the party are talking about tax cuts and be quiet with your know it all attitude.

I entirely agree...

Furthermore, I find it interesting that this whole kerfuffle was started by an article by Melissa Kite.

Conhome posted this thread in the summer:

Melissa Kite Thread

In this latest Sunday Telegraph article Kite says:

The Tories will not offer tax cuts to voters for at least four years and not until the party's second term in office, a senior shadow minister declared last night.

If this is true:

Did Phillip Hammond actaully say this specifically?
What has happened to the IHT TAX CUT?
What has happened to the Stamp Duty TAX CUT?
What has happened to the additional tax allowances for families?
Has the October Conference been stricken from our history?
Is Kite talking about individual tax cuts or the overall tax burden?
Is this accurate reporting or salacious interpretation?

As part of the Melissa Kite thread above the editor wrote:

Journalists who have long held politicians to account can now expect much more scrutiny themselves

Considering the questions above, I suggest such scrutiny might be advisable here.

She also says:

It is possible that Labour will not call an election until 2010, and the Tories are unlikely to go into that election offering tax cuts either - meaning that, whoever forms the next government, voters may not receive any significant tax reductions until 2014 at the earliest

Did she bother to mention let alone discuss any of the economic issues that might have played a part in moulding the Conservative Leaderships current stance?.

Did she bother to mention let alone discuss the current economic outlook?.

With two years to go before an election any journalistic interpretation as to exactly what any party will offer to the electorate is mere speculation.

After all, given the government's penchant for policy plagiarism I doubt any of the key Conservative tax policies will be unveiled until shortly before the General Election and in any case a lot can happen in two years. What seems to be the case now may well not be the reality in two years time.

Consequently, I will wait and see if George Osbourne is able to offer further funded tax cuts such as those promised on IHT and Stamp Duty before reaching an opinion and if further cuts are not proposed I will listen carefully to exactly why they feel they cannot do so.

Certainly I won't take Melissa Kite's interpretation as fact. In fact I think her short-sighted, narrowly focussed, seemingly imprecise and potentially misleading interpretation is little more than scaremongering.

In the meantime I will take North East Tory's advice......

[Malcolm Dunn]

We announce no tax cuts for until the economy is in better shaoe and then we get the biggest poll lead in 20 years. I have a feeling that the British people are wise enough to realise that responsible government is key.
With the economic situation as it is public spending will have to decline substantially anyway whoever is in power. I have confidence that we would manage it better.

[Passing Leftie]

Ben Brogan shows that Hammond is a liar on Thatcher and tax cuts - http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/03/actually-thatch.html.

As bad as Tony Bliar - Blue Labour Blue Danger!

Posted by: TFA Tory | March 16, 2008 at 17:47

What that article actually said was that she decreased progressive taxation, increased regressive taxation, and raised public spending a proportion of GDP.

I refer you once again to this article: please read it before repeating this nonsense:

"the tax burden in 1978 - the last full year of Labour Government office - stood at 37.37 per cent of UK GDP.
But the tax burden then actually rose in subsequent years (see Table III), reaching a
peak of 44.08 per cent of GDP in 1984."

http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:8080/bitstream/1826/636/2/SWP2191.pdf

In other words, Cameron is being Thatcherite in this sense.

[john broughton]

passing leftie

Context is everything

Can you explain how selective employment tax etc impacted?

The economy that Maggie inherited was totally buggered. The medicine was hard, no bloody awful, to take. The remedy involved breaking the stranglehold the unions had over the economy and giving back to (what was pretty weak) management the ability to manage.

These necessary corrections to the economy caused some temporary aberations in statistical data BUT provided the solid foundations which sreved the nation well untill the advent of NuLabour.

The tax burden in 1977 was much lower.

QED

[Tony Makara]

"I always find it interesting that people who comment on here are under the impression hey have an intricate understanding of the public finances and in fact know better than our MPs and CCHQ on issues of policy."

North East Tory, you are too deferential to the many non-entities in parliament. Most haven't an independent thought in their head, and have only got where they are through sycophancy. I find the quality of most MPs laughable and don't think, but know, that I could cane most of them in a public debate. Parliament these days has become a concentration of mediocrity, it is for this reason that the leaders of all the parties get away with producing patchwork policies rather than the monumental ideas needed to drag this country up by the scruff of its neck. We get do-nothing governments because we have servile backbenchers who don't demand more from their leaders. Parliament has become too cosy, too passive, it often resembles a club for sated career-politicians. Our MPs certainly are not subject to any sort of arcane knowledge as you imply.

[jean shaw]

Very easy to save money - cancel ID cards = £16 billion

[passing leftie]

These necessary corrections to the economy caused some temporary aberations in statistical data BUT provided the solid foundations which sreved the nation well untill the advent of NuLabour.

It wasn't "temporary aberrations."

"at the end of the 198Os, the tax burden in the UK was higher than for any year in
the 197Os, with the exception of 1970 - and even way above the levels of that for
the “fiscal crisis year” of 1976 - by over 4 per cent of UK GDP!"

So, Thatcher taxed us more heavily in the 80s than the governments of the 70s - the exact opposite of what she set out to do. The first four years also saw public expenditure rise as a percentage of GDP. Admitedly, most of this was wasted on self-created record unemployment.

This surely is a precedent for Cameron's announcement. If Thatcher thought it OK to increase taxes and public expenditure, surely Cameron can, too? It's the Thatcherite way in the face of perceived economic crisis. That is, unless you don't think we are in an economic crisis because Labour has managed the economy well? You choose.

[Iain]

"I always find it interesting that people who comment on here are under the impression hey have an intricate understanding of the public finances and in fact know better than our MPs and CCHQ on issues of policy."

Pardon me for pointing out, it wasn't so long ago Cameron stated that the next election would be fought on breakdown Britain and NOT the economy, something some of us on this board took issue with. I wonder if Cameron would like to restate that assertion now?