Labour to raise top rate of income tax to 45%

That's what the BBC is reporting.  The higher income tax rate won't, however, apply until after the next election and only for those earning £150,000 or more.

Keeping income tax rates down was one of the landmark pledges associated with New Labour. That pledge is about to be buried.

Labour plan to use the higher rate to taunt the Tories.  If the Conservatives oppose the higher band they'll be painted as 'friends of the rich'.

Comments

[steve]

Tax, spend, waste....and get elected again.

Enjoy.

[Donal Blaney]

Will the last person leaving Britain please turn out the lights?

[Raj]

I wouldn't attack it directly, other than say it shows Labour is hypocritical and is a taste of the tax rises to come later. Certainly don't get outraged about it, as that's what Labour want. Perhaps ask why they're increasing tax on the rich when they can't get them to pay the tax they currently owe - e.g. Inland Revenue doing deals with people like Mr Fayed. Just a PR stunt, etc.

Also the fact that this will only apply after the election so won't help balance the budget now.

[Deborah]

Gesture politics

[Iain]

Who the hell leaked this information?

[pp]

Clearly this is intended as a signal to the (bulk of the) public that there may be a tax bombshell but "don't worry it isn't going to land on you".

The 'tax bombshell' campaign is a good one, I hope the next stage is not to leave it to 'fear, uncertainty and doubt', but instead to follow it up with an endless repetition of that old refrain (so beloved of labour) of "so how are you going to pay for it? - in detail please...".

If labour are going to suggest that they can defuse this bomb, we need to demand full details.

[pp]

ps. The list of 'how they will pay for it' can start with 5p on the top rate of tax -- how much will that leave to be recovered?

[pp]

sorry... but...
pps. And how much is 'it'? - including interest payments...

[Another Richard]

Gesture politics.

That wouldn't raise more than the odd million.

Cameron and Osborne need to have a long list of examples of government waste to quote. Starting with ID cards and IT projects and including numerous quangos. Reading out some of the jobs advertised in the Guardian would be good.

[Tom FD]

It's amazing how gloomy the BBC News presenters are about this - presumably they'll be hit by this higher rate!

45%, that's what the Tory opinion poll rating will be after this...

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

Just when the cost of flying abroad is dropping - perfect.

[NorthernMonkey]

So what's your party going to do now?

Will you oppose this move, whilst at the same time promising to cut tax for the wealthiest through IHT?

Hmm, I think your party will be in a muddle...is Osborne up to it?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

A headline-grabbing gesture designed to throw red meat to Labour's union supporters and the lefty backbenchers.

We should make the point that increasing the rate of income tax doesn't end up raising extra money, that the superwealthy will move their money offshore to avoid tax, there will be more creative accounting to get around it and therefore EVERYONE will end up paying more to make up the shortfall.

We have to hammer it home that this is a headline-grabber that won't work and that regular people on middle-incomes will end up footing the bill when it doesn't work.

[Mark Jones]

This is frankly a disaster for Britain, we are in a timewarp going back to the 70s!
Next Brown will start imposing wage and price controls and stop you leaving the country with anything over about £20 in your pocket!

[david]

Excellent.......It is about time they did.

Oh, and I just filled my car up at the petrol station. The price, 90p a litre. Under the Torie, I would have jut paid 97p

[Philip]

Yes of course, to "taunt the Tories" is what this is about - even the BBC (R4 Westminster Hour) managed to admit this rise in the top rate would be nowhere near enough to pay for all Labour's borrowing.

It's about portraying us (if we attack it and promise to scrap it) as supporting the rich while opposing Labour's spending that supposedly helps 'ordinary working people'. So, as Raj (2216) said, perhaps its best not to attack it directly, other than say it is a taste of the tax rises to come etc. Also because raising the top tax rate might be something many voters may consider as the fairest way, perhaps especially after the disquiet about 'fat cats' and bonuses etc., to raise taxes to pay for Labour's borrowing.

This could be Old Lab resurfacing and reverting to spiteful class war etc. which doesn't differentiate between these and those who fairly earn a lot through hard work and contributing to the nation's wealth etc.

As has been said, the unfairness is to saddle the nation for years to come the burden of paying for all the debt Labour has run up (and plans to increase). Obviously everyone, not just the 'rich', will have to pay even if 'only' by stealth taxes or higher VAT or whatever.

[Matt Wright]

Clearly Labour are rattled by the Tax Bombshell campaign and so they are trying to make smoke quickly. They will say they are taxing the rich to help the poor and the Conservatives want to stop that. Its the Labour spin machine working overtime again. It doesn't address reality or the mess the UK is in, its more of Brown's games. We all know Labour will have to put up taxes on all of us in due course as they have borrowed even more on top of the excessive borrowing they have already made. Brown was warned about this for years, see all the IMF reports. Taxes on the highest rate earners are very tempting but rarely work as these people find ways to avoid the tax or just leave the country so in the end the rest of us have to pay it. Worse still if they are employers they may take their businesses with them. This is like having to re-live the 70s.

[Patsy Sergeant]

NorthernMonkey @ 22.40 You would do well to read to read the comment @ 22.43 just after yours, because unless you are a layabout or a Labour luvvie, thats how it will affect YOU!

Once again this tax move is more about 'catching David Cameron/George Osborne off guard' and OF COURSE currying favour for VOTES than for the good of the country or the public in general. How predictable!

[james]

PERSONALLY ABUSIVE COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Mark Jones]

With apologies up front to Ian Cowie for 'borrowing' the following from an old article but it seemed apt:

Suppose that once a month, 10 old friends meet up for an inexpensive lunch and the bill for all 10 comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would be divided something like this; the first four friends – the poorest – would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. But the 10th old friend – the richest – would pay £59.

So, that’s what these lunch partners decided to do. The 10 friends enjoyed their monthly lunch and seemed quite happy with the arrangement. Then, one day, the cafe owner made a suggestion."Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your monthly meals by £20."
Lunch for the 10 would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four friends were unaffected. They would still eat free of charge. But what about the other six friends – the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his or her fair share?
They quickly worked out that £20 divided by six is £3.33. If they simply subtracted that from everyone’s share, then the fifth and sixth friends would each end up being paid to eat their lunch.

So the cafe owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. As a result, the fifth friend, like the first four, now paid nothing, cutting his bill by 100pc. The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3; saving 33pc. Allowing for rounding, the seventh now paid £5 instead of £7; saving 28pc. The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12; saving 25pc. The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18; saving 22pc. Finally, the 10th now paid £49 instead of £59; saving 16pc.

Each of the six, who always used to pay, was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy their lunch free of charge.
But, human nature being what it is, the friends began to compare their savings when they had time to mull over them. "I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth friend. He pointed to the 10th lunch partner, "But he got £10!"
"Yes, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1, too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more than I did."
"That’s true!" shouted the seventh lunch-goer. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. This system exploits the poor!"

Then the nine former friends surrounded the 10th and beat him up. Not surprisingly, next month the 10th man didn’t show up for lunch. So the nine sat down and ate without him. But when the time came to pay the bill, they discovered something shocking. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

Attack the richest people for being wealthy and they might decide to eat overseas where the atmosphere is more friendly."

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Matt Wright]

Well James it may make you feel good but unfortunately it won't work.

[David (One of many)]

"YES WE CAN!!!"

Can what, exactly? Screw over the country for political points? Yeah.

Can we delete odious comments from 'people' like James, please?

[Iain]

"We should make the point that increasing the rate of income tax doesn't end up raising extra money"

I think that is a worn out line of attack, especially when people are pretty p'd off with the big buck earners who have helped get us into this mess. The Conservatives should endeavour to ensure the public know the true level of the country's debt, something Conservative MP's have been slow and lazy at doing, and pursue with a line Mark Field put forward on the Westminster hour who said the reason we have got into this mess is too much debt and too much consumption so it hard to believe that even more debt and even more consumption is the solution, and said what is being proposed is to stoke up consumption now to be paid later , perhaps by our children….. which isn’t a very pleasant image being painted in peoples minds that of the binge consumer feeding their habit at the cost of our children’s future.

In addition the Conservatives should also be pursuing a line of questions that asks ‘what if’ What if Gordon Brown’s big gamble doesn’t work, what will our finances look like then, and paint Gordon Brown has the hapless gambler, whose frittered away all his money and all his assets, and has now gone for the big double or quits, with the country entering debtors prison if the gamble fails.

[james]

Delete my comments?

Do you not believe in free speech. Oh of course not, you want to scrap the Human Rights Act don't you?

YES WE CAN.

[David (One of many)]

"Do you not believe in free speech. Oh of course not, you want to scrap the Human Rights Act don't you?"

I believe in freedom of speech. Not freedom to be a sodding little chore.

[Simon Denis]

Proposed lines of attack:

a) Won't pay for Labour's latest borrowing fix;
b) Thin end of a wedge which will soon affect everyone;
c) Will, if anything, depress demand further - think of the car industry;
d) Represents a broken promise;
e) How then can we ever trust the pinkos again?

Keeping calm and magisterial whilst delivering these judgements.

[james]

Dry your eyes mate.

[NorthernMonkey]

Patsy Sergeant - do you honestly think a 5% rise in income tax is going to lead to an exodus of rich people from the country?!

In the 1970's, the top tax rate was 83%, Labour will now be calling for it to be 45% - hardly a worthy comparison is it?

This is an excellent move which will make the tax system more progressive.

Dave and George will be scratching their little heads tonight wondering what on earth they should do now?

How fun!

[David (One of many)]

Raj is right. We'll get lumbered with the 'friends of the rich' thing anyway, because it always happens. But it is an argument that is so worn out its effect will be limited in some respects. They key way to attack this is to show it as the prospect that awaits us all.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Wow! YES YOU CAN! But isn't it time you were in bed Jamesey Babe!

[james]

Not yet quite time for my bed sir. I have an EU Law assignment to complete for tomorrow.

Plus I just opened a good bottle of Chablis and gave a nice cheese board to consume.

Toodle pip.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Now is the time for people earning more than £150k to give to the Tory Party. They should act now or forever hold their peace.

[Matt Wright]

Re Northern Monkey @ 23.18 - I hardly think a recession and how to deal with it has much to do with "fun" although you appear to share team Browns mentality of trying to score political points using the economy. Remember the 10p tax debacle.

[pp]

Come on - why do you think this particular factoid was leaked?

To make it the focus of comment tomorrow!

Don't be sucked in - ignore your navels - *read the whole report* and then prioritise the 'issues' - from worst to really, really bad.

Campbell isn't entirely useless, even if mandleson is - so beware.

[Tom FD]

No James, we don't like it, because this policy, among so many other dreadful economic policies by Brown, will cause enormous damage to this country. An eternal 1978, if you will.

[Patsy Sergeant]

'Mr. Brown beetled into the Chamber just before 3.30pm doing that odd waddle which looks like the great Norman Wisdom playing a department store floor walker. Grin, mince, drop of the head in greeting, grin, waddle, lick of the lips, grin, and then some more busy little steps.' Courtesy of Quentin Letts on Nov: 18th last week, in his column Yesterday in Parliament!

I am sure Mr. Brown - no of course it is Chancellor Darling - will give the House a demonstration of the proper way to cope with addressing an economy on the slide DOWNWARDS, tomorrow, and we will all be reassurred that our leader is managing!

[james]

I am sure that if most of you remove the blue tinted spectacles and are honest, you actually agree with this, Opposition for oppositions sake is a terrible place to be.

[Will S]

This is ridiculous. We'll be feeling the effects of this Labour government for a decade or more.

[Patsy Sergeant]

James @ 23.24 - Now I know another reason why we should leave the EU!

[Steve]

Northernmonkey - a Proper indoctrinated whopper.

[NorthernMonkey]

I can almost hear Osborne's knees knocking together right now!

I genuinely think Dave and George will find it very difficult to oppose this.

If they end up backing the move though...death of Thatcherism?

[james]

Patsy my dear...

If you can present me with a valid argument for leaving the EU then I will be glad to enter into debate with you. Also please tell me about the LIsbon treaty and why you are so against it? Are you against the first ever clause in a EU treaty that gives a clear exit strategy from the EU? What about trade barriers and border tax? where do you stand on that?

[michele imperi]

After this announcement , bye bye Sterling . See you below parity .

[michael m]

I do not know why Mr Darling is bothering to go to the House of Commons tomorrow- his spin doctors have leaked it out already. So much for Brown's promise that Parliament would always be the first to know!

[Patsy Sergeant]

James you are sounding adult, which is much more interesting! I wouldn't dream of starting a debate on anything at this time of night, otherwise I would never get to bed, and I am usually late anyway!

[Jaz]

There are different schools of thought for our involvement into the EU within the conservative party.

Trade benefits are hugely beneficial, as well as lower social and physics barriers (some of the social chapter). However, this theory can occasionally be questioned.

Likewise, though I do and never will support a withdrawal from the EU, I concede that it is poorly governed, poorly organised and the commission and EU parliament is completely discredited with voters not only in the UK, but EUwide.

[james]

No worries Patsy, perhaps another time? I am on the second bottle of Chablis and got a little over excited at the news. Wine and Sky news tends to bring out the child in me!! I think I need to get out more.

Goodnight.

[RichardJ]

If Cameron doesn't promise to repeal this spiteful measure he will face mutiny in the ranks.

[james]

I may be very wrong Rachel, but I don't think he has the balls.

[RichardJ]

"Dave and George will be scratching their little heads tonight wondering what on earth they should do now?"

Leave the Mail and the Sun to go mental over it. Labour will face a media backlash over this.

[Doug]

Jesus Christ! Labour are going to destroy our country. It will take a Herculean effort to fix this ungodly mess. The Tories should call for a vote of no confidence in the government out of concern for the nation's well being, sod the politics.

[james]

I wouldn't be so sure Rachel The Daily Mail is not 'Cameron's' biggest fan. The Sun will not want to upset it's working class readers and so might go with it. At the moment on their home page they are reporting it. But seem to be setting themselves up to support it. Even the Telegraph was in parts championing 'Darling's' proposed PBR.

[Steve Tierney]

Actually, I quite like NorthernMonkeys comments. I dont agree with him, but for the most part they are insightful and intelligent, in a lefty kinda' way!

Its valuable to have the opposition here. Its good practice for responding to them, and the honest "old" Labour guys have principles and something to say, unlike NuLabour who are just bags of halfbaked ideas under a crooked and tired banner.

I far prefer NorthernMonkey, who at least is debating honestly, to dull David who whines on like a two-year-old who has lost his rattle. But we should all remember... don't feed the trolls!

[Steve Tierney]

Okay... I meant JAMES no David. Sorry. Its late. Im tired. I'll get me' coat.

[NorthernMonkey]

Thank you Steve, always a pleasure! ;-)

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

Osborne should ask Darling to announce his other planned tax increases whilst he's at it. It's obvious that this will cover only a small amount of Brown's debt. When will he announce the tax increases for the rest of us? People are already leaving the country in droves - the only people left in ten year's time will be those paying ridiculous amounts of tax and the increasing hordes of scroungers. The socialist dream - you'd have thought we would have realised that it ends in poverty by now.

[james]

That's a bit mean Steve T, my mum says I'm lovely.

[Joe James B]

Not a good move atall.
Low taxes bring in more revenue - over time, if not immediately.

If the government's spending doesn't add up, we should go on sacking Human Resources parasites and scrapping ID cards, and possibly Trident replacement and other waste until it does.

[james]

Can I ask a serious question?

Why are you lot up in arms about a 5p tax rise for people who can afford it, when under the Tories, petrol would be 5p extra a litre today under their proposals?

[james]

come on. You can't all have gone to bed at the same time. Do you have an answer?

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

James,

Earlier this year many businesses went to the wall because of high fuel prices. A reduction at that time would have saved many. An increase now that prices are so low would not cause anywhere near the same amount of damage.

It's easy to point the finger and say "petrol would be 5p more under the Tories" But you fail to point out that it would have been 5p cheaper when people were losing their businesses. Brown did nothing.

[james]

Hey Steve,

Sorry to hear about your business. But are you seriously trying to tell me that the only cause of your business going bust was to do with fuel prices? Plus your argument does not really make any sense. Petrol would be 5p higher today under the Tories, so how would that have helped your business, surely it being 95p a litre as opposed to 90p a litre would not help your business? And without sounding flippant, I thought the Tory thinking was to fix the roof whilst the sun is shining. Did you not do that?

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

James,

You just don't get it do you? When the price of fuel shot up Brown was making a killing, and instead of helping struggling businesses, out he pocketed the cash.

And you seem to be keen on the EU. Do you know why Darling is reducing VAT to 15% and not lower? EU law forbids member states from going below 15%. Reducing VAT by 2.5% will do nothing to boost the economy. Many like me will be paying off debts or saving because we know that we will be paying higher taxes to pay for Brown's incompetence very shortly.

[Sunder Katwala]

A majority of Tory voters will back this move.

I would watch out for Dave and George not backing what you lot want on this one!

YouGov found that 67% of all voters (and 55% of Tories) support the more radical measure of 50p income tax above £100k. That has majority support on an all class, all regions, all parties, all income groups basis. (That poll was Autumn 2007 - others may have more recent info - but I am sure we will see strong or stronger support for this measure).

More polling info here (Fabian Society blog)
http://www.nextleft.org/2008/11/public-will-back-tax-fairness-at-top.html

[Tom FD]

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows this is an unworkable policy from a man who knows he can't win the next election, so he's putting Labour on full-on damage limitation mode by appealing directly to the left and the "class war" types in the strongest possible terms. Tomorrow, David Cameron must clearly point out that the man who doth protest so loudly at his opponent's supposed "party politics" is the most tribalistic leader to ever inhabit Downing Street.

[Tom FD]

How about, instead of this barking mad policy, a cut of at least 10% in the pay for the top 5% salaried public sector workers? That's something Labour couldn't even spin as a reduction in hospitals, nurses, schools or teachers. It would have negligible effect on the economy other than reducing the deficit and borrowing rate via a cut in public spending (which could then be used to fund tax cuts). Win-win?

[Andrew S]

I'm looking forward to seeing how this is reported in the papers. This is sink or swim for Labour i think, they're obviously very chuffed with this.

Steal a Lib-Dem policy whilst the Lib-Dems mimic Conservative policy. What on Earth is happening?

The papers will be intriguing.

[Saxred]

James - under Labour, free speech only applies to Islamic Terrorists, Militant Homosexuals, Black Anti Gay Rappers and anyone who wants to tax non existent global warmimg (no rise in the past ten years - fact, no predicted for the next 10 either- fact)

[Rachel Joyce]

Editor. It is really annoying to have little children with playground taunts and their ignorant views on here. Can you possibly mark those sorts of comments in red or something so we don't have to read them - it is irritating for us and confuses the people who read them.
I only have a limited amount of time to read ConHome these days and having to filter through that kind of nonsense is a complete waste of people's time.

[GB£.com]

"Can you possibly mark those sorts of comments in red or something"

If Tim introduced a registration process, he could of course offer an option to not view unregistered comments, allow you to filter those and perhaps specific posters too.

Which based on my history, may mean you wouldn't be able to read these suggestions... ;-)

As for the new tax rate. Ouch. An obvious pure political play to corner the Tories.

[Ctesibius]

time for a flat tax with a £10,000 thresh-hold, methinks

[Dominic]

This attack on the wealth creators is nearly as stupid as the Conservative attack on the Non Doms which Labour adopted this could be the final nail in the coffin and these people might just be tempted to take flight and let Britain flounder in their incompetence as so many countries offer much more for investors in their economies. It looks likely that Alistair Darling will offer VAT cuts: a useless consumer stimulus that will only create jobs in China and which shows he apparently thinks we can consume our way out of a recession created by consumer driven debt.2% is hardly exciting and will not make people spend money
Compare with the USA where Obama’s team are planning infrastructure development.
Unfortunately Conservative attacks are so limited with such a wide goal to aim at look at Labour’s stupid tax on empty commercial buildings for one. Brown has been a disaster for Britain the Conservative’s have got to attack with all their might

[Tim Montgomerie]

The comments of "james" are annoying Rachel and I've overwritten one but the best response is for other commenters to ignore their taunts. If you engage with them (yes, I'm thinking of you Patsy!) they'll come back for more and more.

[Another Richard]

Have just heard Cooper lying on radio claiming that Labour has been reducing debt and so now have the scope to borrow more.

This has to be nailed hard by Cameron and Osborne. They need to say explicity that Labour are lying and that taxes will rise. It's important to tie Labour's lies over the economy and taxation with their other lies over immigration, Europe and Iraq.

[GB£.com]

That's a very good point Dominic. Has a figure been released yet of what the new tax band will raise?

I suspect that this unwelcome new tax rate won't actually come close to hitting the 'rich' as much as the Tory non-dom plans which aim to raise 3.5 billion.

[John Moss]

Higher tax rates produce lower tax receipts. Not only that, reducing top rate tax to 40p in the 80s saw a higher proportion of income tax being paid by top rate payers as well, so lower top tax rates mean more revenue and greater re-distribution.

The arguement, however, is too complicated for the average Labour PM or Chancellor - and boy, do we have "average" ones now - let alone the poor voter.

At the present time, the numbers of people earning £150k + pa is falling, rapidly. Many sacked executives will have cash in the bank from redundancy payments, which is ex-tax. The interest on that will not take them to £150k and they will simply run down their capital or re-invest it outside the UK. Peversely, the lefty cheerleaders in the BBC and the upper echelons of the public sector, who are not losing their jobs, will all be hit by this.

This is truly a stupid idea, but what is more stupid, is allowing it to be leaked so giving us the time to formulate a proper response - unless it is a red herring?

OMG! Is that Mandelson's hand I see there?

[pp]

This is a diversion - Brown always has something to distract attention from the detail and fine print.

What is the interest on £100bn?

This doesn't even start to cover the interest, let alone debt.

And what happened to browns pledge that his government would announce every thing to parliament first?

[pp]

What is the effect of this on the tory sharing the proceeds of growth strategy? -- will there be any scope to share the proceeds of growth if these massive debts are incurred?

[Rachel Joyce]

I think we should say:
1. It is a disgrace that under this government the fact that the working poor are taxed higher than anyone else.
2. We would not be against the 45% tax band on the point of equity, but in practice all it will do is REDUCE tax receipts as they will then move out of the tax system (either by clever accounting or leaving the country).
3. We need to educate the country and the BBC about the Laffer curve
4. We need to educate the country and the BBC about the off-balance sheet debt - total liabilities now 158% of GDP
5. We need to suggest a massive reduction in corporation tax and employers NI benefits - will bring in businesses to Britain, keep those already here in business, encourage employment, and as a consequence INCREASE tax receipts.

[Rachel Joyce]

In regard to point 2 also should mention reduction of aspiration also.

[Callum Wood]

Laffer Curve! Laffer Curve Laffer Curve Laffer Curve!!!!

If anything, raising taxes will decrease government revenue.

If they really want to stimulate the economy and/or raise revenue, drop the top rate to 20%.
(flat rate income tax, some might call it)

[Malcolm Dunn]

If this is true our response will have to be skilful as I can see it being an attractive proposition for many people ie non higher rate tax payers.
Sadly yet again I think Brown has put party before country and is devising a plan which is designed to win him votes rather solve the financial problems facing us.
I also think he now realises that in order to win he has to take big risks,playing safe as he did in 2007 is no longer an option.The sad thing is that he's prepared to take big risks with the financial health of this country.

[Happy Tory]

We need to hit back by repeating that Gordon Brown is still overwhelmingly focused on gestures and political tactics, rather than the real issues. He's trying to distract people, and trying to make us look like the baddies again. The revenue raising effect of this tax rise will be minimal - £2-3bn is almost a rounding error on the annual NHS budget. The pleasing thing is that the commentariat finally appears to be focusing more on who got us into this mess - like the Times leader this morning.

[pp]

Another line of attack on labour (particularly geoffrey robinson) over this has to be their duplicitous explaination that "they won't break any promise on not raising income tax" - because going into the next election they will admit that they are going to raise it.

But of course their actions now may be making rises inevitable (whoever wins the election).

Also by not making this promise going in to the next election, they are leaving themselves the option of raising income tax for every one... How about a promise that this will be the only income tax rise?

The problem with this line of attack is (of course) that noone really beleives a word they say - so accusing them of being duplicitious may not carry much weight - after all, every one knows what bears do in the woods.

[ChrisD]

This is gesture politics of the worst kind.
Just heard sky political journalist saying this might cause a headache for the Tories??!!

Err, no, Gordon Brown is hoping that flying this kite after a future GE will might do that. That is what should be the story!
If we are in the worst economic crisis since the war, should the government be indulging in this type of gesture politiking, or should they be producing the best economic plan they can within the parameters of their very poor record?

They don't have the luxury of playing politics with the short/medium or long term economic future of the UK. And if they do, then they do not have the slightest idea of how they got us into this mess, never mind the answers for getting us through it with a decent plan of recovery!

And that is the problem, if this PBR comes across as too cynically political, the electorate will not buy it as many in the media have been predicting.
And lets face it, the political lobby have been getting it so badly wrong with Gordon Brown for so long, its now more embarrassing than Brown's claim to be an economic guru.

The only people buying that are the media, nuff said.
The PBR has to be honest and totally concentrate on the UK's economic problems right now, any whiff of the type of gesture politics that produced the 10p tax con will be be received very badly by the electorate.
If they don't buy the idea that this fiscal stimulus will work, and that they will be left yet again picking up the tab from a Labour government who plan to carry on taxing them to the hilt after a GE. Bye bye Labour government!

[RichardJ]

"I wouldn't be so sure Rachel"

Why are you calling me Rachel?

[Dominic]

Callum 8.39am you have got it spot on if the rate of tax was decreased to 20% the same as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man trillions would flow into Britain directly and bypass many offshore areas every manufacturer would want to be based here. The housing market would suddenly gear into action even in areas in the north.
We then would just have to boot Europe into touch to become one of the wealthiest countries in the World with strong border regulation to keep out all the hangers on that we have been letting in to figures estimated at well over a million people.
Many years ago in Maggie’s time it was supposed to be a long term aim to have a flat tax of 20%.
We can but dream but it is too simple a solution for Politicians the only way with Brown is down, down, down.

[John (Northumberland)]

I'm just horrified.
After 11 years at the helm, this man has wrecked the UK economy. An era of public & private debt. Guess what? It all has to be paid for.

Now runs up even greater borrowings for more pet projects and 'tax cuts'. In the name of fiscal stimulus! God preserve us.

And still the British people sleep. A win in Glenrothes. Even talk of a 2009 election.

None of these Keynesian giveaways/Brownite bribes will work. At best delay the inevitable. More likely just waste more money and make things worse.

The answer:

1. Make it clear who is responsible for this mess and why is the IMF saying UK will be worse affected than US, Japan or Eurozone?

2. This sea of debt has to be paid for. Brown's work got us here and is now just making it worse.

3. We are sick of the nanny state, of PCism, of enforced multi culturalism, of open door immigration, of unstoppable swelling of public sector & crony filled Quango's etc. ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

4. Brown has left us facing 3 economic Tsunami's - Property Price Bubble, Energy crisis (insufficient on shore gas storage) with ageing Power Stations and then the Public Sector Pensions.

It is time to wake up. The man has no answers just more nightmares in store.

It is time for change.

[james]

Tim M.

Sir,

I was only asking a question or two.

I am still keen to know why you lot are up in arms about a 5p tax rise for people that can afford it. when under a Tory government, every single person that uses a car would be paying 5p per litre extra on fuel today. Why would you want to protect high earners, but hammer everyone else?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes Tim, a couple of my remarks were somewhat inappropriate last night - having just re-read those posts, they were actually meant to read as much more sarcastic than they came across. No, better not to have bothered. HOwever, I don't think that those comments can be called as offensive as a fair number of the comments that have been around recently, and which I personally find unpleasant, although they are obviously not directed at me!

IF I am allowed! According to the ITV News this lunchtime, the public should definitely be getting the message that this government SHOULD be held to account for the mess we are in, and that Mr. Brown is definitely NOT the superman that he thought he was only about 2 weeks ago! Even John Bradby gave the most pessimistic and almost angry interview to camera this lunchtime...

[james]

Still no answer on the 5p fuel rise under the Tories. I guess that's because you know what I am hinting and saying is right. Opposition for oppositions sake once again.

[Votedave]

In the words of Iain Dale, Labour are now pretending that a good old fashioned bit of envy politics will persuade ordinary earners that their taxes won't go up. Amazing.

[NigelC]

We are all going to pay for Brown's mistakes one way or another. I just hope the damage can be repaired.

[James Maskell]

Anyone have any idea how much revenue would be earned through this 5p increase?

Ill wait for the speech but at the moment the current announcements in themselves are rather a weak response to this crisis.

[Mapa]

only 500,000 people out of 30 million in UK PLC workforce earn 150k plus,

'we are all middle class now' tb, what a absolute joke.

more like your still all plebs/serfs/hardworking families ...
whatever the phrase used to call the working majority.

[James Maskell]

Would a cut in VAT actually work? How would it help provide a shock to the system and aid recovery? Unfortunately Im the sort of person who doesnt really deal with VAT... From what Ive seen on the news it would encourage spending on luxury items basically, at a time when people are very much against buying expensive items because of the uncoming recession?

[Not Bothered]

Why bother fighting NuLabour ?

Why not let Labour win the next election , then they can try to deal with their own mess , and bury themselves for the next 30 years.

Alternatively set out the Conservative plans, keep them simple so they are easy to understand for everyone.

A general election slogan perhaps ?

If you believe that you'll believe anything...

For instance ...

You won't have to repay this governments excessive borrowing through punitive stealth taxes.

Or

Mandy always tells the truth (substitute the name of any Labour minister).

Or

You don't have to pay for the Gold Plated Pensions your civil servants enjoy.

Or

You won't struggle to pay to eat and heat your house under a Labour administration.

We may also just have to recognise that by the time the GE comes there may well be enough people relying on Government handouts to comfortably re-elect NuLabour to another term of economic destruction...