George Osborne was on BBC1's Politics Show this afternoon defending the Cameron campaign. A little earlier David Davis had been on Adam Boulton's Sky News Sunday programme.
Mr Davis pushed his low tax message. He said that low taxes were essential for faster growth and that, as leader, he would sell the case for tax cuts throughout the next three or four years. He agreed that getting the public to accept that tax cuts were essential to a dynamic economy was not a simple task but it was an important task. He promised to begin by arguing that Britain's sluggish economic performance was a direct consequence of Gordon Brown's hi-tax, hi-regulation approach. He rejected the Cameron campaign's suggestion that his tax cuts were similar to those proposed by Oliver Letwin at the last General Election. They were of an entirely different scale, he insisted.
On his new piece for the Platform Blog Michael Gove argues that the Tories need a much broader agenda on the economy. He lays down a direct challenge to Mr Davis on budgetary issues:
"It’s also necessary for those who are putting a specific figure on tax cuts now to tell us what precise level of Government borrowing they envisage in four years time, what proportion of Government spending they would allocate to debt repayment, and what then would be left for tax cuts or public spending. And public spending on which issues? If money is to be made available for new grammar schools, does that mean a rate of growth in the education budget faster than other departments? If so which will be cut to make up for that? The Home Office? But what about the commitment to build more prisons?"
Mr Osborne was on the Politics Show to respond to sharp criticisms of the Cameron campaign from Quentin Davies MP. Mr Davies had criticised Mr Osborne's flat tax ideas as "kooky". Mr Davies, a Davis supporter, argued that you didn't need a Commission to understand that a flat tax was unworkable in Britain. Mr Osborne's response was distinctly chippy:
"I'm afraid to say I actually disagree with almost everything Quentin Davies has ever said. I often find myself on the wrong side of the argument from him even though we're both Conservative MPs."
Such a response will only worry those people who believe that Cameron, as leader, would be surrounded by a narrow group of 'Notting Hillbillies' - intolerant of internal dissent. Similar worries are directed at the Davis team, of course, and Mr Davis' reliance on his chums from the pre-97 whips' office.
Mr Osborne used the interview to distance himself from Mr Davis' grammar schools policy (announced yesterday). The Shadow Chancellor said that returning to grammar schools for a few was not the answer. Conservatives had to demonstrate a commitment to the mainstream education of everyone.
An ICM survey for the Politics Show showed that support amongst 215 Tory members was running in Mr Cameron's favour by three-to-one. A quarter of those surveyed were undecided. The ICM and yesterday's YouGov survey are examined on the UK Polling Report blog.
Gideon Osborne's comment on The Politics Show was worthy of a schoolboy and he certainly looked like one as he made such stupid comments about Quentin Davies.
He even had Jon Sopel turning to ask Damian Green if he had any idea what Cameron policies were, stating that "at least we know with your man" but "I couldn't get anything out of them"
That was not a particularly convincing performance by Osborne who had better get his act together before his lack of maturity renders him a laughing-stock.
Posted by: Rick | 30 October 2005 at 16:19
This site is becoming very biased I `m afraid.
The way Davis and his supporters have layed in to there opponents as been a disgrace.I would like to remind you about the personal attacks on DC that got someone banned from this site. I don`t think its at all wrong if DC and his supporters start to give some of Davis`s medicine back to them. As the old saying goes if you can`t stand the heat get out of the kitchen!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 30 October 2005 at 17:19
The Shadow Chancellor said that returning to grammar schools for a few was not the answer. Conservatives had to demonstrate a commitment to the mainstream education of everyone.
This is what I said on the Schools thread yesterday. Davis's vaunted "20 grammar schools" would be responsible for only around 4000 pupils per year cohort. That isn't "dealing with inner-city education". It's scratching the surface and for a major policy announcement it simply doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 30 October 2005 at 17:27
"This site is becoming very biased I `m afraid.
The way Davis and his supporters have layed in to there opponents as been a disgrace.I would like to remind you about the personal attacks on DC that got someone banned from this site. I don`t think its at all wrong if DC and his supporters start to give some of Davis`s medicine back to them. As the old saying goes if you can`t stand the heat get out of the kitchen!"
Warning! Evacuate the glass house - Jack's throwing stones again!
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 30 October 2005 at 17:38
Accusing other people of bias is never a good strategy, and it usually misfires. Supporters of both camps on here have thrown this accusation at one time or another, and it does little for credibility.
One of my pet hates with certain elements of the Conservative Party is their willingness to repeat the old "BBC bias" line whenever things aren't going well.
On that note, it is worrying from a general perspective is the speed at which Davis retreated to the old "media bias" line when his campaign beached. We need to get the media on-side again and whilst Cameron has shown this is possible, Davis has left a big question mark over his ability to do this.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 30 October 2005 at 17:48
" have layed in to there opponents " sic
truy "laid into their opponents"
Posted by: Rick | 30 October 2005 at 17:48
Education is certainly a critical issue, and a revival of grammar schools would help to get a very good free education for those who could benefit most. This would cream off the elite pupils, but would allow the rest to have a more practical-based education which would also be more beneficial for them. Back in the sixties the many excellent grammar schools were abolished because the secondary modern schools were deemed to be failing. What should have happened then was an improvement in the secondary moderns.
We have to face the fact that one sort of school does not suit all. If we had more variety in the system we could find schools to suit a variety of different needs.
Posted by: Derek | 30 October 2005 at 18:12
I don't think the person who was banned was a Davis supporter. Probably more of a Fox supporter.
Posted by: greg | 30 October 2005 at 18:46
The attacks on this blog on Cllr Iain Lindley are grotesque and unfair and should cease forthwith.
Posted by: Alderman Vainly | 30 October 2005 at 18:51
"I don't think the person who was banned was a Davis supporter. Probably more of a Fox supporter."
Evidence please! What was that about stones and glass houses?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 30 October 2005 at 18:52
Exactly. George Osborne was quite right to slap down Quentin Davies. His attack reminded me of the unhelpful comments during the General Election by Howard Flight and Danny Kruger - remember them? If we are going to win the next election we will need more discipline.
Posted by: Alderman Vainly | 30 October 2005 at 19:03
More to the point, George Osborne was right to slap down Quentin Davies because his opinions about Quentin Davies are reflected across the Party.
I think that flat-tax potentially has many merits and a commission to examine it is exactly the right way to go.
Posted by: Martin Curtis | 30 October 2005 at 19:07
Daniel and Jack, please act as if you're in the real world. You can't be leader if you can't answer basic questions coming from your party.
Don't you see, Cameron-supporters, that for the rest of us there is some real frustration building up. I've said this elsewhere, but I want to repeat that lots of us accept that DD has performed poorly (apart from the last couple of days), and that DC will win. We may even concede that DD deserves to lose, but we don't yet think DC deserves to win.
Mr Cameron would do himself good to be a bit more forthcoming on some key 'directions'.
This is important. DC must win because he is good, because he is strong and decent and genuine. Not just by default. So: DC will win, but he needs to win well. If he winS badly, by hiding behind a load of please-both-sides Clintonian/Blairite mush, his leadership will be on an insecure foundation.
Such a foundation makes it all the more likely that as soon as things get tricky, the dissent will start. Soon we could have the same old twitchy, grumpy, split party under which Major, Hague and IDS suffered. It won't be enough, Jack and Daniel, to complain that people are being unfair!
For the sake of the future leadership of DC, his supporters should try to make sure he faces the true challenges, and doesn't simply rely on DD's failures.
Posted by: buxtehude | 30 October 2005 at 19:08
How is a flat tax is "exactly the right way to go" while it is "irresponsible" to promise tax cuts?
Is the flat tax meant to raise taxes?
Posted by: Boring accountant | 30 October 2005 at 19:24
Alderman Vainly and Martin Curtis:
Whatever we may think of Quentin Davies' views (and I disagree with him on tax and the EPP), Mr Osborne's reaction was disproportionate.
Although he was much kinder to Mr Davies than many of the exchanges we have on this site!
Posted by: Editor | 30 October 2005 at 19:52
Boring Accountant,
How is a flat tax is "exactly the right way to go" while it is "irresponsible" to promise tax cuts? Is the flat tax meant to raise taxes?
That depends on what level you set the flat tax at - a flat tax by itself could be a tax rise, tax neutral, or a tax cut, depending on the level you set it at, and the exemptions.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 30 October 2005 at 20:27
Bux- well put (except the bit abour DD losing, obviously)
Cllr Lindley- isn't the problem with a flat tax- despite its manifold attractions- that there's a big redistribution from middle income earners to low and high earners? And the only way of preventing loss in the middle is to set the flat rate so low that revenue is slashed. Hence- I think- Boring Accountant's extremely pertinent question.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 30 October 2005 at 21:09
A flat tax has been portrayed as being a tax cut for the high earners and a tax rise for the middle earners. DD's tax reductions would seem to be a fairer way of targeting the benefits. The idea of using these tax reductions to stimulate the economy is a case that will take time to make. DD is right to make the case early.
Posted by: Derek | 30 October 2005 at 21:11
Buxtehude, if you are suggesting that I am a Cameronite, then I (and the numerous people who accused me of running a nasty, vicious, unpleasant anti-Cameron hate campaign) can assure you that you are very much mistaken. Please do not tar me with the same brush as Jack.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 30 October 2005 at 21:29
Wat is correct. Unless the rate of the flat tax was set at the marginal rate for middle income earners or below, those middle income earners would end up paying more of their income in tax then they did previously. A flat tax scheme is just a tax cut for the rich.
Under the schemes proposed in the US, they get around this by setting the rate low but by gaining their revenue shortfall through sales tax (VAT). Unfortunately sales taxes are entirely regressive and consume more of the income of low earners. This therefore means that the flat tax would clobber the poor and be a tax cut for the rich.
In fact the only way it can work in an economy like ours, would be by slashing public spending. That would, fo course, hit the lowest income earners hardest, as they rely most on state services.
So what can we conclude from this? That George Osborne favours tax cuts for the rich and worse services for the poor? Or that he hasn't thought it through?
Posted by: Interesting accountant (pause for hollow laughter) | 30 October 2005 at 21:44
Sorry Daniel. Really stupidly I didn't notice your last line - thought you were approvingly repeating JS' comment.
Alderman Vainly: John Coulsen I presume
Posted by: buxtehude | 30 October 2005 at 21:54
To be honest I'm yet to be convinced by the merits of the flat tax, but I suppose as far as the "worse services" argument goes that would depend on whether the lower rate on higher earners would increase tax take overall, much as (I believe) Thatcher's reductions in the higher-rate did in the early eighties.
Also, of course, whilst the "flat tax" has grabbed the headlines, tax simplification is an agenda much greater than that. There is plenty of mileage in simplifying Brown's ridiculous "tax credit" regime, to the benefit of everyone, and I'm sure Osborne's commission will be looking every bit as much into that.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 30 October 2005 at 21:57
You do realise that Geoffrey Howe had to double the rate of VAT to balance the books after he cut income taxes, don't you?
Unless spending was slashed, George Osborne would have to do the same, because there isn't enough room for manoever on the laffer curve.
Posted by: Interesting accountant (pause for hollow laughter) | 30 October 2005 at 22:11
That flat tax commission is a reflection of the wider deliberate ambiguity of the Cameron campaign. I rarely agree with Quentin Davies either but he is right about this much: you don't need a commission to figure out whether you are in favour of it or not, or whether it should be party policy at the next election or not.
After a Cameron victory, that commission can be used to support a flat tax or to oppose it. In other words, the commission can be used to strengthen the hand of tax cutters in the party or to weaken it--to broaden the debate about cutting tax within the party or to narrow it.
The same is true of the Cameron campaign's carefully phrased utterances on tax cuts. When Jon Sopel has to ask a spokesman for the Davis campaign what Cameron's policies are saying "I couldn't get anything out of them" it is clear for all to see that their entire campaign is designed to avoid telling those outside Cameron's inner circle what his intentions are. Which means that the only interesting question is: Why?
If the Conservative Party can't get straight answers about Cameron's intentions once he becomes leader, we all owe it to ourselves and our party to ask why.
Posted by: loyal_tory | 30 October 2005 at 22:31
"Sorry Daniel. Really stupidly I didn't notice your last line - thought you were approvingly repeating JS' comment."
Apology gratefully accepted. To borrow a line from the Cameronite-in-chief, Gideon Osborne (credit where it's due!): I'm afraid to say I actually disagree with almost everything Jack Stone has ever said. I often find myself on the wrong side of the argument from him even though we're both Conservatives.
I doubt I will ever repeat approvingly a comment of Jack's, unless of course it's a thorough retraction and renouncement of every comment he's made to date ;-).
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 30 October 2005 at 22:31