Finkelstein takes on Davis; Heffer takes on Cameron

Regular readers of this blog will know that Daniel Finkelstein and I 'exchanged views' last week on David Davis' tax plans.  'The Fink' has used his column in today's Times to encourage modernising Tories to abandon Mr Davis' ship because of those 'intellectually confused' tax plans.  Mr Finkelstein may be encouraging the kind of possible defections noted earlier.

Editor's comment: I remain in sharp disagreement with my friend Daniel on this one particular issue.  His article is a complete prisoner of the tax-is-only-a-budgetary-tool-framework.  There is no hint from his article that tax relief is a vital (and urgently needed) economy-boosting tool.  His article is the work of a fiscal conservative.  Conservatives should also be supply-side reformers.  Without pruning of the regulations and stealth taxes that are undermining British competitiveness the fiscal conservatives' desire to balance the public finances will become increasingly difficult.

Not so long ago Daniel had a more prominent clash with Simon Heffer.  They appeared together on Radio 4's Week in Westminster programme and disagreed on the extent to which Conservatives needed to win over gay voters and those who sympathised with their demands. 

Mr Heffer is no friend of the modernisers' doctrine of "moving on".  This is what he writes in today's Telegraph:

"What Tories who parrot the Cameronian doctrine of "moving on" must admit is that there has been no such philosophical watershed to alter the Conservative way of thinking. They cannot tell us what aspect of Tory thought - the small state, individual responsibility, the rule of law and all that - has been utterly discredited by events. They seem to forget that the Tories don't keep losing elections solely because of outdated or unattractive policies: they still lose them because the self-serving, sleazy, dishonest and incompetent way in which they ran the country in the 1990s has blighted them for a generation."

Mr Heffer is worried that David Cameron is policy-lite and far too Blairite for our times:

"Mr Blair's way of doing business was perfect for the mid-1990s. It won't work now, not least because the public are so disillusioned with its vacuities, vapidities and deceits. The public have had their fill of image. They experience inadequate hospitals, failing schools, rising crime, a heavy burden of taxes and poor value for money and they ask: what can be done to improve things? So far, Mr Cameron has virtually nothing to offer, but asks his members to vote instead for his image."

Comments

[michael]

"At least the Davis tax cuts can be changed later."

You turn if you want to! Our credibility would be crushed. Davis has boxed himself in...he must stick with it or face ridicule.

[James Hellyer]

The point, wasp, is that spare capacity does not have to be generated through the state building surplus schools, but rather through allowing new entrants into the market.

[TC]

Michael is quite right - if you make a commitment or promise, you've got to keep it, whatever.

The first George Bush discovered that after promising 'read my lips, no tax cuts'. It was a major factor in him failing to get reelected.

[loyal_tory]

I think you'll find that in the unlikely event David Davis is elected leader he would not be in the market for suddenly declaring he wanted a tax increase a la John Major and George Bush Snr. And since the figures he proposes are based on economic growth and other considerations which will change I think the notion that Davis would not change them is extremely naive.

The Davis tax cuts are a tactic to try to get David Cameron to talk about his approach to tax should he win. If anyone has a better idea of how to get David Cameron to show his hand before the vote is over I would love to hear it. The Sun has had some success but unfortunately Tory leadership candidates who are behind in the polls and mere ordinary party members can't count on the same clout to get them answers.

[reasonable]

I'm not too keen on Simon Heffer, but I can't find anything he's said in this article that's wrong. Cameron is a PR creation. That may be no bad thing. But he's never done anything else. He may be good in the future. He may be awful. The party is so low right now that I guess we'll trying anything. But something in my bones tells me it's not quite right.

[Wat Tyler]

I'm collecting info on where the SDP diaspora ended up (other than Chuck and the others who stayed in the LDs). We know we got Fink, and Labour got Lord Adonis (great name). But what about the rest? Any bids?

[Oberon Houston]

There has been a lot of talk (I mean a lot) on the Leadership blog recently about tax cuts, and more specifically “supply-side economics”.

Whilst there is certainly a relationship between economic growth and lower taxation – be assured that this is not the panacea. If taxation is simply lowered without corresponding spending reductions in the near-mid term debt will very quickly rise, pushing up interest rates and depressing the bond market. Both these will have serious effects, not only businesses, but increasingly, the finances of ordinary people who are vulnerable to rate levels due to their high debt levels, principally through greater home ownership.

The responsible way to reduce taxation levels, avoid high debt, and in the long term increase public spending, is to work up a budget surplus and then introduce carefully measured tax cuts to stimulate growth, whist ensuring that debt levels do not rise.

- For more information on the risks of reducing taxation without reducing spending, see the Regan Administration.

- For more information on the difficulty of reducing high debt levels, see the Bush and latterly the Clinton Administration.

- For more information on failing to learn the lessons of the past, despite warnings, see the current Bush Administration and David Davis.

- For more information on doing things right to begin with (by adopting a Conservative budget and spending plan, but then royally messing it up, see the current Chancellor.

If you’ve got this far on my post, you deserve a cup of tea!

[Wat Tyler]

Oberon- Davis's "Growth Rule" is about limiting the growth of spending, which then finances the tax cuts. Nobody's talking about cutting taxes without concommitant spending limits.

[Selsdon Man]

"Nobody's talking about cutting taxes without concommitant spending limits."

Don't you believe it. Our neo-cons will try to ape Bush - the biggest spender since Lyndon B Johnson! Dubya put up federal spending by 35% in his first term and failed to veto a single Bill - even those stuffed with pork! W is for "wally" (or another moniker that the editor would ban me for using)!