Those taxing Tories (part 2)
The other day I quoted the Cameroonians' defence of their caution on tax cutting. They say, I reported, that Margaret Thatcher did not pledge to cut taxes in her 1979 manifesto. I should, more accurately, have reported them as saying that she did not make specific costed tax pledges like those which the Tories have offered in their last two election campaigns. One of my more rigorous collegaues dug out what the 1979 Tory manifesto actually said : *
"CUTTING INCOME TAX
We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success; tackle the poverty trap; encourage saving and the wider ownership of property; simplify taxes - like VAT; and reduce tax bureaucracy.
It is especially important to cut the absurdly high marginal rates of tax both at the bottom and top of the income scale. It must pay a man or woman significantly more to be in, rather than out of; work. Raising tax thresholds will let the low-paid out of the tax net altogether, and unemployment and short-term sickness benefit must be brought into the computation of annual income.
The top rate of income tax should be cut to the European average and the higher tax bands widened. To encourage saving we will reduce the burden of the investment income surcharge. This will greatly help those pensioners who pay this additional tax on the income from their life-time savings, and who suffer so badly by comparison with members of occupational or inflation-proofed pension schemes." *
It left you in little doubt what they intended to do BUT was not a specific, costed and timetabled pledge like those made by William Hague or Michael Howard. It was a pledge to reform the way taxes worked and not a pledge to cut the overall burden of tax which is lucky because Thatcher put up the tax burden in her first few years in office. Expect Team Cameron to use this as a model when they come to write their manifesto.
I'm 
Comments
Nick - could I persuade you to run an editorial on WHY we want people to make tax pledges 5 years in advance? With no idea of the state that the economy will be in, no idea on the size of HMG debt or interest payments as a proportion of spending, no idea on the size of defence commitments to which our somewhat belligerent leader will have positioned us, and little clue as to Global economic and currency stability, I really can’t understand why a refusal to make promises is a big deal. Asking Cameron to make pledges is like asking him to bet blind on a hand when Gordon Brown is dealing and can pick which cards he gets dealt.
Sorry Nick but I agree with Gus. Obviously a party must have plans but this far from kick off they can only be intentions. What you are expecting politicians to do would be like asking Sven what his starting line up for the World Cup Final against Germany is going to be in Berlin on July 9.
Whenever 91Èȱ¬ journalists discuss tax I never hear them counter arguments about responsible economic management with ‘but cutting taxes promotes economic growth.’ This obvious truth often seems Cinderella in economic discussion.
Being all of six during the '79 Election Campaign, what the Tories actually said about tax in their manifesto had escaped me, so thanks for quoting it.
I was amused by how much scope what they said and what they didn't say left them. Would we have gathered they intended to double VAT for example? - which Thatcher's first Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, did in fairly short order.
Or rather he almost did: it went from 8% to 15%, so didn't double; it's a tax on spending rather than income so consistent with their pledges; and it's easier to work out 15% than 8% of a price - so I suppose they could also claim that as promised, they'd simplified the tax system...
If you not unearthed this speech and Cameron had simply reeled it off himself, would many people would have noticed? So much of it still applies today, so much so that I thought it sounded quite good really. I especially like the bit saying it should pay more to be at work than on benefits. Same old same old; why are we still listening to these people?
So what Chris and Gus are implying, it seems to me, is that manifesto promises are better made right at the last minute before the election. That's what gets us into trouble.
Chris, I don't think Nick is 'expecting' in the sense of asking politicians to do anything. But to answer your point as expressed: a manifesto promise itself may have to cover five years; some measure of forecasting on their behalf is part of the contract. It would do none of us any harm to have all politicians make some general predictions, and explain to us their reasoning and assumptions, so we can see their policy process at work. If a prediction becomes unreasonable, they should be able to point at their assumptions, identify those that did not come to pass, point at their own mistakes in reasoning, and revise the predictions.
Otherwise it's tempting to believe they want to keep it secret until the last minute so they don't have to make any commitments at all.
Nick,
You should distance yourself from this retrospective historical gaze. I believe that the media are just as guilty as the Conservatives as being members of the political "Sealed Knot" historical battle reenactment group. They love to refight and relive the old battles, arguing like these modern day weekenders, dressed up Cavailers and Roundheads, "But Thatcher did it that way in '79, so we must do it now" The Tories erred it when the foolishly reemployed Saatchi. "But it worked for Her, I don't understand it"
In short, Nick, reenacting old battles is lovely, but best left to these historical buffs. Comparing Thatcher's political techniques to the modern are as relevant as comparing the military ones of Edge Hill to Basra.
I tend to agree with Marco insofar as the poltical elite and political press would have us believe that parties are an excercise in continuity.
Everyone wants to keep harping on about what happened in yesteryear whereas the public - anyone actually remember us? - wants action on the issues of today.
If the politicians are going to keep refighting the past and ignoring the present is it any wonder that the public are switching off in greater numbers?
It's no more stupid to make specific tax pledges 4 years before an election than it is, as per New Labour, to make specific costed spending pledges years in advance. Any government or prospective government's policies have the unspoken caveat of 'barring disasters'/'but for unforeseen circumstances', and so they should: breaking 'promises' under remarkably changed circumstances from those envisaged at the time of the promise is entirely reasonable. Cameron's problem with promising tax cuts is not that which has been discussed. Rather, it is that on tax cuts, as on much else, he certainly doesn't have a deeply-held principle or instinct to refer to and has yet to be convinced that his Blair-lite image would be enhanced by strongly committing either way on tax policy.
We have no idea what financial circumstances may arise between now and the General Election, so it would be silly to set down the figures regarding tax. David Davis tried this and people wondered how he could predict Britain's future financial situation. David Cameron is giving a direction, and will define the specigics when it is more suitable and more sensible to do so.