91Èȱ¬

This isn't imitation, flattery or anything - just good old deception from the masters of dissimulation.

An ability to combine inheritance tax thresholds so that the family doesn't pay tax on the second death? That's exactly what many people already manage their tax planning to achieve. So, this isn't a "doubling of the tax threshold" or even a tax cut - merely a recognition of realities.

Once again, New Labour has indulged in cynicism and politicking rather than governing.

Insulting our intelligence again!!
Of course no one with a house has heard of tax planning. Just like the budget it will all unravel on the nation's breakfast table as they work it out for themselves.
I know this is a little gratutious, but you mentioned on your radio 4 report about him smiling. Why oh why does he do that? You are not doing him any favours in drawing attention to it. Is it an effort at studied casualness. Has someone told him to? Ed Balls perhaps. It is just not good.
You must know the joke doing the rounds. Not going to repeat it here on a forum for serious political comment etc.etc.

Nick,
These clowns are running scared. Knee jerk policies - conviction politics? Don't make me laugh.

Just a thought, we are all saying Labour stole the Tories clothes, but could it be that the Tories new what Labour was going to do and stole Labours clothes???

Nick,

You seem to have missed a rather notable fact, perhaps in the now common goal of getting stuff out quick rather than getting thorough journalism out.

It is not just the Tories, whose policies have been plagiarised. It has been Liberal Democrat policy for over a year to "tax pollution, not people". Replacing the Air Passenger Duty with a tax on the plane has now been copied, first by the Tories, and now by their successors.

I do find it quite strange that as political editor, you didn't comment on just how "old hat" the APD change is... such that Easyjet have been running adverts calling for the change.

Perhaps you might at some point find time to look at how a policy like this comes to be copied. I'd say that it's because it was from a party that still involves it's grass roots in policy making, and has the sense to debate these things at conference...

could someone think for a minute about what has been said. the threshold for iht has been increased to 600,000 for married couples. at the moment there is no such threshold for married couples ,so how can it be increased. just to help the brain tick along for you. if mr a is wed to mrs a and mr a dies ,mrs a is technically no longer married, so what is her iht liability and threshold.

you lot have had the wool pulled over your ,loving nu lab, eyes for so long its becoming slightly embarassing now.

it all sounds great which is what the govenment wants it too, it would be nice however, if someone actually gave some thought to it and asked what it really means.

nick it was unbelievable i couldn't believe what i was watching ozborne could have made that speech in fact was there anything in it thats labour made he he. the news items tonight seems to being this the way i see it just another political stunt of "cross dressing" he he.

earlier i said watch for the small print this time it came with the borrowing figures none on years ahead

Labour's proposal on IHT are not a watered down version of the Conservative's, they are a typical labour con trick.

At present both a husband and a wife have a £300,000 allowance. If both use their allowance the total tax free sum is £600,000.

Darling's proposals do not increase this amount by one penny. They merely allow one spouse to use another's unused allowance if the first neglects to use it.

To claim that this doubles the tax free sum is absurd.

...and HIGHER TAXES" You should tag that on to the end of your piece Nick.

Just a thought. Darling said he found £2 billion to spend on health and education due to their sound economic management but actually needs to borrow £4 billion more to balance the books. Doesn't seem very sound to me.

Higher tax, higher borrowing, lower growth, lowest savings ratio ever and very oddly - higher spending on international development. I see trouble
ahead but when there's moonlight.......

Nick, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do puncture this spin that IHT has been increased - the allowance of £600k for a couple is unchanged from when we awoke this morning. All the press (eg FT) and 91Èȱ¬ are swallowing this spin and it's not doubling at all - this is taken from the 91Èȱ¬ headline on the website now

"Chancellor Alistair Darling has doubled the inheritance tax threshold for married couples to £600,000"

He hasn't!!!!!!!! This was the amount we had this morning, £300k each. So a couple is duh, 2 x £300k.

All that has happened is a common sense 'admin' change to ensure those who don't bother to make a Will now benefit from those who do and make sure they use their allowances up. That's all, nothing more - no wonder they can 'afford' it (although if debts are higher than predicted, how does that work?)

This is spin on level of the 20% income tax cut we saw this year (but where the 10% was abolished).

Please do what you can to stop this deceit been so readily swallowed by our media.

This is all a distraction away from the main news which is the CGT reform / tax increase which is a massive U turn on encouraging business and longer term investing (see Robert Peston's pieces)

I think the plans - except for IHT - were in place prior to the Tory Conference simply because GB was thinking of a possible early election.

Problem Mr Darling has is that he comes across as a "nobody", mainly because we have had the same Chancellor for ten years.

Perhaps a comment or two about how the economy is going to be affected by the post strikes would not have been out of place. But then that might have caused some discomfort to his honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.

I'm having difficulty buying this 'Labour copied the Conservatives'. Surely the Budget wasn’t all calculated over the space of a week, is it? I have no idea, please enlighten me!
Inheritance levels have changed quite a few times over the years. And as for trying to claw back for 'non Doms', trying to close stuff for the last pence of Tax revenue is hardly new.
I can certainly see the similarities in approach (aside that 2billion which is neither here nor there - to just goes to show how Politics is no longer so Left / Right anymore; and the two main parties are fighting over the same patch), but aren't these just the areas of discussion over the last months along with undeclared foreign bank accounts. I just feel this 'copy cat' talk feels a bit of an easy get out of proper debate.

Most people seem to be assuming that just because the Tories got their announcement on IhT out first, it has to be the government that stole their clothes. I think it just as likely to be the other way round, and the consequence of Brown's commitment to make all policy announcements first to parliament. Because of that, he couldn't mention any of Darling's proposals at the Labour conference, and neither could he give the full scale of the troop withdrawals from Iraq (the 1000 reduction he mentioned last week was simply the factual working through of pre-existing policy). Of course the Tories have no such restriction on announcing their proposals.

I also wonder whether someone in Conservative Central Office got the decimal point in the wrong place when they got hold of a Treasury working paper on DOMs! In any event, Osborne seems to be in the position of a gambler on the gee gees who not only puts other people's money on a horse, but who spends his winnings before he knows whether his horse will actually run.

If the polls didn't make up Browns decision not to call an election the inheritence tax certainly did.It is clear the tories are setting the agenda when it comes to tax,time after time labour keeps stealing tory policies, the public will soon see through this stunt and when it comes to the next election they will know who won the battle of ideas.

Nick - it's rapidly becoming clear that the inheritance tax threshold rise is yet another false promise: married couples could already combine their allowances to £600,000. I hope you'll bring that out in your analysis!

How can Labour ever complain in the future about any "black hole" the Tory tax plans may or may not have when they have borrowed GBP4 billion more than expected?
This is a consistent pattern that the Government borrows much more than expected and has occurred without fail for the past 5 or so years. - this is worse than having "unfunded" tax cuts - at least then the money goes back to the public.

Why does this Government always tell you how much extra money it is putting in, rather than the results it gets out? I really don't care about how many billion we can or cannot afford, but I do care about getting operations quickly and educating my kids properly. We never hear anything about these, except as soundbites. Why doesn't a pre-budget report include the results of the money paid during the last budget? Then we could see that higher taxes are not actually helping anyone. Today, one journalist said "The high-spending party is clearly over". What party? We've got people dying in hospital and leaving school with nothing.

It's the same story with things like the leaks at Thames Water. They say how much money they are paying to fix all the leaks to try and impress people, but they never say how many leaks per day are actualy fixed. No wonder no-one holds them to account when the Government does exactly the same.

It seems very clear to me that Gordan Brown is simply running out of ideas to regain the support of the British public after the tory triumpth following Mr. Cameron's fantastic response to falling poles at the conference last week.
I have lost all faith and respect for Mr. Brown and the labour party, as they have steeped so low to 'steal' the tory policies and pass them off as your own! Come on Gordan, what are your policies, and what is your view of future Britain? Presently, it is the Tory party who have gained the public support, and who can argue when they are the only party who have actually portrayed clear, sensible policies which will drive forward the British economy and raise living standards. If only there were an early election.

What a load of nonsense from Nick Robinson. 3/10.

He says 'What will be in people's minds is how well the British economy, voters and our public services have weathered a period of lower growth, higher borrowing and lower public spending increases'

No, what is in the voters minds is 10 years of Labour Spin, lies about the circumstances of the Iraq war, raid on pensions and U-turns on student fees, very little return on investment for the huge sums of money pumped into the health service not to mention the EU treaty debarcle... manifesto....New Labour... what a pack of lies.

If Brown, after 10 years can increase IHT thresholds... which now very little impact if your parents have a will that already caters for this then we are getting less substance and even more spin. How cynical, how hypocritical.

Where has Gordon been for the last 10 years. Vision, sorry just a follower with bad speech writers.

But since 1997.... (fill in the blanks)

So the Tories policy of £1m threshold for inheritance tax did not 'add up', but Labour can have a threshold of £700K without having to take money off the non-doms. Hmmmm - maybe if they taxed the non-doms the £25K that the tories wanted then they could raise the threshold to more than one million. Does the PM have no integrity?

Not only have Darling and Brown sought to copy the conservative Inheritance Tax plans as they were well received by the electorate but they have shown themselves to be hypocrites in the process.

The governement argued that the Tory plans did not add up and would lead to an increase in goverment borrowing that they implied was unacceptable. (as demonstrated in the interview on 91Èȱ¬'s Politics Show on Sunday) Yesterday they announced their Inheritance Tax plans and, guess what, forecast concurrently that government borrowing would rise.

Political spin or just lack of trustworthiness? So much for a move away from Blairism.

My personal view is that income should be taxed at the headline rate for everyone. Any difference in domestic and overseas rates should be handed over without excuse. If the headline rate is 30%, you pay 30%. People try and dodge around this by being paid in equity or beluga caviar but it's all an attempt to cheat the system.

Borrowing from systems design, perhaps the minister would like to consider changing the law so people get paid in ways which are permitted? As security experts would say, it would create a "smaller attack vector". If your pet tax reduction scheme isn't on the list, you don't get to fly. If something is wrong with this, I'm missing it.

As usual, headlines no substance, new IHT thresholds are virtually already in existence and does not mean parents who die can hand their kids their hard earned wealth on their death.

Typical LAbour and shows they are bereft of ideas.

I noticed the Chancellor grinning madly. This a person who cares more about political games than running the country. Not someone who holds my confidence, particularly the morning after when it is becoming clear that the IHT proposals are merely the adding up of two seperate existing allowances and which people can already do. More spin.*

* I obtained this analysis elsewhere from the 91Èȱ¬, which seems to be treating it as an actual change and tax cut. Have you sacked reporters who can actually analyse financial issues?

Immitation may well be flattering, but I suspect George and Co and seething. But the real point is that copying is one thing, but embedding such ideas within a framework held together by a philosophy is another - and this is where the Chancellor gets it wrong: he's had to concede on something that he hadn't necessarily wanted to do. One other thing it's probably worth mentioning is that all this talk about Tory sums not adding up is really something of a lark, given that: (1) they don't have access to all the records and therefore an element of estim,ation is required remember Tony and Gordon gave no commitments, only criticisms when in opposition), and (2) the Chancellor's sums only add up through increaes in consumer debt increases, borrowings, taxation, sale of public assets and use of private loans to build infrastructure (ie on tick).

"What will be in people's minds is how well the British economy, voters and our public services have weathered a period of lower growth, higher borrowing and lower public spending increases."
It always amazes me that seasoned journalists like you believe implicitly in economic forecasts in spite of their history of error.

A greybeard myself, I smell the beginning of the end of this government. We have a PM that is frightended of anything he cannot control, and who now feigns humility towards voters. Yesterday we saw a blatently political spending review aimed not at satisfying voters, but scoring points over the opposition. GB seems worried that his team has shown the chinks of falibility in its armour. And we have an opposition that, having dropped to the bottom of the abyss, is slowly climbing out. Is this not the story of the Labour Party during the early 1990s. It's deja vu all over again!

The Brown honeymoon period is well and truly over. In fact, I think a divorce may be in the offing. There will be real trouble for the government in convincing anyone to take their statements at face value any more.

This 1% or 3% of estates being effected is total garbage. That figure is based upon estates now that are going thorugh probate. It does not take into account the likely estate now.

For example if me and my wife were to die (unlikely as we are in our 30s) House valued at £300,000, take off mortgage of £150,000, add on life cover for mortgage of £150,000 add on death in service benefits of £120,000 each, add on savings of £50,000, add on pension funds of £100,000, add on contents, cars etc. £40,000 and what have you got £730,000. Now our wills are structured to use both nil rate bands using an IOU to a trust (cost £450 at a solicitor) so if I die my wife gets everything and when she dies £300,000 (My nil rate band) goes to my trust and to the kids and her £300,000 goes to the kids leaving £130,000 taxable at 40%.

Am I super rich - nope. do Labour's figures add up - nope. Are labour spinning - nope, I have come to the conclusion that they are actually incompetent.

The voter at large will not care less how many of the Tories' foxes Gordon Brown shoots or how many of their policies he plunders, as long as the economy remains sound.

The question is, if Mr Brown needs to make these raids, what does that say about his proclaimed vision for the country's future, and his sense of purpose and direction? Just how did he spend that ten years in Tony Blair's shadow, apart from sulking in his tent?

Mr Brown and his colleagues are fogbound. Apart from facile statements to the effect that they want to change the country for the benefit of the many not the few, they have not got a clue what they want to do or where they want to go.

If GB had gone to the country with this PBR, he would have got a pasting from the small business community - but when does that ever make headlines ?

Triple whammy of: abrupt loss of taper relief, increase in corp tax from GB's previous budget, and now "Arctic - I'll be back!" move on income splitting for husband and wife (or civil partners) businesses ...

Anyone seen 'Evita'?

And the money kept rolling in from every side.
Darling's greedy hands reached out and they reached wide.
You may feel it should have been a voluntary cause.
But that's not the point my friends.

When the money comes rolling in you don't ask how.
Think of all the benefits, policies of good times now.
Gordon's called the people to him
opened up the doors
Never been a country taxed like Great Briton

Would you like to have second rate education?
Own a buy to let house, go on vacation?
Gordon and his high taxes can make your dreams come true
All you have to do my friends
Be workshy, pregnant or a council worker
It even helps if you are a shirker.
He can make your dreams for a year or even two
Never been a country taxed like Great Briton.

If the revenue drops what's the man to do?
Another stealth tax applied, wouldn't you?
But where on earth can he find a source of all the money?
Thank god for the middle classes.
When a girl and a guy working to make ends meet
Can be taxed till they both vote with their feet.
Labours spending money as if its out of fashion
Never been a country taxed like Great Briton

(With apologies to TR & ALW)

Now Labour have implemented the Tories policies for them (which they stole from the Lib Dems anyway) there is no need to vote Tory , right ? (unless of course you want policies exclusive to the Tories to be implemented, such as to legalise fox-hunting and ... well that's about it really)

Where exactly has the Nu Labour moral high ground gone? Down the plughole of course.

All this back tracking on inheritance tax goes to show is that social justice was always pie in the sky at best and political dogma at worst.

Social justice is going the way of all political dogma; into the dustbin where it belongs. People want hope and progress not stalemate and dogma.

Dear Nick-
Have you noticed that our PM has been wearing the same powder blue tie for at least the last seven days in a row? Has he been kicked out of home?

"Imitation - they say - is the sincerest form of flattery. If so, the Conservatives should be feeling very very flattered."

Surely the Tory leader is the best person to be asking about the subject of imitation. "The heir to Blair" isn't particularly original...

What was Mr Robinson, who I understand is a politicl correspondant for the 91Èȱ¬, doing when HMG changed the rules on Death Duties 10 times in the past ten years?

And when attempts to make the situation of high earning foreigners domiciled here have been tackled, and considered?

Are you saying that the measures proposed are those the Tories headlined at their media grabbing populist conference? r similar?

They are not, are they?

Kindly assent, you have neither said nor written anything to justify any other view.

I wouldn't bet on amnesia. The public are not stupid. We will remember where the ideas came from. So far no sign of that great vision of GBs that we keep hearing about. I would like to see what has been improved. So far we have been taxed in every conceivable way and the results have been awful.Our money has been badly spent, sent up north and we are pretty fed up. No wonder GB is smiling a lot, he is the chancellor who got out on time, before the economy went to .... in a basket. THAT is something we will remember come the election.

Nick
Plagiarism it isn't, when you consider that the Opposition Front Bench draws a salary for that very purpose - to come up with viable alternatives to what is current with the Government. The fact that the Shadow Cabinet doesn't normally bother, points to a delusion held by many of them, that they are paid to be Pretty Boys in front of the camera and preen themselves when the government takes any notice of them. All the anger and gesticulating is for the viewers to buy their illusion that the tail is wagging the dog. And hammering on about political spin really is old tripe in the present context.

All this little stunt shows is that nothing has changed since Blair slithered out of Downing Street. Gordon Brown and New Labour are still prepared to do anything to stay in power.

Conviction politics? No, but certainly a case of treating the electorate with contempt.