Osborne's council tax freeze is an old announcement

The Chancellor promised to freeze council tax for two years in his 2008 conference speech.

You could be forgiven for thinking that George Osborne has pulled a rabbit out of a hat with his pledge to freeze council tax for a second year running. Indeed, most of the papers lead on the story this morning and treat it as a new announcement. "Tories find £805m for council tax bill freeze," says the Times, adding that Osborne, who will address the Conservative conference today, has offered "comfort" amid the "austerity drive".

But the truth is that this is merely a restatement of existing policy. Osborne first promised a two-year council tax freeze in his speech to the 2008 Conservative conference. "I can tell you today that the next Conservative Government will freeze your Council Tax for at least two years," he said.

The policy went on to feature in the Tories' 2010 election manifesto and the coalition agreement included a pledge to "freeze council tax in England for at least one year", and to "seek to freeze it for a further year."

With his growth strategy under attack from Tory backbenchers, it's no surprise that Osborne is talking up this measure. But it is indicative of the weakness of his plan that, with growth stagnant (the economy has grown by just 0.2 per cent in the last nine months), the best he can offer is a re-announced £805m council tax freeze. Families paying an extra £450 a year in VAT (owing to Osborne's decision to raise the tax to a record high of 20 per cent) will gain just £72 from the measure.

Were Osborne truly determined to stimulate growth, he would have announced an emergency tax cut such as a temporary reduction in VAT (as advocated by Ed Balls). A VAT cut would boost consumer spending, lower inflation, protect retail jobs and increase real wages. When Alistair Darling reduced VAT to 15 per cent during the financial crisis, consumers spent £9bn more than they would otherwise have done. A VAT cut today would be a similarly effective fiscal stimulus. As Boris Johnson wisely observed in his Telegraph column in July, "[I]f we were to cut taxes now, it might be best to start with VAT to get people shopping again." Osborne's decision to raise VAT (a measure he described as "permanent") by 2.5 per cent to an all-time high of 20 per cent automatically knocked 0.3 per cent off annual growth (OBR figures).

A council tax freeze will do little to stimulate growth and little to relieve families facing the biggest fall in living standards since the 1920s. We'll get a better idea of Osborne's plan when he addresses the Tories at 11:20am today (we'll be live blogging his speech on The Staggers). But so far, all the signs are that he will offer little to combat the growth crisis facing Britain.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.