Taxing times for the coalition (contd...)

The £7bn of pension tax relief that Osborne won't cut.

Just in case there was any risk of the coalition row on tax policy cooling down for a day or two, along comes a new report today, Tax and the Coalition, to fan the flames.

We do, of course, need to bear in mind that in this choppy pre-party conference period, there is bound to be a rash of publications appealing to the party faithful and burnishing the author's credentials in their eyes. Nonetheless, Lord Newby -- author of the report -- is a well connected Liberal Democrat peer and tax-expert, known to be close to Vince Cable. His report pulls no punches. The 50p rate must be preserved until fiscal consolidation is achieved; the Laffer-curve economics of those on the right calling for its abolition is dismissed; and a raft of tax raising measures are proposed that would hit the seriously affluent including a mansion tax on properties over £2m (served up with a swipe against Eric Pickles), an increase in capital gains tax, a land value tax, and further anti-avoidance initiatives.

Most will view all this as yet another twist in the 50p tax-rate saga, but more interesting -- and ultimately more important -- is the proposal to abolish higher rate tax-relief for pension contributions. A massive £7bn is still spent on this staggeringly regressive policy (benefiting only the richest 12 per cent of tax payers).

The long-standing defence of higher rate tax-relief, such as it is, has been that it is needed to avoid a form of 'double taxation' - paying tax on the income from your pension at a higher rate than the relief received when contributions were first made. Newby gives this short shrift, arguing that it would only apply to a vanishingly small number of people (he estimates that someone would have to have a pension pot of over £1.35m before this would occur). Massive spending on higher rate tax-relief is a luxury for the affluent that shouldn't have been allowed to grow so much in the good times and certainly can't be afforded in the bad.

It's important to put the generosity of this £7bn into the context of our long term "pensions crisis" for those on low-to-middle incomes ("crisis" is horribly overused in today's politics, but not silly in this instance). A flow of reports have highlighted the extent to which British households are failing to save enough to guarantee an adequate income in retirement, and the ONS has pointed out that over a million people have stopped contributing to personal pensions over recent years. Two out of three of those on low-to-middle incomes are not contributing to their own pension. The combination of chronic under-saving and rapidly increasingly life expectancy, if left unchecked, will condemn a generation of pensioners to poverty in retirement.

There is a major program of private pension reform in the pipeline, not least automatic enrolment starting from 2012. But there is deep concern about the capacity of those on low-wages to actually make their contributions given the wider squeeze on household finances and current levels of indebtedness. And the scale of the incentives on offer to encourage them to do so will be relatively modest.

Today's report is a reminder that the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto committed to abolish higher rate pensions tax-relief, so that everyone would receive tax-relief at the basic rate. (Indeed some within the Labour negotiating team at the time of the coalition talks saw the Lib Dem proposal as a welcome opportunity to rebalance resources away from the most affluent). Since then, we've heard precious little from the coalition on this issue other than a (sensible) tweaking of the Labour government's belated commitment to restrict but not abolish tax-relief for the seriously rich: the policy is now to reduce the annual tax-deductible allowance from £255,000 to £50,000 and the lifetime allowance from £1.8m to the measly sum of £1.5m. Indeed, on this major element of public expenditure, the coalition appears almost uniquely reticent to make further savings (when it comes to tax-reliefs, small-staters often become big-spenders). Next time a minister says that, sadly, they have no alternative to cutting back this or that programme aimed at the disadvantaged, let's hope someone asks them why this £7bn is so untouchable.

So what might we glean about wider tax politics from today's report? First, it is a stark reminder of the precarious ideological balancing act that Clegg presides over within his party and in the coalition. Many on the Labour benches would happily agree with the great majority, if not all, of Newby's proposals. Rest assured, the same cannot be said of the Conservatives.

Second, it brings home how little thinking about long-term tax reform is coming out of Labour circles at the moment. The abolition of higher-rate tax relief should be just one element of this, and a rather obvious one, so it is surprising that Labour appears content to cede this territory to the Lib Dems. The savings on offer could be used for any number of good purposes -- not least in the short term, for a targeted tax-cut for low-to-middle income families; and in the longer term providing stronger incentives to encourage these households to save.

Third, the Lib Dem and (in-time) Labour leaderships are likely to view this £7bn as low-hanging fruit when they start to search for resources to pay for their next manifestos. So if the Conservatives think the abolition of higher-rate relief is a bridge too far, they risk starting the next election campaign with a black hole of £7bn relative to their rivals. This will, at some point, trouble them, so they will also have to think long and hard about whether they can themselves make further cuts before then.

Finally, it highlights the pivotal role that the policy of raising personal allowances has played in yoking together the coalition in support of a totemic tax-reform measure in the early part of the parliament. And it suggests how hard it will be for them to find a "phase 2" tax policy which provides the same political adhesive. Anyone who thinks that coalition relations on tax will be plain sailing once the issue of the 50p rate is finally resolved needs to think again.

Gavin Kelly is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation.

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.