Why Nick Clegg's still taxing Cameron and Miliband
The Lib Dem leader and the coming Budget.
By Gavin Kelly Published 19 February 2012 21:03
It remains a curiosity of today's political scene that a small and unpopular party bumping along on 7 to 10 per cent in opinion polls is making the waves on the central issue of tax policy. On this one issue at least, the two main parties find themselves reacting to the gauntlet the Liberal Democrats have laid down.
Nick Clegg's recent speech to the Resolution Foundation making the case for going further and faster in reaching a personal tax allowance of £10,000 has been widely reported as a significant moment in the genesis of the forthcoming budget which due to the precarious position of the economy, and the increasingly creaky nature of the Coalition, is destined to be a highly charged affair both fiscally and politically.
Significant it may have been, but not for the rather mundane reason that the leader of the Liberal Democrats made the case for delivering on one of his central manifesto commitments as soon as possible. Dog bites man.
It was, however, noteworthy for three less commented upon reasons.
First, because it was an attempt to signal the end of the Liberal Democrats "give and take" strategy in relation to those on low and middle incomes. Up until now each rise in the personal allowance (or indeed progress on other Liberal Democrat priorities) has been funded in large part by cuts to tax credits and increases in taxes that particularly hurt the precise group the Liberal Democrats state they are seeking to help.
Hitherto this has completely neutered their claims to being a force for tax fairness. Clegg's new and unmistakeable message is that this time it will be different. From now on the wealthy should pay for further increases in the tax allowance - whether through wealth taxes, less avoidance or cuts in higher rate pension tax-relief.
If Clegg can make this approach stick -- and that is a very big if -- it makes additional increases in the personal allowance a different political proposition for both the Conservatives (a straightforward hit to some of their core support) and Labour (why oppose?).
That said, this new and potentially more progressive approach to funding increased tax allowances may well be completely lost on the public given that deep cuts to tax credits already in the pipeline (based on previous budgets that Clegg signed up to) will bear down on the working poor for years to come.
Second, Clegg's budget intervention represented the next stage in the Lib Dem's differentiation strategy. They expect, but still don't know for sure, that Osborne will agree to some progress on personal allowances. But even if they fail their judgement is that they would be better to do so having at least have looked publicly distinct (even if ultimately ineffectual), rather than seeming to meekly go along with whatever Osborne ends up announcing.
Playing your budget hand quite so openly is a high-stakes move, and not one borne from a position of strength.
Finally, Clegg's open air budget negotiations have certainly turned up the heat on Labour. Over the last few weeks there have been many more column inches written about Liberal Democrat-Tory budget disagreements then there have been about the opposition's position.
Moreover, Clegg has stolen a march on his opponents both in terms of being the leader talking about taxing the rich and the one reported as caring about cutting income tax on the low paid. Right now it is he who is occupying this large swath of political terrain -- more baggy centre, then squeezed middle -- which is about rebalancing the tax system so it better chimes with our straightened times.
Labour to date have been largely silent on this tax rebalancing argument, though Ed Miliband has been nodding towards the need for increased taxes at the top. Ed Balls' intervention yesterday was significant therefore not just in that it broadened out Labour's position on tax cuts from VAT towards other measures, like personal allowances, that the coalition might actually move on. But it also succeeded in inserting Labour into the middle of the Budget debate.
All three parties face some delicate judgements over the next four weeks. George Osborne will need to balance carefully his instinctive reluctance (and that of his backbenchers) to hand a major victory to Clegg with the potentially destabilising effects for the Coalition of the Liberal Democrats coming away with nothing.
Labour will need to strain to explain to a sceptical public how its call for large tax cuts in the here and now fits with its renewed determination to reclaim fiscal responsibility over the medium term, a theme which was so much in evidence at the turn of the year. And they rapidly need to come up with ideas of their own to prove it is they who are best placed to lead the debate on tax fairness.
Meanwhile Clegg desperately needs to show that he can convert his recent media momentum on tax reform into a Budget victory -- and, more than that, into an upward tick in the polls.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















9 comments
magician3all
arabonly
anime3as
animok3a
delegnt3a
mexaty3a
animeta7a
mexaty3a
animes3t
mexa2at
3arb-anime
anim5k
albrqn3t
mexat3an
top3film
z7may
z7mhat
ta7ata
animeyate
mnhosat
mokmsyat
animeca3fe
mazaryte
animeyzo
animesnipat
anime-bnatc
banatm5dern
star5at
monaystat
mal7zat
zol7at
kol7at
animoyat
foxyat
maz7kat
3solaty
kool7at
ta7oy
mal7oy
zalyta
ma7aryat
sokolat
barn7ty
tey5at
d5olat
caloyat
anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet
We share the view that Scotland and all of the nations of the UKare stronger together – on the economy and jobs, on defence and security, on our influence in the world and so much more.
The decision facing Scots is a big one and any decision to leavethe UK family would be irreversible.
I really believe that if Nick can get his way it will be a defining moment in the Coalition. Even Ed Balls is indirectly calling for Lib Dem policy to be implemented!
raising tax thresholds will help the genuine low income and squeezed middle.
i can also tell you for a fact that tax credits are widely abused quite legally - i know of many people who run there 'businesses' in such a way so as to get maximum tax credits and use this brucie bonus for there kids private education - you just need to know how to play the system...
'It remains a curiosity of today's political scene that a small and unpopular party bumping along on 7 to 10 per cent in opinion polls is making the waves on the central issue of tax policy'
Is not the leader of the small and unpopular party also the Deputy PM? You would expect the Deputy PM in a normal government to have some input. This is not a normal government, it is a Coalition, so we get public briefings even from the Deputy PM against his own government. It is just Clegg playing politics and it shows his weakness in government to air his budget views in public before the event. He should argue his corner in private and then stick to the agreed outcome, maybe that is what he is doing (except for the 'in private' bit)we will see when the real Chancellor delivers the Budget.
'Up until now each rise in the personal allowance (or indeed progress on other Liberal Democrat priorities) has been funded in large part by cuts to tax credits and increases in taxes that particularly hurt the precise group the Liberal Democrats state they are seeking to help.'
not true- stopped reading at that point
Your article says "Why oppose" [increases to the income tax personal allowance?]
2 reasons:
a) it's extremely poorly targeted on the poor people it's alleged to be helping. Most of the poorest families don't even pay any income tax as things stand. And most of the gains from raising the personal allowance go to people earning well above £10,000 per year. Tax credits are much better targeted.
2) because so far the strategy has been robbing poor Peter to pay not-so-poor Paul. The increase in the PA so far has been paid for by a VAT hike which is a more regressive tax than income tax. If the coalition wants tax cuts, reducing VAT from 20% to 15% would help the poor much more than a personal allowance increase.
Eh, I'm sorry. No-one could give a damn about anything Nick Clegg says or does. He is finished.
To say the £10000 allowance is fair is a load of Balls. The poorer do not pay tax, much of the middle class pays at 20%, so this will give them an extra £705 to them. The richer tax payer pays at 40% or even 50%, so this will give them £1410 to £1762.50. Call that fair?
Would a two tier VAT system not be fairer. Class certain goods as luxury items, cut vat on non luxury items and increase it on luxury items. For example, a bottle of own brand supermarket wine at £6 would be a non luxury item, whereas a bottle of Bolly at £2000 would be a luxury item. A Ford Fiesta at £9000 would be a non luxury item, the £quarter million sports cars driven by TV stars and footballers would be luxury items.The sales tax on luxury and non luxury items worked before, why not now ?