Why Nick Clegg's still taxing Cameron and Miliband

The Lib Dem leader and the coming Budget.

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.

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

Getty
Show Hide image

Expressions of sympathy for terror's victims may seem banal, but it's better than the alternative

Angry calls for "something to be done" play into terrorists' hands.

No sooner had we heard of the dreadful Manchester Arena bombing and before either the identity of the bomber or the number of dead were known, cries of “something must be done” echoed across social media and the airwaves. Katie Hopkins, the Mail Online columnist, called for “a final solution”, a tweet that was rapidly deleted, presumably after she remembered (or somebody explained to her) its connotations. The Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson wanted “a State of Emergency as France has” and “internment of thousands of terror suspects”, apparently unaware that the Nice attack, killing 86, happened after that emergency was declared and that nobody has been interned anyway.

It cannot be said too often that such responses play into terrorists’ hands, particularly if Isis was behind the Manchester bombing. The group’s aim is to convince Muslims in the West that they and their families cannot live in peace with the in-fidel and will be safe only if they join the group in establishing a caliphate. Journalists, striving for effect, often want to go beyond ­banal expressions of sympathy for ­victims. (It’s a mistake I, too, have sometimes made.) But occasionally the banal is the appropriate response.

Pity begins at home

Mark Twain, writing about the “terror” that followed the French Revolution and brought “the horror of swift death”, observed that there was another, older and more widespread, terror that brought “lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak”. The first, he wrote, we had been “diligently taught to shiver and mourn over”; the other we had never learned to see “in its vastness or pity as it deserves”.

That is true: more children across the world die each day from hunger or disease than could ever be killed in a terror attack. We should not forget them. Nor should we forget that the numbers killed in terrorist attacks in, for example, Baghdad far outnumber those killed in all European attacks of our times combined. In an age of globalisation, we should be more cosmopolitan in our sympathies but the immediacy of 24-hour news make us less so.

When all is said and done, however, pity, like charity, begins at home. We naturally grieve most over those with whom we share a country and a way of life. Most of us have been to concerts and some readers will have been to one at the Manchester Arena. We or our children could have been present.

Cheers from Highgate Cemetery

What a shame that Theresa May modified the Tory manifesto’s proposals on social care. For a few giddy days, she was proposing the most steeply progressive (or confiscatory, as the Tories would normally say) tax in history. True, it was only for those unfortunate enough to suffer conditions such as dementia, but the principle is what counts. It would have started at zero for those with assets of less than £100,000, 20 per cent for those with £120,000, 50 per cent for those worth £200,000, 99 per cent with those with £10m and so on, ad infinitum. Karl Marx would have been cheering from Highgate Cemetery.

Given that most people’s main asset – the value of their home – did not have to be sold to meet their care costs until death, this was in effect an inheritance tax. It had tantalising implications: to secure their inheritance, children of the rich would have had to care for their parents, possibly sacrificing careers and risking downward mobility, while the children of the poor could have dedicated themselves to seeking upward mobility.

The Tories historically favour, in John Major’s words, wealth cascading down the generations. In recent years they have all but abolished inheritance tax. Now they have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly, who knows?) conceded that what they previously branded a “death tax” has some legitimacy. Labour, which proposes a National Care Service but optimistically expects “cross-party consensus” on how to finance it, should now offer the clarity about old age that many voters crave. Inheritance tax should be earmarked for the care service, which would be free at the point of use, and it should be levied on all estates worth (say) £100,000 at progressive rates (not rising above even 50 per cent, never mind 99 per cent) that yield sufficient money to fund it adequately.

Paul Dacre’s new darling

Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, is in love again. “At last, a PM not afraid to be honest with you,” proclaimed the paper’s front page on Theresa May’s manifesto. Though the Mail has previously argued that to make old people use housing wealth to fund care is comparable to the slaughter of the first-born, an editorial said that her honesty was exemplified by the social care proposals.

On the morning of the very day that May U-turned, the Mail columnist Dominic Lawson offered a convoluted defence of the failure to cap what people might pay. Next day, with a cap announced, the Mail hailed “a PM who’s listening”.

Dacre was previously in love with Gordon Brown, though not to the extent of recommending a vote for him. What do Brown and May have in common? Patriotism, moral values, awkward social manners, lack of metropolitan glitz and, perhaps above all, no evident sense of humour. Those are the qualities that win Paul Dacre’s heart.

Sobering up

Much excitement in the Wilby household about opinion polls that show Labour reducing the Tories’ enormous lead to, according to YouGov, “only” 9 percentage points. I find myself babbling about ­“Labour’s lead”. “What are you talking about?” my wife asks. When I come to my senses, I realise that my pleasure at the prospect, after seven years of Tory austerity, of limiting the Tories’ majority to 46 – more than Margaret Thatcher got in 1979 – is a measure of my sadly diminished expectations. l

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496