If Osborne is opposed to tax avoidance, why did he reward it?

The Chancellor says he's "shocked" by tax avoidance. So why did he cut the 50p rate?

George Osborne's claim that he is "shocked" by the level of tax avoidance in the UK is evidence of either extreme naïveté or extreme cynicism. Are we really to believe that it was only after studying millionaires' tax returns that the Chancellor realised that some of them pay "virtually no" income tax? And does he really think the voters will believe him? 

He told the Daily Telegraph

I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.

Admirable words, but if Osborne is opposed to tax avoidance, which he has described as "morally repugnant", why did his Budget reward it? The principal reason for the abolition of the 50p tax rate was that high-earners are avoiding it. As Osborne stated in the Budget

HMRC find that an astonishing £16 billion of income was deliberately shifted [emphasis mine] into the previous tax year - at a cost to the taxpayer of £1 billion, something that the previous Government's figures made no allowance for.

But this is an argument for reducing tax avoidance, not for cutting taxes for the top one per cent. While the rich could avoid the 50p rate in the first year of its existence [by bringing forward income from 2010/11 to 2009/10 in order to pay the 40p rate], this is not a trick they could have repeated. Yet Osborne has cut the rate all the same. It is as if he has rewarded welfare cheats by increasing their benefits.

Osborne's insistence, then, that he is "going after" tax avoiders is simply an attempt to change the subject. If the Chancellor really wants to ensure the rich pay their fair share, he should reinstate the 50p rate. 

Chancellor George Osborne: "shocked" by tax avoidance? Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland