Labour steps up its attack on the 50p tax cut

New figures show that 8,000 millionaires will gain an average of £107,500 from the abolition of the top tax rate.

One of Ed Miliband's favourite lines of attack against the coalition is that the abolition of the 50p tax rate will give a tax cut of at least £40,000 (£42,500, to be precise) to every person earning over a million pounds a year. The Labour leader says "at least" because many of the 8,000 people in question will, of course, receive far more. Today, at a joint Q&A with Ed Balls ahead of George Osborne's Autumn Statement, Miliband will reveal just how much more.

New figures released by Labour show that income millionaires (as opposed to those whose assets are worth at least a million, a distinction Miliband failed to make in his conference speech) will gain an average of £107,500 from the move. Miliband will say:

They don't understand that you build economic success not from wealth trickling down but by rewarding and supporting working people. Earlier this year I highlighted the millionaires’ tax cut. I said David Cameron would be giving a £40,000 tax cut to every person earning over a million pounds a year.

But new figures we are publishing today show it is even more than that. The Government is about to give an average of £107,500 each to 8,000 people earning over a million a year. Not £40,000. But £107,500. To 8,000 millionaires. David Cameron and George Osborne are giving them this money. But it’s coming from you. You are paying the price of their failure and them standing up for the wrong people.

The Labour leader rightly believes that the abolition of the 50p rate remains one of the government's weakest points. Between now and next April, when the tax cut is formally introduced, we can expect him to take every opportunity to remind the public just how much the richest will benefit from the move. Labour also plans to maintain the pressure on David Cameron to say whether he will gain from the abolition of the top rate. A private poll released by the party in October showed that 62 per cent of voters believe Cameron should "come clean and tell people honestly whether he is personally benefitting from this".

Ed Miliband will today give a Q&A with shadow chancellor Ed Balls ahead of George Osborne's Autumn Statement on 5 December. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.