How Labour would ensure the rich don't benefit from a 10p tax rate

The party plans to adjust thresholds elsewhere in the tax system, so that higher-earners don't gain from a lower starting rate of income tax.

One important detail in Ed Miliband's speech largely overlooked by the media is that only basic rate taxpayers would gain from the return of the 10p tax rate. Without this proviso, the policy would be more expensive, since higher-rate taxpayers would also benefit, as well as regressive, since the largest gains would flow to the richest households (as in the case of increasing the personal allowance). Miliband has no intention of handing a tax cut to millionaires by allowing them to pay a marginal rate of just 10p on their first £1,000 of earnings above the personal allowance. 

In order to ensure that only basic rate taxpayers benefit from the policy, I'm told by a Labour source that the party would look at adjusting thresholds elsewhere in the income tax system or at tapering away the gains for higher-earners. This could, for instance, mean a lower starting rate for the 40p rate (a policy pursued by George Osborne, who reduced it from £42,475 to £41,450 in last year's Budget) and the 45p rate. Another potential model is the measure introduced by Alistair Darling in the 2009 Budget. The-then Chancellor announced that the personal allowance would be tapered away at a rate of £1 for every £2 of income above £100,000 (meaning it is now withdrawn completely at around £116,000). George Osborne has wisely chosen not to reverse this brilliant act of stealth redistribution.  

 

Ed Miliband used his speech on the economy to call for the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate, funded by a mansion tax on houses worth more than £2m. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Jeremy Corbyn delivers a speech on the arts in north London on September 1, 2015. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Can Labour MPs force Corbyn to bring back shadow cabinet elections?

It is not up to the parliamentary party whether the contests are reintroduced. 

Soon after Jeremy Corbyn became the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, it was reported that he intended to bring back shadow cabinet elections. But as I later wrote, that's not the case. Corbyn has resolved that he will maintain the right to appoint his own team, rather than having it elected by MPs (as was the case before Ed Miliband changed the system in 2011). As he wrote in the NS: "Whoever emerges as leader on 12 September needs a shadow cabinet in place as soon as possible. I will appoint a strong, diverse shadow cabinet to hold this government to account from day one."

Now, ahead of his likely victory a week on Saturday, Corbyn is under pressure from some MPs to reverse his stance. Barry Sheerman, the former education select commitee chair, told me that he wanted a "serious discussion" within the PLP about the return of the elections. While some support their reinstatement on principled grounds, others recognise that there is a tactical advantage in Corbyn's opponents winning a mandate from MPs. His hand would be further weakened (he has the declared support of just 14 of his Commons colleagues). 

But their reinstatement is not as simple as some suggest. One senior MP told me that those demanding their return "had not read the rule book". Miliband's decision to scrap the elections was subsequently approved at party conference meaning that only this body can revive them. A simple majority of MPs is not enough. 

With Corbyn planning to have a new team in place as soon as possible after his election, there is little prospect of him proposing such upheaval at this point. Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna has attracted much attention by refusing to rule out joining the left-winger's shadow cabinet if he changes his stances on nuclear disarmament, Nato, the EU and taxation (a lengthy list). Umunna is unlikely to remain on the frontbench but having previously pledged not to serve, he now recognises that there is value in being seen to at least engage with Corbyn. Were he to simply adopt a stance of aggression, he would risk being blamed if the backbencher failed. It is one example of how the party's modernisers recognise they need to play a smarter game. I explore this subject further in my column in tomorrow's NS

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.