Nick Clegg speaks at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in York last weekend. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why the Lib Dems' £12,500 tax allowance promise is a smaller pledge than it sounds

Inflation alone will ensure that the allowance rises to over £11.3k and minimum wage workers will still be paying tax.

Since the weekend, when the Lib Dem faithful gathered in York for their spring conference, quite a few column inches have been filled with frothy speculation about Nick Clegg’s likely longevity as Liberal Democrat leader. Nothing, however, has been written about the new twist he gave their proposed tax policy (Lib Dem blogger Mark Pack being the honourable exception). Clegg’s remarks may have sounded like a passing aside – but they were fiscally and politically significant.

The context was that Clegg – like Danny Alexander – spent the weekend seeking to highlight the Lib Dems' flagship commitment to remove minimum wage workers from income tax in the next Parliament via a personal tax allowance (PTA) of £12,500. The not-very-hidden-message was that this will be top of their demands in any future coalition talks.

It is an odd policy in many ways. I’ve written before about why it isn’t what it’s billed to be. It’s not a tax cut for the lowest paid (the 5 million lowest earners don’t’ get a penny); nor is it really about lifting people out of income tax (roughly 10 per cent of the cost of the policy goes on this). It isn’t targeted at those on the minimum wage (the clear majority of whom are part-time workers who don’t pay income tax); and it’s certainly not well designed to reach those fabled "hard working families" (just 15 per cent of the gain goes to working families in the bottom half of the income distribution). In a world of Universal Credit (UC), it’s an even more regressive than people realise: millions of low and middle income working families will have most of their gains immediately withdrawn via a lower UC entitlement. And there is no policy justification whatsoever for raising the PTA once again while leaving the national insurance threshold at a far lower level – a point that even senior Lib Dems concede in private. But none of this is new.   

What might have been news, however, was Clegg’s apparent clarification that the aim of Lib Dem policy for the next Parliament is to “stick at £12.5k” (£12.5k being around the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker in 2015). I’m told this really means setting the goal of a PTA of £12.5k by the end of the Parliament in 2020; in exactly the same way that in 2010 Clegg made an allowance of £10k the lodestar for 2015.

The details really matter here. Reaching an allowance of £12.5k by 2020 is very much less ambitious than moving straight to a PTA of £12.5k in 2015/16, and dramatically less stretching than committing to uprate a £12.5k allowance in line with increases in the minimum wage over the next Parliament (which is the implied logic of the policy). Even without further increases in the PTA in next week’s Budget, or indeed in Budget 2015, we would expect inflation alone to ensure that the allowance rises to over £11.3k by 2020 (the default for the PTA is that it rises in line with CPI). Inflation is the friend of those seeking to boast of a higher income tax allowance.

The extra cost of going from £11.3k to £12.5k by 2020 is about £6bn over the next Parliament (more if UC doesn’t come in). But moving straight to a PTA of £12.5k in 2015/16 would cost over double this amount. And uprating a £12.5k allowance in line with the minimum wage would cost far more still. Indeed, Clegg’s remarks suggests he’s realised that this continued link to the minimum wage, the stated justification for choosing £12.5k in the first place, would not only cost an exorbitant amount, but it would also mean that the Low Pay Commission (who determine the minimum wage) would in effect be in charge of a central element of tax and fiscal policy. And that was never going to happen.

So the defining commitment at the heart of the Lib Dem manifesto is actually likely to be to raise the PTA by a bit over a thousand pounds more than it would have otherwise gone up by over the whole of the next Parliament. Regardless of whether you think this is a smart or silly thing to promise, what is beyond doubt is that it is a smaller pledge than many realise. (And it’s also a different pledge to that being advertised: a £12.5k PTA in 2020 would mean a full-time minimum wage worker will still be paying income tax in every year of the next parliament.) 

Now, £6bn over the Parliament is still an awful lot of money. All the more so when most of the gains go to those households who are better off, and more than ever in a period of sustained austerity when every taxcut will require another tax rise or, more likely, yet deeper spending cuts that will overwhelmingly hit the poor. But the lower than expected cost is highly relevant to potential 2015 coalition talks. It means the Lib Dem tax plans are likely to represent a less insurmountable barrier to a deal with either of the other main parties than some might think. Clegg seems to have watered down his top demand for future coalition talks without anyone noticing.   

Gavin Kelly is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation 

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

Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May’s stage-managed election campaign keeps the public at bay

Jeremy Corbyn’s approach may be chaotic, but at least it’s more authentic.

The worst part about running an election campaign for a politician? Having to meet the general public. Those ordinary folk can be a tricky lot, with their lack of regard for being on-message, and their pesky real-life concerns.

But it looks like Theresa May has decided to avoid this inconvenience altogether during this snap general election campaign, as it turns out her visit to Leeds last night was so stage-managed that she barely had to face the public.

Accusations have been whizzing around online that at a campaign event at the Shine building in Leeds, the Prime Minister spoke to a room full of guests invited by the party, rather than local people or people who work in the building’s office space.

The Telegraph’s Chris Hope tweeted a picture of the room in which May was addressing her audience yesterday evening a little before 7pm. He pointed out that, being in Leeds, she was in “Labour territory”:

But a few locals who spied this picture online claimed that the audience did not look like who you’d expect to see congregated at Shine – a grade II-listed Victorian school that has been renovated into a community project housing office space and meeting rooms.

“Ask why she didn’t meet any of the people at the business who work in that beautiful building. Everyone there was an invite-only Tory,” tweeted Rik Kendell, a Leeds-based developer and designer who says he works in the Shine building. “She didn’t arrive until we’d all left for the day. Everyone in the building past 6pm was invite-only . . . They seemed to seek out the most clinical corner for their PR photos. Such a beautiful building to work in.”

Other tweeters also found the snapshot jarring:

Shine’s founders have pointed out that they didn’t host or invite Theresa May – rather the party hired out the space for a private event: “All visitors pay for meeting space in Shine and we do not seek out, bid for, or otherwise host any political parties,” wrote managing director Dawn O'Keefe. The guestlist was not down to Shine, but to the Tory party.

The audience consisted of journalists and around 150 Tory activists, according to the Guardian. This was instead of employees from the 16 offices housed in the building. I have asked the Conservative Party for clarification of who was in the audience and whether it was invite-only and am awaiting its response.

Jeremy Corbyn accused May of “hiding from the public”, and local Labour MP Richard Burgon commented that, “like a medieval monarch, she simply briefly relocated her travelling court of admirers to town and then moved on without so much as a nod to the people she considers to be her lowly subjects”.

But it doesn’t look like the Tories’ painstaking stage-management is a fool-proof plan. Having uniform audiences of the party faithful on the campaign trail seems to be confusing the Prime Minister somewhat. During a visit to a (rather sparsely populated) factory in Clay Cross, Derbyshire, yesterday, she appeared to forget where exactly on the campaign trail she was:

The management of Corbyn’s campaign has also resulted in gaffes – but for opposite reasons. A slightly more chaotic approach has led to him facing the wrong way, with his back to the cameras.

Corbyn’s blunder is born out of his instinct to address the crowd rather than the cameras – May’s problem is the other way round. Both, however, seem far more comfortable talking to the party faithful, even if they are venturing out of safe seat territory.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496