George Osborne and David Cameron speak to business leaders at the AQL centre on February 5, 2015 in Leeds. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

When will the Tories make their inheritance tax pledge?

Osborne has at least one big card left to play - but it might help the Conservatives less than they hope. 

How many bullets do Labour and the Tories have left to fire? That is the question being asked in Westminster as the polls remain deadlocked. Ed Miliband's team believe that the Tories are "running out of road" having launched major assaults on Labour's spending plans and its "anti-business" stance to little effect. 

But one card that the Conservatives do have left to play is inheritance tax. David Cameron and George Osborne have repeatedly stated that they will announce plans to significantly increase the threshold before the election. The latter told the Sunday Times in January: "I have taken steps to help with inheritance, making sure that people can pass on their pension to their children. People can pass on their ISAs. David Cameron has made it clear, as have I, that we believe inheritance tax is a tax that should be paid by the rich and we will set out our further approach closer to the election." It was Osborne's pledge to raise the starting level to £1m in his 2007 conference speech that spooked Gordon Brown into calling off the election and that earned the Chancellor his reputation as a strategic grandmaster. 

Next week's Budget would be a natural opportunity for him to repeat this gambit. The Tories have briefed that the statement will include separate, non-coalition sections on the tax and welfare changes a future Conservative government would make, such as reducing the benefit cap to £23,000 and raising the 40p tax threshold to £50,000. 

But while cutting inheritance tax is usually regarded as an unambiguous vote winner, it's worth recalling that at the 2010 general election it partly harmed the Tories by reinforcing their reputation as the party of the rich (with Gordon Brown lambasting them for planning to cut taxes for "the wealthiest 3,000 estates"). Indeed, in his biography of Osborne, Janan Ganesh revealed that the Chancellor was secretely glad when the Lib Dems forced him to drop the policy. 

Any new pledge would risk having the same effect while also making it harder than ever for the Chancellor to argue that his sums add up. But this fiscal firework is one of the few things that could still change the game. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496