Supplementary notes on Osborne's progressive speech
Peter Hoskin 7:11pm
Earlier, I wrote that Osborne's speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron. Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that's the case. Sure, there wasn't anything particularly new in it - and the delivery didn't quite zing - but its central point that Brown's approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message. Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the "nasty Tories" and their "cuts in frontline services", so it's important for Cameron & Co. that they counter this in advance.
Here, for the record, are a couple of supplementary points that I jotted in my notebook while listening to Osborne:
The reform argument has always been the progressive argument. In some respects, it's quite frustrating to hear Osborne stressing now how cuts needn't mean worse services; how public service reform can actually deliver better services for all, while reducing costs. Why wasn't he forcing this same point a couple of years ago, instead of committing to Labour's spending targets? Sure, the fiscal position has worsened since. But Brown was still spending, borrowing, spending back then, and often for limited returns. The arguments for why reform is necessary and desirable are the same arguments for why it was necessary and desirable five years ago.
More charitably, I guess these arguments are better made late than never. The great service that the next government can do for politics, as well as for the British public, is to completely destroy the old consensus that public spending is a good thing in and of itself. It the Tories continue to push this idea of "more for less" - and, of course, implement the policy agenda which sees it happen - then they have a good chance of doing so.
Why operate in Brown's shadow? I understand the Tory thinking behind saying the 45p/50p upper tax rate will be "difficult to avoid" - they don't want to give Brown room to attack them for "looking after their rich friends", it's a difficult argument to make, yada, yada, yada. But - given the evidence that raising the upper rate could actually reduce the contributions made by the best-off in society, covered by Fraser here - wouldn't it be a progressive act to oppose it outright? I may be being overly idealistic here, but this is the main reason why I think the Tories should fight Brown over his cynical tax hikes: they could just end up increasing the burden on the least well-off. What's more, given Brown's position, it's a fight you'd think the Tories would stand a good chance of winning.
Ok, you may not agree with me on the Tory strategy over 45p/50p. And there's the point that they could always repeal or not introduce it once they get into power – all's well that ends well, and all that. But it rather typifies a presentational problem with Osborne's speech today: if Brown is a regressive politician, why stick by some of his fiscal policies? Is that giving them the progressive stamp of approval? I doubt that's how the Tories want it to be taken, but it's certainly open to that interpretation.
Previous
Baltic Boy
August 11th, 2009 9:06pm Report this commentGeorge Osborne should be really radical and adopt the flat tax, an Estonian invention, which has ensured that the Estonian econonomy continues to remain one of the strongest in Europe in the current downturn, with a miniscule deficit. The home of Skype and the little brother of Finland, the home of Nokia can teach boy George a thing or two about how to turn a stalinist country into a modern economic powerhouse.
alastair harris
August 11th, 2009 9:07pm Report this commentbut Brown's policies are Brown's alone, and until he gets elected there is little Cameron can do. Surely he is better to let Brown dig his own grave and simply offer his own observations on the madness. As he rightly says he will make his plans clear when he has had a chance to look properly at the books - can't do that while Brown is still fiddling.
Hysteria
August 11th, 2009 10:27pm Report this commentalastair - the "wait for the books" approach is all well and good - but where is the principled position ? BB's approach is one example - other (less radical) would be a declared commitment to smaller tax take, reduced red-tape, paying down debt over time etc.
TGF UKIP
August 11th, 2009 11:17pm Report this commentI have long termed them The Pusillanimous Pair. Seems you are now beginning to agree with me, Pete.
And as they apparently regard Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien as some sort of models and beacons, I really don't think anything more need be said.
Verity
August 11th, 2009 11:55pm Report this comment1. Osborne's a member of the clique that aspires to govern Britain without telling us what they intend to do about the things that occupy the electorate. Anyone who gets elected is going to be compelled to fix the economy, so that the "Conservatives" so aspire is not really a selling point.
2. "Sure, there wasn't anything particularly new in it - and the delivery didn't quite zing ...".
What can I say?
Sterence
August 12th, 2009 1:58am Report this commentThe argument against abolishing the 50p tax immediately is simply that when so many other taxes will need to go up in the short term, it's perverse in the eyes of the majority that have to pay them that the highest rate comes down at the same time. For sure the tax rate hike will drive people away but those same people, if they haven't already gone by election time, could well be persuaded that a sensible govt committed to reducing tax in due course will get rid of the 50p rate as soon as the deficit starts to look under control. Retaining it for the short term then seems like an egalitarian approach to sorting out the fiscal mess. I quite agree with those that object to 50p on principle but the fact is we are far away from an ideal position right now.
BaiDaLong
August 12th, 2009 3:23am Report this commentWhy on earth would any country want to have 'progressive' taxation. Punish success and reward failure? No. Can anyone please demonstrate to me a single example of where 'progressive' taxation has resulted in increased wealth creation? No. I thought not.
A 'progressive' Consertavive taxation policy will be great for the economy. Unfortunately it will be great for the Australian economy, not the British.
Kevyn Bodman
August 12th, 2009 5:12am Report this comment'The great service...is to completely destroy the old consensus that public spending is a good thing in and of itself.'
Quite right.
Do you think the Conservative party led by Cameron will do this, or want to do it?
I don't.
'Where is the principled position?'
Baltic Boy has one, Hysteria has another. Both can be argued, both are better than waiting to:
look at the books,
keep the powder dry,
not reveal policies because Brown might steal them,
or any other option that involves hiding from the voters what an incoming Conservative government will do.
Be clear on policies before the election and then the implementation of those policies is legitimate; hide policies in the hope of winning and then the implementation of those poicies is fraud, theft and the continuation of duplicity and deception that is one of the reasons our politicians deserve to be despised.
Andy Carpark
August 12th, 2009 9:08am Report this commentWell said, BB @ 9:06pm.
Around the turn of 1990, Finnish banks were issuing bonds like they were going out of fashion for the purpose of investing in the Soviet Union, which then promptly disintegrated taking the Finnish financial system with it. They decided their best chance of retrenchment was to develop the then far from fashionable mobile phones.
That's what I admire about the Finns. When they are in a corner they get up on their hind legs and they do something about it. They call it Sisu, roughly translated as "guts" (qv "The Winter War" by William R Trotter (2002), recommended for Gustav Von Mannerheim's closing speech alone).
Rhoda Klapp
August 12th, 2009 9:23am Report this commentKevyn, you are right.
None of the cautious provisions (lok at the books, powder dry, stolen policies) would apply to my favourite suggestion, of listing all the anti-freedom labour laws which will be repealed in the first parliament. I can only think the tories do not plan to do this. They are happy with surveillance, RIPA, anti-'terror' laws used on ordinary people and so on. I can't see the downside in opposing these little bits of tyranny. Why can't they say something?
Publius
August 12th, 2009 9:24am Report this commentBaiDaLong
It depends what you want to progress towards, doesn't it. And how you define "success." To define success as having lots of money is merely vulgar.
Kevyn Bodman. All fine, but I think it is naive to expect the public to take on board more than broad-brush general aims. And the Tories have already said they want lower tax and a smaller state.
Minnie Ovens
August 12th, 2009 11:37am Report this commentNot being an economist I find all these comments of interest but there is a lot of truth to the opinions of Hysteria and Verity.
I do not think that being open, honest and clear about one's budget strategy is automatically going to damn one at the next election.
Not unless it is evidently manifest that it is wrong or you are too scared to defend it.
So far we have had teasers from the Conservatives about small government and a possibility of tax rises on our way to stabilizing the economy in the future.
I hate it when I am told that trust should be made in Cameron's vision combined with a few tidbits.
That really is Heir to Blair fantasy. Also trust of politicians went out the window lately. Never honesty from an ego.
I do not know what the timing is, but I expect the Tories to come out with a clear and specific economic policy, warts and all. I want to know precisely what is going to happen in the reduction of government and if the cuts are contentious I would like the Tories to spell out how their efficiencies and economies will maintain a good standard in, say, Education, NHS, Agriculture, Foreign Aid, and Social Services to name a few. (the EC is a ballgame unto itself along with the other Gorilla, Immigration)
We know that government should only take, at most, 30% of GDP for a healthy balance between the private and public sectors, so how do we get there?
Just for once in the past 60 years, it would be so motivating to see a party set out to tell it as it is and to be courageous enough to attack with it.
I mean the goal has been open wide for sometime now. Will anyone on the Conservative forward line dare to give the ball a tap towards it?
TGF UKIP
August 12th, 2009 3:25pm Report this commentThe GOP in the states would like nothing more than to be able to have as its name The Conservative Party. Over here, though, the Clique are both ashamed and afraid of that name and want nothing more than to be termed and though of as The Progressive Party.
What a sad pass Hilton and Cameron have brought the Tory Party to in just three and a half years.
Back to top