Balls's election strategy is a hostage to Osborne's pen

Peter Stroud

The Tories need not abandon the IHT policy, just put it on the very back burner, i.e. until we recover completely from this recession

Alic

Apparently NuLab have also suddenly, after 12 years of destructive social engineering which appeared to me to aspire to the destruction of marriage, suddenly to have decided to back marriage as "its better for the children".

I really hope most of the electorate are not so totally feeble that they don't see through this.

EyeSee

So how exactly did the bankers get away with our money? Because Balls and his buddies cosied up to them in order to feather their own nests. The clearest case of course being Tony Blair himself. If ever a party sought power merely to meet their own greed it is New Labour. Giving wealth creators a reason to live and invest in Britain makes sense for everyone. Spending money we haven't got on building an empire, a client state, is self serving waste, in the extreme. New Labour have not just been a bad government, unable to rise to the challenges it has had to face, it created most of the problems WE have to face.

Publius

Yawn. As usual, The Speccie seems locked in Labour's rhetoric of "equality" and "privilege".

The Tories IHT pledge is, apparently, popular. So why even consider ditching it?

oldrightie

The only hung Parliament we will see is Labours' petard.

Mark M

Labour is hammering at IHT because they know Cameron win. If he holds, he is 'spending billions on the 3,000 richest estates' (as Labour love to remind us). If he downgrades the pledge he looks like a man who can't be trusted - the Lisbon Treaty decision, as reasonable as it is when you look at the detail, made all the wrong headlines for Cameron. He can't risk looking like someone who changes his mind on pledges.

teledu

Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the IHT limit as it is but to exclude the main family home from the calculations ?

Nicholas

Why is Balls, a government minister on the taxpayer's payroll, able to engage in direct party political campaigning when a date for the General Election has not been set and Parliament has not been dissolved by HM The Queen?

Why should my (and others) taxes be spent on Balls' party political campaigning? As a minister his whole focus should be on running his department on behalf of the people.

As usual with New Labour they take the piss in more ways than one. They have shown themselves completely incapable of distinguishing between their government responsibilities and their party politics, to the detriment of both our government and parliamentary system, and as usual the media and the opposition can't seem to draw the necessary distinction either. So New Labour get away with it - yet again.

gordon-bennett

ed balls says "They [the Conservatives] have designed an inheritance tax policy which costs billions".

This is a straight lie since the scheme will be funded by a tax on non-doms and not cost the UK taxpayer a penny.

Woody

I think Mark M is right. The Tories should leave this pledge well alone. They can't afford to go back on this, so just say it is not a priority in the current climate and start explaining that it benefits ordinary families who find themselves in properties worth over a million due to circumstances.

Boudicca

Balls is quite wrong when he says that the Tories IHT proposals won't benefit anyone on a low income. "They have designed an inheritance tax policy which costs billions but which won’t benefit a single lower or middle-income family in Britain but will benefit themselves and a tiny percentage of other individuals.”

I am a divorced, single parent I work 30 hrs a week in the public sector and earn rather less than the average wage ... but it will benefit me.

I live in the SE; following my divorce I bought what was then a relatively cheap ex-local authority house and I struggled to pay off the mortgage. Because of Brown's debt-based housing inflation, my house alone is now 'worth' over the current IHT thresh-hold. I recently inherited a relatively small sum on money to add to my so-called 'wealth.'

I can't split the equity in my house between two adults - as Labour proposes - so if I come to an untimely end, my two sons will pay IHT on my estate. Which will mean selling their home.

The Tories' IHT proposals will definately benefit me and my sons - and it will benefit almost anyone else living in a 3-bed semi south of Birmingham.

Balls is wrong.

Short the UK

All the Tories have to say is that the gravity of the public finances mean that in the first term all tax relief must be focused on creating jobs: tax cuts for small business. In the second term it will be tax cuts for consumers (IHT).

Right now the dividing line:

~Socialism (proto-communism) = Old Labour: tax, spend, huge deficits and a busted balance sheet.

versus

~Capitalism = The Tories: spending cuts, tax rises, targeted tax cuts and balance sheet repair.

Hammer the phrase Old Labour.

*Just be straight with the public!!!

Publius

Quite, Boudicca. It's a shame the combined wit of the Speccie journos can't rustle up such a straightforward and honest case.

strapworld

Boudicca is Osborne and Cameron's answer.
They should, with Boudicca's permission, film her house and tell her story. A story which will resonate with millions of people up and down the country. Then turn it against Balls. Telling him that he can decline to claim the tax on his property and ensure his wishes are followed by placing the condition that his properties be excluded from Inheritance Tax and monies paid to the Exchequer! I am sure Balls would want to agree to that!

TrevorsDen

Boudicca is right.

The Tories IHT policy helps everyone except millionaires.

Balls is simply lying. The only surprise is that people could be surprised.

Liz Brown

Osborne and Cameron have already said that IHT won't get priority, nor do they wish to abandon it - obviously that message is not getting through Ballsup's thick skull

Nick

Balls is deliberately lying. The Tories IHT proposals have quite clearly been downgraded to an aspiration for a first term Tory government if affordable. Balls knows this and for him to suggest otherwise is plain mendacity.

The Tories tax plan priorities are aimed squarely at boosting growth and creating employment. ie a reversal of Labour's National Insurance increases.

oldtimer

Balls says "‘They have designed an inheritance tax policy which costs billions but which won’t benefit a single lower or middle-income family in Britain but will benefit themselves and a tiny percentage of other individuals.’”

This is not true and a typical example of a Big Lie (copyright Adolf Hitler/Dr Goebbels) which is endlessly repeated in the belief that it will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by the media - apparently by Peter Hoskin for one - and voters at large.

Osborne`s IHT pledge was, and remains according to recent polling evidence, extremely popular because it did precisely the opposite of what Balls says it does. It will benefit many hundreds of thousands of people (such as Boudicca above) whose homes have appreciated many times over the years they have lived in them. This is a tax change that will benefit the many, not the few. And many of these beneficiaries will be OAPs on very low incomes indeed, who have lived in the same house for many, many years.

Balls would like nothing better than for Cameron/Osborne to abandon their pledge on IHT. He would see it as yet another nail in the perceived trustworthiness of the Conservatives to hammer home along side the "betrayal" on the Lisbon treaty referendum.

And yes, as Fraser Nelson pointed out a day or so ago, Balls is clever enough to think this out for himself. If Cameron and Osborne are as clever as they need to be to win the coming election, they will dodge this obvious elephant trap and stick by their pledge to reform IHT within the lifetime of the next Parliament.

Remember that the Brown/Balls search for dividing lines is not just between Labour and Conservative (to shore up the core Labour vote) but also between Cameron and the core Conservative vote (to chip away and dislodge that core Conservative vote).

tom holland

What let a weak discredited party dictate Tory policy? Not a smart move.

The Tories need to vigorously win the argument not duck it.

logdon

If, as originally posited when the change to IHT was announced, it was to be funded by increased income from non dom taxes, where is Balls' argument?

All Balls it would seem.

And wasn't that the mood breaker, resulting in Brown's retreat on an early election last Autumn? And the birth of Cameron's emergence as a real contender?

And didn't Labour rush to propose similar when it seemed that the public quite liked the idea?

This is yet more of the puerile, shallow spin shoved out by inveterate, obsessive liars who seem to think our memories are of goldfish proportions.

barnacle bill

Well it had to happen, we had Brownies from out of his master's mouth, now we have Ballies from the monkey.

Dennis Churchill

But will it matter what is in any party’s manifesto? After Lisbon will we believe it? The Conservative Party can pledge anything as can Labour then simply not do it. We will soon forget and “move on”.

quadratus

There is some confusion in this discussion.Woody (1226) for example says it will benefit persons with assets '...over a million pounds'.While that is in fact pedantically true,it is the cohorts of less wealthy people with assets UP TO a million pounds who collectively will gain most, as expressed by Boudicca (1229).
Labour are trying to play on this and yet it can be perfectly clear. The pledge must be fulfilled and give a welcome boost to a huge section of the population: as the initial response to Osborne's proposal indicates.

quadratus

On reviewing the opening words of Mr.Hoskin,it woud appear that he 'does not get it'either! Has he been mugged by the Socialist twaddle? (For'twaddle'read lies.)

Dennis Churchill

On the grounds it is about News Management rather than any intention to actually implement a policy commitment (see referendum on E.U Constitution and “Cast Iron Guarantee) then why not just aim the tax at Labour supporters by lowering the figure and promising to consider it further? It can then join the “Crack Down on Crime” and controlling immigration commitments and be ignored when in power. If the leadership want to increase it to 5 million, after the election then they will.
The same can be done with Fox Hunting, promise a Royal Commission to kick it into the long grass then restore it without the Commission.

PAUL GILBOY

It is completely delusional to base your economic strategy on the hope that a few people die and the state can get their hands on what’s left over.

No one who went to Eton will pay because anyone with any real wealth has it all tied up in trusts like Cameron and Osbourne.

If Labour are to appeal to their core vote they need to see off the BNP, who are the party cutting into their former constituencies.

Irene

I wish SOMEONE would explain this IHT properly - Isn't the IHT being cut to Just under a Million Pounds (£999,999) so instead of the conservatives cutting tax for millionaires as labour says, we are infact cutting the tax so that ONLY millionaires have to pay for it?

Andy Leeds

With the States finances in such a mess there will be no tax cuts nor much else for many years. If and when the States finances are on the road to balance what we need above all is a radical and far reaching reform not only of the whole tax system - and National Insurance is a tax too - but a radical reform of the entire benefits system too. Taxes and benefits have become over the last 12 years so complicated no one seems to understand either system anymore. This mess is Gordon the Morons creation. Let it be demolished along with everything else this stupid and idiotic man has touched.

HJ

Irene is correct. The Tories IHT policy will only exempt estates BELOW £1m. However, it will also mean that multi-million estates won't pay IHT on the first million.

Balls is, of course, loathsome. However, the Tories should re-think their IHT policy. They should point out that currently we do not have inheritance tax - because 'Inheritance Tax', as currently levied, is a misnomer. In fact, it is a death tax. It is paid on the estate of the person who dies not on how much an individual inherits. So if someone leaves a million pounds, the same tax will be levied whether they leave it to one person or whether they divide it amongst 20 people.

The Tories should make the tax dependent only on the amount that an individual inherits. They could present this as a re-distributive reform, encouraging those who die to spread their money around. In fact, they could abolish any form of inheritance tax and instead extend capital gains tax to inheritances.

Pete Hoskin

CoffeeHousers: just to be clear, I'm dealing in hypotheticals above - hence the "What if...?" question. So I'm not sure why some of you think I'm suggesting the Tories should ditch their IHT proposals. Was just keen to hear your thoughts on the issue...

Alan Douglas

If the Tories feel any need to respond to Balls' balls, surely some version of "Who would want to take financial instruction from the man who wrecked the UK's pensions system, agreed to have been the best in the world before 1997 ?"

Or similar re the banking regulatory system prior to 1997.

This also neatly turns one of Brown's style of attacks straight back at Labour.

ALan Douglas

Chuck Unsworth

@ HJ

"However, it will also mean that multi-million estates won't pay IHT on the first million."

And your point is?

Why should multi-millionaires be subject to a different tax regime? Just as long as they pay in accordance with current taxation legislation what is wrong with that?

Dennis Churchill

HJ
Yes that would be a better way to present the change.
As I wrote above no one believes the parties will either carry out promised policies or not introduce controversial ones that have not been mentioned—such as Andrew Neather’s revelations about Labour’s Open Door immigration policy.

quadratus

Irene 1649
You seem to be an hour behind the curve but at least you agree,Well done.

ajs

He's a stupid deluded twit, living in some sort of parallel universe. Makes the beloved Pratchett's world seem so much more sane.
It would be far cheaper to pension him and his mates off - maybe in the Galapagos?

JohnPage

Boudicca is clearly making an important point. Rather than skulking tonguetied in their bunkers as they usually do, the Tories should come out and say the present IHT limits are unrealistic for much of the country and they want to start by raising them to (say) £500k [hardworking families etc] but sadly probably won't be able to for some time because of the catastrophic economic mismanagement by Brown & Balls. The SE England marginals should be the Tories' for the plucking.

Amadeus Plonquer

I think Balls has it exactly right. As a nation we should tax the b*stards to death. And then tax them after they're dead too!!

How dare these middle class swan around with a 'home' when the rest of us New Labour supporters have to live in a cardboard box for fifteen years while we wait for a filthy council house on a disgraceful sink estate? And we're happy to do it too.

Like every New Labour voter I'll vote for anything in a red rosette and I certainly don't want 'toffs' showing off their expensive education getting elected. No. Britain should be run by the uneducated 'salt of the earth' like Russia and North Korea - two of the world's most successful countries. We didn't hear a peep about them having a recession did we? And they shot all the bankers decades ago.

Vive la Balls!