More anger over the 10p tax con

John

I'm curious as to why exactly it is a 'con'?

I can see why some people think it's a poor idea to borrow to fund a tax cut but are we now calling any policy over which we have have reservations a 'con'?

Travis Bickle

John, to answer your question the way the 10p tax rate was doubled in small print was indeed a con.

I rather expect that when we look at the small print of next pre budget report we will certainly find that this latest little exercise was no less of a con, simply designed to offset backbench rebellion and hope an eternally grateful public will vote for them next Thursday.

Ian C

John, the con was that last year Brown sat down at the end of his budget speech having announced the 10p abolition in the penultimate sentence. in the last sentence he pronounced that this was good for the system and the 'quid pro quo' was a reduction in the basic rate from 22p to 20p. The con was that it was paid for by those who pay tax at just the 10p rate, like my part-time working wife and over 5m others, whose starting rate is now double at 20p. Simple as that. In that speech noone had time to work it out. Some did, like Frank Field and the opposition. But the sleight of hand way he announced it initially trounced the naysayers (the Tories were still in disarray this time last year) until its effect was seen in wage slips last month. There is a simple rule with Budgets. The biger the cheer at its end the worse its provisions will prove to be. You would have thought that Brown would have known that after 10 years at it! But no, yet again, not Gordon "I understand the politics of it better than anyone" Brown.

Nicholas

John, I think if you look at the whole story of the 10p to £2.7 billion saga you will see it as a 'con', not least for the way in which both Brown and Darling are disingenuous about their motives for the various changes they have made along the way in response to public opinion.

Labour ministers have been spinning recently that the 10p tax rate was only a temporary or transient measure. This assertion has been shown to be false with the actual parliamentary record confirmed and re-stated here, on the Daily Politics and QT (both BBC no less!).

Even less directly, Brown's repeated insistence on controlling inflation by restricting public sector pay, as in the case of the police for example, is given the lie by the sudden pulling of this unfunded £2.7 billion rabbit out of the hat. But the most cynical aspects are the attempt to spin the real reason into something else and the arrogant presumption that the public will swallow it.

The £2.7 billion liability could be viewed as relating wholly and solely to internal Labour Party politics. A massive public expenditure intended to put down rebellion in the Labour Party, paper over divisional cracks in the Labour Party, maintain a facade of Labour Party cohesion and to bribe Labour Party members and supporters to continue to vote for the Labour Party. It is yet another example of Brown and his motley crew putting party political campaigning ahead of sound government.

David

"yet Mr Brown could not bring himself to sack a few thousand"

This is why people don't like Heffer. There's no sympathy here for those who lose their jobs, merely treated as impersonal numbers. What a nasty man he is.

Frank Pulley

A message to the folks of Crewe and Nantwich: your votes next week could cause a sea-change in politics in this country. It is a chance to get rid of a craven shu-in PM who shrank from seeking a mandate from the electorate when he had the chance (he will go if there is a rout in C & N); who broke the promise to give us a referendum on the EU Constitution. It's also your chance to get rid of the upstarts - an administration of a failed and extremely costly social experiment. Now there's power for you - do you duty, please! And don't be sentimental about the sainted Dunwoody - she was pissed off with this lot, too, and would probably smile down approvingly if they get the bloody nose they deserve. Who knows - if the Tories get in next time around, we might even get a true labour party opposition again and restore a modicum of old fashioned ethics to British politics.

Augustus

Brown was always paranoid about not increasing income tax, even before New Labour came to power. The 'con' arose with the mantra: "making the right decisions for Britain", and that it was well spent and fairly imposed. The 10p tax rate debacle was one of many symptoms of his desire to be seen to be imposing the opposite of his stealth tax socialist tendencies. Another two years should compromise his position even further.

Tiberius

Heffer is a great historian, but his downright stupid characterization of Cameron has seriously undermined his credibility as a political commentator, even if it is entertaining to read him crucify Brown.

Will

A con is a confidence trick. Mr Brown's whole record as an excellent Chancellor is a confidence trick. The only things that he did right on entering office were to continue the tax and spending policies of the previous Conservative administration and to let the Bank of England free. He then destroyed the ability of the B of E to control banks by making them the responsibility of the FSA. An organisation created from FIMBRA which was itself created to give some appearance of regulation for naughty insurance brokers being paid by commission. He was then surprised by Northern Rock. He then destroyed the B of E's ability to control inflation by adopting Enron/Maxwell style inflation targets. Had the B of E been working to the old RPI figure rates would have been raised instead of lowered avoiding the credit crunch. He saw that companies were taking premium holidays on pensions due to rising stockmarkets so he eliminated the tax reliefs given to pension funds. The stockmarket collapsed and so did the pension funds. He then exchanged our gold reserves for euros making sure that the market knew that is what he was going to do reducing the price of gold before he sold it. Gold has since doubled in price. He announced that he would reduce the basic rates of tax a year before he needed to enabling him to get a cheap cheer from his back benches. He then did nothing about it in the following year allowing his sucessor to take the blame. He then tries to recover the situation by changing the personal allowances after they have already been announced in the budget. He justifies paying for this by borrowing at a time when the banks are refusing to lend to each other let alone to anyone else, when the £ is dropping in value. Who is he proposing to borrow from and what rate of interest does he expect to pay and when do we the taxpayer have to pay it back? Despite raising the allowances someone being paid at the minimum rates who works throughout the year is still having to pay income tax and National Insurance. So much for his claim to be eliminating poverty. His expertise in his chosen career shows all the hallmarks of Mr Blobby not a competent financial expert.

Paul B

"Viv Nicholson of Downing Street"

Brilliant.

Silent Hunter

I would like to endorse Franks excellent advice to the good people of Crewe & Nantwich.

This isn't JUST another by-election; it's a real opportunity to change a corrupt government for something better for all the people of this country.

A chance to restore some of our dignity, honour and sense of fairness that this abysmal Labour Government has so casually trampled upon for 11 long years.

I beg of you! PLEASE.....

Start the demise of the New Labour project and make history or we will all be subjected to two more years of cynical experimentation by a venal, corrupt and sleaze ridden Labour Government.

Commondog

They'll be pretty confident of getting away with it because they know how dumb we are.

They know that the Poll Tax anger years ago, was easily quelled by the simple tactic of changing its name and putting in a few tweaks. We're dumb.

We're so dumb that we keep on voting when there is pretty clearly no point: get shafted by the Tories or hoodwinked by Labour.

People say to me when I tell them I haven't voted for years that I should refrain from comment because people fought and died to retain my right to vote.

My reply is that if those brave people had been told how this country would look in 2008, they would have put down their weapons and pointed the enemy towards Whitehall.

Commondog

They'll be pretty confident of getting away with it because they know how dumb we are.

They know that the Poll Tax anger years ago, was easily quelled by the simple tactic of changing its name and putting in a few tweaks. We're dumb.

We're so dumb that we keep on voting when there is pretty clearly no point: get shafted by the Tories or hoodwinked by Labour. Lib Dems? Behave now.

People say to me when I tell them I haven't voted for years that I should refrain from comment because people fought and died to retain my right to vote.

My reply is that if those brave people had been told how this country would look in 2008, they would have put down their weapons and pointed the enemy towards Whitehall.