A few things that bug me about this whole tax-cutting debate…
1) Even Lord Forsyth’s suggestion of £21 billion worth of cuts is a tiny sum when you remember Brown will this year spend £553bn of our money – rising to £682 billion in 2011/12. Any Tory cut must be put in this context, or the sums just don’t mean anything.
2) And let’s not forget that from now until April 2012, Brown intends to raise tax by an average £32 billion a year, according to Treasury figures. Would it be so bad if the Tories put a stop to that? Or slowed it down a little? If even Redwood is talking about cutting just £14bn in regulation costs (not tax) then it’s game, set and match to Brown. A high-spending big-government consensus has effectively been reached.
3) The name “Thatcherite” is pejoratively attached to Redwood because he believes in lower tax and free market. Yes, that was Thatcher’s mantra. But it’s also the agenda which is today boosting economies from New Zealand to Estonia. It is simply bizarre to call that “Thatcherite” – unless you believe the idea of letting people keep more of their money belongs in the 1980s.
4) Matt’s right: it’s crucial to talk about “death duty” or “death taxes” rather than inheritance tax. As Frank Luntz found, such language makes a huge difference and conveys the innate unfairness of it.
5) Politicians of any hue speak with forked tongues when they pledge to cut regulation. Around 40% of regulations come from Brussels, and there’s not much anyone can do. I’d like to hear more people pointing out this powerlessness.
Labour is trying its damnedest to encourage the media to repeat the phrase “lurch to the right” every time the Tories announce a policy review. It is a phrase Brown desperately wants to be in the public’s heads before the next general election. If Cameron buys a raspberry smoothie on the way to work, it will be denounced as a “lurch to the right”. It’ll be interesting to see how much of the media will play along with this.
Comments