Theresa May and Philip Hammond were in a laughing mood in the Commons on Wednesday. After a second day of dreadful headlines in the newspapers, they certainly won’t be now. The Government’s honeymoon period in the media is over – and the Chancellor’s National Insurance hike for the self-employed is entirely to blame. So far, the Prime Minister has stuck to her guns by insisting the policy will go through (even if the PM did kick it back to the Autumn). If she really is to go through with the controversial policy – and the number of Tory rebels is growing – she’ll have to resist a mounting barrage of criticism in the media.
The Sun launches a campaign on its front page urging the Government to scrap the planned National Insurance hike, calling it a ‘tax on strivers’:
In its editorial, the paper describes the plans as a ‘dismal’ decision and says the ‘Treasury’s blinkered focus’ on spreadsheets is partly to blame. The Sun does have some sympathy with the Chancellor, though; it says that Hammond was ‘tied hand and foot’ by the pledges made by the Government since 2010 which meant that ‘so many Whitehall budgets are protected from cuts’. The Sun says that given that costly policies such as foreign aid and ‘state income and perks’ for pensioners are ‘off-limits’ for cutbacks, it seems that ‘strivers’ are a soft target – explaining why they have been ‘fleeced’ so badly by the Chancellor.
The Daily Mail steps up its attack on Philip Hammond, calling the Chancellor’s budget ‘sly’ and urging him to scrap a policy that amounts to a ‘public relations disaster’.
It says the NI contributions rise drives ‘a coach and horses through a promise’ made four times in the Tory manifesto. What’s worse, says the Mail, is that Hammond’s ‘pedantic sophistry’ since the announcement has compounded the ‘disaster’ and done him no favours. As well as criticising the policy, the Mail says that Hammond’s ‘£1.5billion rise in probate fees’ and the cut to tax-free allowance on dividend payouts for pensioners are also worrying. It must have been clear to the Chancellor that he was heading for trouble. So ‘wouldn’t it have been better just to be honest with the public,’ the Mail asks.
It’s time for a rethink, says the Daily Telegraph, which urges the Government to ditch an ‘unnecessary and wrong’ policy.
‘It is hard to remember a Budget that has been so panned by so many’, argues the paper, which accuses Hammond of adopting a ‘Brownite’ view of workers using self-employment status to cut their tax bills. The Tories should be worried about the backlash, warns the Telegraph, which says that the Government would do well not to forget that ‘the self-employed are a critical part of their electoral coalition’. Instead of hiking taxes for this key group of people, the Government should recognise the hard work done by many self employed people and offer a tax cut, rather than a rise, the paper argues. Despite the backlash, though, it seems the Treasury is sticking to its guns. But the Telegraph has a warning: ‘Tories who raise taxes do not tend to perform well in general elections’. After all, ‘If Labour dumped Jeremy Corbyn and got itself a competent social democratic leader’ the Tories could be in trouble if the ‘growing band of entrepreneurs: 4.8 million of them now’ decided to ditch them and opt instead for Labour – just as they did in 1997, the Telegraph says.
This budget is an ‘own goal’, says the Times, which says the Chancellor converted a ’sensible budget into an embarrassing political mess’.
Ministers have come out fighting, but the ‘argument over whether the Government can be trusted on taxes will not go away’. The reward from this rise is relatively tiny, points out the Times. But worryingly, the ‘political cost is high’ – and Theresa May and Philip Hammond ‘only have themselves to blame’. While George Osborne learned a lesson or two from his ‘omnishambles’ Budget in 2012, it seems that Hammond wasn’t listening up. The Government must have known that ‘raising NICs would break a manifesto promise, and should have prepared better for the inevitable response’. Instead, it seems that a lack of care has backfired on the Chancellor, suggests the paper.
It’s true, says the Guardian, that ‘manifestos are not widely read and often disbelieved’. But Philip Hammond should ignore the promises made in them at his peril. Sticking to manifesto pledges is vital, says the Guardian – after all, ‘there is no other documented contract between those who elect and those who are elected.’. Of course, as the Chancellor pointed out yesterday, events such as Brexit might change the political and economic climate. But whether the Chancellor likes it or not, ‘he was elected to honour’ the manifesto. And ‘flagrant breaking of manifesto promises…have a cost in corroding public trust and demeaning politics,’ concludes the Guardian.
Comments