Friday, June 02, 2006
Tories abandon policies for election
All of this morning's papers are reporting that the Tories have decided not to propose tax cuts at the next General Election. Instead they are promising to put economic stability first.
Given that tax cuts have been the main policy of the Tories since I have been old enough to vote, this proposal smacks a lot of them abandoning any policies and principles at all in the hope that the unpopularity of the Labour Government and Cameron's photogenicity sweeps them to power. Could this be Cameron's Clause Four moment? If so it fails on several counts.
Firstly, it may mark the Tory leader out as somebody prepared to confront his party so as to force change, but it does not mark out the Tories in any distinctive way. On the contrary it defines them less clearly as an all-things-to-all-people movement pursuing power at any price. Secondly, the move has as many minuses as pluses to ordinary voters and as such will fail to win additional support. Steady as we go has traditionally been the cry of government, not of an opposition seeking to make the case for change.
Thirdly, despite this announcement the Tories continue to argue that we are over-taxed, except that they are now suggesting that they will do nothing about it. That must surely confuse voters, who prefer at the very least to see their politicians propose something in place of that they criticise.
Finally, all of the research work carried out by the Electoral Commission indicates that people are not voting because they think that politicians are all the same. They prefer a clear choice. Cameron is failing to give them one. He knows that he needs to excite non-voters to come out and back him if he is to win. This move will not do so. Worst still for the Tories it may well de-motivate their core vote, forcing them to concentrate their campaigning on this set of people when they should have been able to take their participation for granted.
Labour's response has been predictable. They point to the cuts in public spending proposed by the Tories and ask what reward will await people who suffer a worst service as a result if they are still paying the same in tax. It is a fair point but it is one that applies to Labour as well. The Government are carrying out huge cuts in civil service jobs so as to reinvest the money into core services. Yet the tax burden continues to rise.
It may well be predictable for me to say this but it does seem that the only coherent and distinctive voice on this issue is coming from the Liberal Democrats. Vince Cable is arguing for a more simplified tax system, which is also fairer and greener. He says that there must be a very substantial reduction in taxes on people's income and moves towards taxing pollution. That includes taking the poorest people in our society out of tax altogether.
In the light of Cameron's so-called commitment to green issues it is ironic that he has missed this trick. As Vince Cable says, using the language of New Labour to do so, the Tory's plans "won't help tackle climate change, won't help hard-working families and won't restore public confidence in the tax system."
Given that tax cuts have been the main policy of the Tories since I have been old enough to vote, this proposal smacks a lot of them abandoning any policies and principles at all in the hope that the unpopularity of the Labour Government and Cameron's photogenicity sweeps them to power. Could this be Cameron's Clause Four moment? If so it fails on several counts.
Firstly, it may mark the Tory leader out as somebody prepared to confront his party so as to force change, but it does not mark out the Tories in any distinctive way. On the contrary it defines them less clearly as an all-things-to-all-people movement pursuing power at any price. Secondly, the move has as many minuses as pluses to ordinary voters and as such will fail to win additional support. Steady as we go has traditionally been the cry of government, not of an opposition seeking to make the case for change.
Thirdly, despite this announcement the Tories continue to argue that we are over-taxed, except that they are now suggesting that they will do nothing about it. That must surely confuse voters, who prefer at the very least to see their politicians propose something in place of that they criticise.
Finally, all of the research work carried out by the Electoral Commission indicates that people are not voting because they think that politicians are all the same. They prefer a clear choice. Cameron is failing to give them one. He knows that he needs to excite non-voters to come out and back him if he is to win. This move will not do so. Worst still for the Tories it may well de-motivate their core vote, forcing them to concentrate their campaigning on this set of people when they should have been able to take their participation for granted.
Labour's response has been predictable. They point to the cuts in public spending proposed by the Tories and ask what reward will await people who suffer a worst service as a result if they are still paying the same in tax. It is a fair point but it is one that applies to Labour as well. The Government are carrying out huge cuts in civil service jobs so as to reinvest the money into core services. Yet the tax burden continues to rise.
It may well be predictable for me to say this but it does seem that the only coherent and distinctive voice on this issue is coming from the Liberal Democrats. Vince Cable is arguing for a more simplified tax system, which is also fairer and greener. He says that there must be a very substantial reduction in taxes on people's income and moves towards taxing pollution. That includes taking the poorest people in our society out of tax altogether.
In the light of Cameron's so-called commitment to green issues it is ironic that he has missed this trick. As Vince Cable says, using the language of New Labour to do so, the Tory's plans "won't help tackle climate change, won't help hard-working families and won't restore public confidence in the tax system."
Comments:
<< Home
"...research work carried out by the Electoral Commission indicates that people are not voting because they think that politicians are all the same. They prefer a clear choice. Cameron is failing to give them one."
It's not the role of the Tories, or any other party for that matter, to choose policies on the basis that they are distinctive and will offer voters a stark choice. After all, Labour offered distinctively different policies to the Tories in 1983 - and look what happened to them.
I'm afraid you're going to have to fight the Tories on the centre ground. You may not like it, but that's democratic politics for you.
It's not the role of the Tories, or any other party for that matter, to choose policies on the basis that they are distinctive and will offer voters a stark choice. After all, Labour offered distinctively different policies to the Tories in 1983 - and look what happened to them.
I'm afraid you're going to have to fight the Tories on the centre ground. You may not like it, but that's democratic politics for you.
You are clearly missing my point. I am not trying to tell the Tories what their role is, however I think that it is fair comment to point both that they are failing to be distinctive and that they are also being inconsistent.
It seems that the Tories are competing with Labour for this bland, policy-free centre ground, not us. As was evidenced by Vince Cable's announcement yesterday the Liberal Democrats are beginning to put policy in place that is both distinctive and genuinely green.
It seems that the Tories are competing with Labour for this bland, policy-free centre ground, not us. As was evidenced by Vince Cable's announcement yesterday the Liberal Democrats are beginning to put policy in place that is both distinctive and genuinely green.
If you believe that your party alone has distinctive and appealing policies then you ought to be happy with the current position (as your analysis has it, anyway); the voters will recognise this fact and support your party over your opponents.
However, your post does not indicate this. That's because I suspect that your real feeling is one of concern that what your perceive as a weakness in an opponent, namely their insistence on lower government expenditure, appears to be being closed off.
However, your post does not indicate this. That's because I suspect that your real feeling is one of concern that what your perceive as a weakness in an opponent, namely their insistence on lower government expenditure, appears to be being closed off.
You are going to have to run that one past me again. I have never claimed that the Liberal Democrats were the ONLY party with distinctive and appealing policies. What I said was that the Tories were getting less distinctive as they dropped specific policies in favour of a campaign based on personalities.
I was of course largely happy with our 2004 manifesto but things do move on and we have to adapt to the times. The proposals being trailed by Vince Cable need to be examined and debated but they seem to be working on two long-standing Liberal Democrat principles, namely that the lowest earners should pay less or no tax, that the better off should pay proportionally more and that we should be penalising polluters but that green taxes should be revenue neutral.
What the verdict of the voters on these proposals will be can only be judged in time. How you conclude that the Lib Dems want lower government expenditure I do not know. We want more efficient expenditure so that we can invest in key services but that is Labour's position as well.
As for the Tories, well yes their emphasis on cuts to pay for lower taxes have been a weak point for them but their new fudge is not going to win them any friends either and can be easily attacked.
Post a Comment
I was of course largely happy with our 2004 manifesto but things do move on and we have to adapt to the times. The proposals being trailed by Vince Cable need to be examined and debated but they seem to be working on two long-standing Liberal Democrat principles, namely that the lowest earners should pay less or no tax, that the better off should pay proportionally more and that we should be penalising polluters but that green taxes should be revenue neutral.
What the verdict of the voters on these proposals will be can only be judged in time. How you conclude that the Lib Dems want lower government expenditure I do not know. We want more efficient expenditure so that we can invest in key services but that is Labour's position as well.
As for the Tories, well yes their emphasis on cuts to pay for lower taxes have been a weak point for them but their new fudge is not going to win them any friends either and can be easily attacked.
<< Home
