ThunderDragon Blog

Tax cuts is the current political football, it seems. Each of the political parties are promising tax cuts, supposedly funded and competely unfunded - and the indeterminate.

It is amusing how times change. Not so long ago, calling for a tax cut, however funded [or not], was viewed as tantamount to taking food from the mouths of babes. But now it is all the rage.

Tax cuts are good for us all. There is only so much money that the State should take from us, and it already takes too much. Cutting taxes would enable us, the people, to spend more and thus lift the economy out of its current malaise.

Tax cuts should be significant enbough to actually make a difference, but also funded - unfunded tax cuts don’t really help in the long term, as they would soon be replaced by tax hikes, which knowing government would take the tax burden above what it was beforehand.

Whilst David Cameron’s tax cut to get the rising number of unemployed back into work is a good one, what we need most in a cut in either (a) income tax or (b) VAT/sales tax. Then we will have more money to spend and hopefully prevent the economy going into the meltdown predicted by Ken Clarke.

Previously published at The People’s Republic of Birmingham.

The tagline of this years Conservative Conference is “Plan For Change”. Change, moving forward, a new start. That is what this conference was meant to show – the Conservative’s setting out their plan for their future government. However, events have rather overtaken them.

They have set out several policies and points of principle, such as:

• Freezing council tax;
• Giving schools budget freedom;
• Scrapping authoritarian child databases;
• Not releasing prisoners early just because;
• Pledging to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; and, quite possibly most importantly
• Not matching Labour’s spending plans if the country can’t afford it.

But this has been totally overtaken by world events: the economic crisis caused by Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. And so the mantra of the Conservatives yesterday has been less “plan for change” and more “let’s work together”, by not “playing politics” with the economy.

This is an immeasuably responsible response in this economic climate. Any other response would have been extremely irresponsible. Yet it does rather undermine the “plan for change” motto, and rather allow the Conservatives to be associated with “more of the same”.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, their conference has been overcome by the crisis, meaning that the plans for change that they have put forward have failed to dominate the headlines like they otherwise would have. However, they are out there, just not anywhere near as highly publicised in the media. What this will do is mean that the impression that the Conservatives are policy-lite will continue, and unfairly.

The Conservatives are planning for change, but able to work with other parties when necessary for the good of the country.

Quite obviously the man who has presided over it, either as Chancellor, with responsibility for managing the nation’s finances and economy, or as Prime Minister, ultimately responsible for all govenment policy.

As Cameron said yesterday:

Who was it who said that he, and he alone, had rewritten the laws of economics to end boom and bust? The answer is our prime minister, the then chancellor, Gordon Brown. And my message to Gordon Brown is this: ‘You have had your boom, and your reputation is now bust.’

And George Osborne reiterated today:

While the regulation failed, the debt soared and no one called time on the age of irresponsibility

I’m not, however, convinced yet by the idea of an Office for Budget Responsibility. It’s almost as if they are saying that they don’t quite trust themselves to run the economy properly. But it can also be seen as an attempt to ensure that economic measures are not enacted in order to try and get short-term political benefits - and, when established, as a means by which all governments can be properly scrutinised when it coems to their economic policy and prevent another architect of an age of irresponsibility getting beyond their blueprints.

David Cameron is to borrow Barack Obama’s slogan “Plan for Change” for the Conservative conference.

This does show a grest deal of confidence on the Conservatives’ part, even though to be fair the Conservatives are in a better political posiiton than the Democrats, as they are leading by ten points even after their opponents conference bounce and before their own. Even though the differences in the political systems mean that even with a 10% lead, winning would be hard for the Tories.

Cameron has begun his comeback against Brown after his conference speech, and espiecally his “not the time for a novice” line - which could be aimed at either Miliband and other rebels, Cameron or even, technically, Obama himself*:

Let’s look at the question of experience. Yes, this Prime Minister has got experience … he has got the experience of saying year after year ‘I have ended boom and bust’.

And yet now we face really difficult economic circumstances. Now, I don’t think that is the experience we need right now.

Buuuuurn.

So what the Conservatives need to do now is develop their policies so thst the people know exactly what they stand for and what they will do when in government.

Let’s plan for change.

* This actually sets up an interesting question: is Brown turning this into a copy of the American presidential battle - with himself as McCain and Cameron as Obama? Perhaps not the wisest decision.

Over the last week, Nick Clegg has thrown down a gauntlet of sorts to David Cameron. Proposing tax cuts - a distinctly Conservative idea - is definitely a challenge to Cameron, a blatant attempt to steal some of his support. But it’s not working, obvously.

However, what it does do is give Cameron an opportunity to, as Danny Finkelstein says, bring the Lib Dems to the right and prevent any thought of a Lib-Lab merger in the future.

But what can Cameron do to bring this around? More Lib Dem love-bombing is essential, and their good ideas should be adopted and brought on board. He must encourage bi-partisan discussion and initiatives to bring the parties closer together even when not electorally necessary.

The Conservatives need to grasp this nettle and embrace the few good ideas the Lib Dems have. Their idea of cutting tax, however poorly costed in specifics, is correct in principle and so should be adopted with those caveats.

To not take this action would be a massive missed opportunity.

… and Cameron’s to the Right.

Gordon Brown is now seen as being much farther away from the position of the average voter than Tony Blair was when he was Prime Minister…

The poll… shows that voters have sharply revised their view of Mr Brown over the past year, seeing him as much more left-wing than in early September 2007, at the end of his brief honeymoon as Prime Minister. This is the biggest change for any leader or party over the period.

However, Mr Brown is narrowly nearer both to the Centre and to the average voter than David Cameron, who is seen as shifting to the right…

The poll therefore shows that, despite the shift away from the average voter by Mr Brown and Labour, Mr Cameron and his party still have a long way to go to be where the average voter is. On a five-year comparison, the Tories have, however, moved 0.30 nearer the Centre, Labour 0.12 farther away. (The Times)

However, there is one huge issue over this poll: because it has been created entirely on a Left-Right one-dimensional sliding scale.

[Sidenote: Clegg is seen as only very slightly more towards the centre than Brown in this poll.]

This is a rubbish scale. Politics is so much more complicated than can ever be expressed in one dimension. Even the two dimensional scale leaves much to be desired, but it is as good as we can get. To start with, it includes “Libertarian” and “Authoritarian”, which can cross the Left-Right axis. So, if they want this sort of poll to be taken seriously, they need to plot it on the two-dimension scale.

As it is, this poll shows little about how the public actually view the parties.

David Cameron:

I’m going to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer, and radical social reform is what this country needs right now.

Margaret Thatcher in her time realised that the big challenge was reviving Britain’s economy, and we should recognise that the challenge for the modern Conservatives is reviving our society.

It’s dealing with the issues of family breakdown, welfare dependency, failing schools, crime, and the problems that we see in too many of our communities.

As much as I applaud the sentiment, as social reform is definitely the challenge for any incoming Conservative government, comparing himself with Margaret Thatcher seems a bit like blowing the dog whistle.

It also, really, seems a bit silly. Thatcher was - and is - an incredibly divisive figure. Claiming the be the “new Thatcher” will alienate a great many people. That Cameron is making such comparisons demonstrates that he is confident of having a greater claim on the votes of the majority than Brown and is instead intending to ensure that he keeps his core voters on side.

With the use of the ‘T-word’, Cameron is laying a claim to being both a Conservative and a social reformer with it. He’s using his dog whistle to try and have his cake and eat it. If he’s lucky, he may well succeed.

Image: The Sun

I’m seriously impressed. This something that I called for just over a month ago, and they have produced it.

However, I do have some criticisms:

To start with, there is no summary of the full amount that each MP has claimed from the taxpayer under expenses. This makes a real comparison harder, though I’m sure that there are plenty of junior people at various national newspapers frantically adding the figures that they have together. Each section - staff, office, communication, additional costs alliance, and travel - should also really have their own total cost as well.

In the “Other” section, the level at which specific items are required to be reported must be lower - any individual item of over £100 should have to be declared.

Whilst the area for “additional notes” is good, it would instead be far better to require a more detailed breakdown of expenditures as the use of that area varies massively between MPs.

Also, I can see no reason for the names of every staff member employed by an MP to be declared in this return. All we need to know is how many employees they have and whether any of these are family members [and a definition of "family" would be helpful, too], and the total cost of all staff members.

Finally, this return should be a three-whipped activity. No Conservative MP should be allowed to not declare their expenses. If they miss two returns, they should lose the whip until they have made a full delcrartion. If this takes more than three months, they should be automatcially and formally deselected by the party. This seven should be ashamed of themselves.

This shows that the Conservatives truly are determined to tackle the expenses issue, and I am absolutely certain that this is the only way to go - but they definitively still have further to go. One thing that they should do now is produce an ethics manual for Tory MPs to abide by, firmly establishing the principles and specifics - and the Conservative party as determined to actually wipe out sleaze rather than just claim to be “whiter than white” without any evidence.

David Cameron’s statement that

Politicians need to do everything they can to regain the trust of the British people, and transparency has a key part to play in that process. We must show that we’re spending taxpayers money sensibly and correctly.

We are the first party to demand this information from our members, and our MPs are voluntarily revealing a much more detailed breakdown of their expenses than official rules require them to. I’m glad that we’re leading the way.

shows that he know the way forward. By making these declarations public, the Conservatives have shamed Labour and the Lib Dems. Labour’s response just highlights the difference.

Note: My day job is in compliance and dealing with this sort of return.

David Cameron has given a speech saying, basically, what we all know to pretty much be the truth. Basically, in the words of the Telegraph, “the obese, the idle and the poor have no one to blame but themselves”.

I have an issue with the inclusion of “the poor” in that list - being poor isn’t a choice, and anyone with half a brain wouldn’t be. And being poo can be caused by so many issues that are way beyond the control of any individual.

However, “the obese” and “the idle” certainly have no-one but themselves to blame. They can do something about it. Cameron is saying what needs to be said.

We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.

Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.

There is a difference between right and wrong, and taking personal responsibility is essential to knowing this difference.

People are responsible for themselves. No-one else can take do so. And it is about time that politicians stop making the State stop taking on this responsibility. This is the only way to fix our broken society.

This is a sign that an incoming Conservative government would start to roll back the State in to its place.

It was the talk of Westminster.

Why? No-one knows. It just was.

This truly shows that politicans don’t think about policies - just appearances. Theirs or someone elses.

Forget 42 days, 10p tax, knife crime, or anything else that actually might affect us plebs in some way. It’s all about The Hair.

Which was, actually, caused by a cycle helmet. Luckily, my cycle helmet doesn’t make me look like a prat [at least after I've taken it off].