New Labour imposes kitten tax

http://alantrewartha.20m.com/dailymail.jpg

ahem. what else is there there...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/26/new-labour-conservatives-ideology-budget

wtf at all this bullshit.

The pledge made huge political sense in order to reassure middle Britain before the 1997 election

can't get in2 the mindset of people who thought raising income tax on the rich was such a bfd, or that it even defined new labour -- ie blairites. do unusually large numbers of people reckon that they'll be earning more than £100k or something? or that losing some of it will be deciding factor in their life choices?

one former cabinet minister describes the budget as "catastrophic" because it risks "ditching more than a decade of work to make Labour the party of aspiration".

fuck that guy then.

When he was chancellor, Gordon Brown went further. At more than one budget, he revelled that he was outflanking the Tories and cut the basic rate of income tax. Some members of the cabinet, contemplating the amount of red ink that now weeps from the public finances, sigh with regret over the many billions of revenue foregone by those earlier tax cuts.

does rawno really think that they'd have somehow stored up those tax billions for a rainy day? somehow i think not.

can't get in2 the mindset of people who thought raising income tax on the rich was such a bfd, or that it even defined new labour -- ie blairites. do unusually large numbers of people reckon that they'll be earning more than £100k or something? or that losing some of it will be deciding factor in their life choices?

The question of whether most of Middle Britain will or won't earn £100k is irrelevant. Top rate of income tax is symbolic - it was in the 80s, it was in 1997, it is now, but the symbolism changes according to how the main parties want to portray themselves in the eyes of the electorate. Raising the top rate of income tax won't actually make that much money for the Treasury in the grand scheme of things.

What it's important to keep in mind, even at a distance of 10 years, is the level of fear there was in Middle Britain surrounding the prospect of a Labour government. It's partly what enabled Thatcher to keep winning no matter how unpopular she was. It's what enabled John Major to win in '92. The fear was not so much that they'd slip over £100k in earnings and be hammered in tax, but that Labour would preside over another economic disaster (and as it turns out they did eventually).

Major's own economic disaster helped, but Blair and Brown thought what the voters wanted in 1997 was a Tory party with a more human face, but also one that could be trusted not to wreck the economy, and I think they were probably right. Everything Blair did between becoming leader and winning in 1997 was about building that impression.

one former cabinet minister describes the budget as "catastrophic" because it risks "ditching more than a decade of work to make Labour the party of aspiration".

This guy is insane. I'm betting it's Milburn or someone. It's the mindset of someone still living in 1997. I think Labour clung to that mindset for far too long - around 2001 I'd say they'd won the case for higher taxes and higher public spending, and they allowed it to slip away from them, especially after haemmoraging trust over Iraq. Now the top rate of income tax is a strategic move to fuck the Tories ahead of an election they know they're going to lose.

does rawno really think that they'd have somehow stored up those tax billions for a rainy day? somehow i think not.

They would have spent it, and they are continuing to spend it even now, but it would have come in handy considering they are continuing to borrow. I think Cameron and Osbourne will come to regret focussing on government borrowing to such an extent, because all the signs are we are going to have to continue to borrow in order to continue to bail out banks for as long as they continue to fail.