Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, has re-employed a well-worn cliche to describe the current fight for the political centre ground: ‘stealing each others clothes’. He points out how Gordon Brown used a whole series of Tory phrases and ideas at Labour Conference last week, such as his call for tougher sentences and jobs for the British. Today George Osborne the Tory shadown chancellor announced what sounds like a socialist policy. He wants to raise a new levy on millionaires who live in this country but pay tax (very little usually) elsewhere. This is all supposed to prove that the two parties are identical. Well, it’s not true, and people like Nick Robinson should work harder at showing the differences instead of falling for Labour and Tory spin about how moderate they both are.
George Osbourne’s levy proposal looks to me like the traditional defence by the Conservatives of hard-working billionaires. In exchange for a relatively trivial levy the Treasury will promise not to chase the vast amounts of tax that ‘non-domiciled’ business people avoid paying. For those of us who can’t afford expensive accountants to find tax havens in the Carribbean it is galling. But as Gordon Brown found out as Chancellor it is very hard to do anything about in a globalised economy. So Osbourne’s policy may be wise and the money it raises may well help first-time home buyers. But it is not a socialist policy. And likewise Gordon Brown, despite Lady Thatcher’s appearance at Number 10, has not turned in to a little Englander.
“The right honourable gentleman [Sir Robert Peel] caught the Whigs bathing and walked away with their clothes.” Benjamin Disraeli, House of Commons (28 February 1845)
Charlie – there’s the other side to Mr Osbourne’s proposals which could also be seen to be as placing him firmly on traditional Conservative ground.
He intends to use the non-Dom revenue to abolish stamp duty for first time buyers (i.e. those who can afford to purchase a £250k dwelling as their first property). He has also stated his intention to increase the level at which Inheritance Tax (IHT) kicks in to £1m.
In 2006 the median house price in England was £168k and in London £230k. Therefore it is not immediately clear which first time buyers Mr Osbourne had in mind when making his proposal – indeed those who stand to benefit most are potentially the super-rich first time buyers he is taxing 25k. (See – http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1156110 tables 577 and 586
).
There is also the issue of whether his proposal would simply lead to a further increase in house prices.
96% of estates in the UK currently do not pay (IHT) which suggests that many avoid IHT through prudent planning and many more leave less than the £330k threashold.
I’ve two thoughts. First is the total failure of any correspondents I’ve seen or heard – I’m looking at the Today team in particular – to pick up on these simple figures, preferring instead to ask if they are affordable rather than what the point of them is.
Second, whether Mr Osbourne’s recent reported repudiation of some of the more “modernising” tendencies set alongside these proposals indicates a more traditional direction of travel than previously suggested?
Any thoughts?
Anon: Isn’t the threshold £125,000 for stamp duty?
Fair point – my mistake.
Though I think my point remains true. Mr Osbourne wants to reduce taxes that disproportionately benefit the wealthy rather than for everyone.
It is hardly a new phrase, as has been pointed out . In fact “stealing clothes” and variants thereof has been a political cliche for over 150 years.
Clearly the teaching of Government and History at the LSE has declined since I studied there in the 80s
dear Matthew,
and when you studied at LSE did you major in Pedantry? this is a blog not a dissertation, but I stand corrected, I meant to say that Nick has fixed upon a phrase rather than ‘coined’ it. cliched writing about a cliché, how apt.
Charlie
The apposite phrase here is “give graciously that which you cannot deny”. Two correspondents have pointed out a basic error in the first line of Charlie Beckett’s blog – one which would be penalised if it appeared in the work of an undergraduate – and he chooses to be sarcastic in response.
Give graciously, Charlie!
The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’s surname is spelt Osborne…
Another pedant
That’s not pedantry – that’s editing – it’s corrected, as is the stylistic blemish that so grievously offended our previous posters…
Charlie