This is the politics of a government that divides

28th November, 2012 5:19 pm

George Osborne’s decision to cut the top rate of tax for the richest was the moment this government’s facade of fairness disappeared for good.  In these tough times, against the backdrop of the biggest squeeze in living standards for a generation and with the economy flat-lining, the Chancellor prioritised the millionaires above millions of working people.

There are 30 million tax payers in this country and the Chancellor decided to give the wealthiest 1% a tax cut. Of those 1%, there are 8,000 people who take home over a million pounds each year. From next April, each of these individuals will be given a tax-break worth on average £107,000.

It is not surprising that the rest of us look on in disbelief. For pensioners being hit by the Granny Tax or a family with children, who are £511 worse off this year because of further cuts, freezes and restrictions to benefits and tax credits, the decision seems perverse.

It is not merely a spectacularly unfair change to our tax system. It also reveals the Conservatives’ inability to be a Party of One Nation. A former speech-writer to David Cameron described the decision as ‘sending a missile into 6 years of modernisation’.  After all those trips hugging hoodies, sledging with huskies and pretending to go green, the Chancellor destroyed any remaining credibility that the Conservative Party could govern for all.

Last week, the Prime Minister compared the economic situation to that of war. We are facing a period of national upheaval – we need to cut our deficit, rebalance our economy and build a fairer society. In the face of this challenge, Cameron and Osborne have shown a distinct lack of leadership.

During the Second World War, the public queued to get their copy of the Beveridge report because it set out the beginnings of a welfare state where everyone had a stake. In the aftermath of war, that same sense of national mission led to the creation of the NHS. The public, especially in tough times, long for a sense of collective spirit – as we saw in those Olympic weeks in the summer.

But this government does not understand this need for one nation politics. When historians write about this period, they will say this government was confrontational, failing to inspire and unite. Of the richest who are receiving Osborne’s tax give-away, 85% are men. At the same time, 70% of the revenue raised from direct tax and benefit changes are to come from women. Over half of the millionaires in this country live in London and the South-East, and at the same time we see long-term unemployment rise in the north.  The millionaire’s tax cut embodies the hypocritical notion that the poor are expected to work harder because otherwise they will be made poorer, but the rich will only work harder by making them richer. This is the politics of a government that divides.

Ed Miliband’s One Nation Labour understands the need to bring people together and to share the burden of sacrifice fairly. We must be the party that stands up for the private and the public sector, the north and the south, middle income families and those in poverty.

That is why today, in the debate on the millionaire’s tax give-away, it was the Labour Party which stood up for vast majority who are struggling whilst the economy is flat-lining. It is why each time a Tory MP stood up to defend the decision, I was reminded that we are the only party that can govern for One Nation.

Rachel Reeves MP is the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury

  • Dave Postles

    I fail to understand the complexity of Osborne’s approach to corporation tax. In the last budget, we had new rules for CFC/PCFE on foreign profits by UK companies. Now I read about the possibility of a FATCA-like rule being introduced. Could someone clarify?

  • JoeDM

    But if the old 40% top tax rate was perfectly good almost all of Labour’s period of government. Why is it so bad now?

    Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?

    • Gabrielle

      No, because Labour would not have given millionaires a tax break when everyone else is really struggling. The tax rate during the good years was appropriate then, but not now.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    I completely agree with the attack on the Tory tax cut for the rich but I think it’s a bit premature to declare us as the One Nation party.

    I recognise this is a ‘ra ra go Labour’ article rather than anything genuinely reflective but as the years continue to roll by, at some point we are going to have to come up with policies to deliver this One Nation vision whilst dealing with the deficit.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    I completely agree with the attack on the Tory tax cut for the rich but I think it’s a bit premature to declare us as the One Nation party.

    I recognise this is a ‘ra ra go Labour’ article rather than anything genuinely reflective but as the years continue to roll by, at some point we are going to have to come up with policies to deliver this One Nation vision whilst dealing with the deficit.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    I completely agree with the attack on the Tory tax cut for the rich but I think it’s a bit premature to declare us as the One Nation party.

    I recognise this is a ‘ra ra go Labour’ article rather than anything genuinely reflective but as the years continue to roll by, at some point we are going to have to come up with policies to deliver this One Nation vision whilst dealing with the deficit.

  • Serbitar

    Are the sick, disabled, single parents, unemployed and other kinds workless benefit claimants also to be subsumed into Miliband’s fabled One Nation? Or are such people earmarked to become something less than equal citizens in Labour’s New Albion? Less valuable and too undesirably different from all those admirable alarm clock Britons, grafters, strivers, and members of hard-working families to be considered worthy of much beyond contempt? With Liam Byrne as Secretary of State at the DWP the answer can only be a thunderous and resounding, “No!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

    I think you’ll find that it is not true that “there are 8,000 people who take home over a million pounds each year”. There are about 8,000 people who are paid that much (footballers, entertainers etc. et al), but those will be paying into pensions and paying a marginal tax rate of 45% . Thus it is likely that they are taking home about £500k. As Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I would expect you to get your facts right.

    If we are to have a debate on this, and I think it is unlikely, we need to understand why the marginal tax rate under Labour was raised to 50% so late in the day. It would also be interesting to see what a “One Nation” income tax system might look like, and how much it would raise. Given that income fluctuates most at the margins, is it sensible to have a tax system that is designed to raise most of its revenue there?

  • sdrpalmer

    Considering the wholesale avoidance of tax in the UK, I am starting to think that lower tax rates and coupled with stern enforcement might be the way to generate higher tax revenues. If the gains for avoidance were reduced and penalties for evasion strengthened, we might see more millionaires pay their taxes.

Latest

  • Featured News Labour call for 16-year-olds to be able to vote in EU referendum

    Labour call for 16-year-olds to be able to vote in EU referendum

    One of Labour’s election promises was to give 16-year-olds the vote as early as 2016. Now, the party look set to call for the government to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.   A Labour source said that young people have a “tremendous vested interest in whether or not we stay in the EU or leave.” This amendment to the referendum bill could have strong support in the Lords, even if it doesn’t on the government […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Is civic nationalism the way forward for England?

    Is civic nationalism the way forward for England?

    What is striking about the general election in England and Scotland is not just the difference in outcome but emotional tone. In Scotland, burgeoning support for the SNP was not simply about particular policies but an expression of what the sociologist Emile Durkheim called ‘collective effervescence’ – powerful emotional identification with a wider community. By contrast, in England support for the Conservatives seemed based largely on judgments about Labour’s economic competence and fears about SNP influence, with no whiff of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why proportional representation will be Labour’s only saviour

    Why proportional representation will be Labour’s only saviour

    Everyone’s whispering about it: the Conservatives pulled a blinder offering the Lib Dems the referendum on changing the voting system at the beginning of the Coalition’s term. Doubtless if it had be run at the same time as the 2015 General Election, things may well have turned out very differently. As it was, Cameron et al made their ‘partner’ show their hand too early; the Lib Dems should have kept those cards closer to their chest in the hope of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Blairism is no solution to Labour’s identity crisis

    Blairism is no solution to Labour’s identity crisis

    The ‘Blairites’ are certainly right about the so-called 35% strategy. How one envies the SNP for whom every Scottish voter is a target voter. Whatever happened to ‘One Nation Labour’? They are also right to suggest that we should help people fulfil their aspirations but their definition of aspiration is too narrowly focused. It’s one thing to aspire to shop at John Lewis – I might aspire to shop at Fortnum and Mason – but what about those who aspire […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Our human rights are not the Tories’ to give away

    Our human rights are not the Tories’ to give away

    When discussing the Human Rights Act it is important to set out the developments which led to it so as to dispel the falsehood, too often insinuated in the anti-European press, that the Act constitutes the meddling in British affairs by the bureaucracies of the European Union. On 10th December 1948 the U.N. adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in response to the Second World War and the atrocities committed during it. Its purpose was to ensure individuals, without […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit