This morning I posted in support of David Cameron's position regarding policy and the need to not start making specifc pledges, especially on tax. I said that on the grounds that genuinely conservative positions should not use grand theories of how society works as justification for specifc tac cuts. We should be dealing with measurable realities, not the folly of ideology.
That flaw was I think beautifully illustrated in today's Telegraph, about the position of the Centre for Policy Studies. It said:
"Growing public spending by one per cent a year less than GDP growth for five years from 2006-07 would enable public spending to grow by between £30 billion and £40 billion over the period, while reducing taxes by between £20 billion and £30 billion if all else stayed constant."
This sounds brilliantly simple, and arguably it is. However, the problem comes with the last five words. Right there the argument exposes it's Achilles Heel. A conservative position should not be proposing policy that relies on the concept of all things being equal.
2 comments:
You're right. Everyone wants to pay lower taxes, that's pretty much a no-brainer. But whether the state can afford for people to pay lower taxes is another question. The key thing these days is credibility.
Having a general "desire" to reduce the level of taxation is one thing, but for a(ny) party to hone in on specific tax cuts this early into a term would be unbelievable.
I think the Tories best approach would be to say what Tony and Gordon said in '97 (i.e. no new taxes), and to sell themselves as "we will manage this better than the current administration does".
As a voter I could buy that. But I couldn't buy into a party that will say anything to get back into power.
Dizzy, I think the problem is people see Conservatives and indeed all the parties as ideologicaly based. The other two seem to be, but I don't think Conservatives are.
I see the Conservative party as one with no ideology and few principles. Some think that is a bad thing, but I think it is good, leaving us better placed to adapt to reality than the other parties.
Post a Comment