Matthew Dancona

Politicians against aspiration

James is right about the 50p tax increase being a diversionary tactic: its fiscal value is marginal, given the colossal debt figures that even the Government concedes are on their way. So what is the political content of this tax hike?

After the Budget speech, Yvette Cooper told the BBC that the tax system had to “not only be fair, but seen to be fair.” This was a huge admission of socialist intent dressed up as a noble principle: the Chief Secretary to the Treasury declaring that the symbolism of taxes matters as much as the money they actually raise. In this case, the symbolism of the measure is unambiguous. Labour now wants to position itself once again in its ancestral location on the ideological spectrum, as the party of the “have-nots”, penalising the “haves” for … well, “having”. Brown wants to go into the election as the tribune of the hard-pressed low- and middle-earner, presenting those wicked Cameroon toffs as the protectors of the wealthy and the privileged.

This is why the Tory leader was dismissive about rather than morally outraged by the 50p announcement, which he declared was a red herring designed to put us off the scent of all the other taxes that will affect the less well-off.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in