Has Cameron finally reverted to a core votes strategy?
August 29th, 2007-
Are “hard-edged” Tory policies what centre ground voters want?
These are the front pages of the Telegraph and Mail this morning and show support for the Tory leadership that hasn’t come from these papers in a long long time.
The Mail reports the moves in glowing terms and notes that “the focus on crime will delight Tory MPs who have been desperate for their leader to unveil concrete policy proposals on what they see as the leading concern for many voters.” Its main leader appears under the headline - “At last, Mr. Cameron is talking like a Tory”.
It’s the same tone in the Daily Telegraph which reports the moves in these terms: “Answering calls from many in his party for more “hard-edged” Conservative policies, he disclosed a sweeping law and order offensive to address the problems of gun crime, alcohol abuse, lack of discipline in schools and family breakdown.”
But isn’t Cameron simply following in the footsteps of his predecessors - when the going gets tough you swing to the right? How’s this going to go down with the centre ground voters who have moved in his direction since he took over?
Won’t the emphasis on “traditional Tory issues” make it easy when the election finally comes for Brown to argue that the Conservatives are like they have always been. Isn’t this precisely how Labour wants the main opposition party to be perceived?
For the anti-crime programme that is being outlined looks very similar to that which came from his predecessor, Michael Howard, and looks like a major change of direction - which of itself provides ammunition for Labour.
This is going to be a fascinating conference season.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
These papers must be deaf or dim, this is what Cameron’s been saying all the time. One thing - you can’t control what people watch or play, ban a game here and it can still be downloaded from anywhere else in the world that it’s sold.
Perhaps, or Cameron might simply be reacting to events, tapping into the zeitgeist. Probably most people will agree that shooting 11-year-olds is not on. It is probably a coincidence that party conferences and a possible but unlikely election are soon upon us.
Nor is this Howard revisited. Cameron also aims to be tough on the causes of crime. Tories may have sought inspiration from America but while Howard was on the West Coast — lock them up and throw away the key — Cameron is on the East Coast — smarter policing against the whole spectrum of crime.
Talking of broken windows, it is an indictment of our politics that we need to import this from the United States when similar findings were made here in the late 1970s in the context of schools — Michael Rutter’s 15000 Hours.
Labour needs to respond, not to Cameron but to crime which, we must remember, hurts Labour’s natural supporters most of all. Neither Straw nor Smith fills one with confidence, and perhaps John Reid’s wheeze of splitting the Home Office in two was unhelpful but ’tis done.
Getting tough is not enough. Traditional Tory solutions have not worked, whichever side implemented them. ID cards are an unhelpful and expensive distraction. This needs to be research-led: unelected headline-chasing policy wonks have got us nowhere.
I think this was always Cameron’s strategy. First ‘detoxify’ by hugging hoodies etc. then move a little to the right.
After all nobody would believe or trust a centre ground Tory party. The Tories cannot be changed like Labour in the 1990’s.
This strategy means Cameron is currently at the high watermark of ‘flip flopping’ i.e. a point where plenty of voters are baffled as to what the Tories actually stand for. But in the run up to the election as policies are unveiled the Tories should be able to present something coherent and distict from Labour and give the electorate something of a choice.
1. Exactly right. Cameron is a combo, always has been - thatcher plus social justice and the environment. He’s always been Eurosceptic & tough on crime. Just adds to it breakdown Britain, green taxes, feminism, etc
PS mike, many more than “core vote Tories” will like this.
To be fair, i think the accusation of reverting to a “core vote” strategy is the risk DC has got to take if he is to respond effectively to events - I mean if the Conservative Party is unable to even raise the issue of crime, then their pretty handicapped.
DC has to a very large extent got the Conservatives to a position where they are listened to and seen as credible, from there the Conservatives have to be able to address the whole spectrum of issues and at the moment the most relevant issue is crime - what this does not suggest IMHO is a narrowing of Cameron’s approach, Health and the Environment are likely to remain key planks of a Conservative platform, but sooner or later (especially considering recent events) the issue of crime had to be raised and addressed, yes the “core-vote” will lap this up, but at the same time moderate voters are interested in what the Conservatives have to say on the issue - if this suggested a narrowing of DC’s approach then it’d be comparable to what the likes of Howard tried in the past, however i don’t think it does (witnessed the NHS campaign last week).
Crime, europe, cutting red tape - has the same shape - if not the tone - of the 2005 manifesto which was written by DC. Perhaps Tories just can’t change. This conference season will be fun.
I’m sure most Tory activists wish it was something as strategic as a ‘Move to the right’. It’s the classic scatter gun that Blair became so famous for in his last few years.
It seems there comes a time when leaders become so desperate to set the agenda they will say anything however contradictory to create a headline.
In becomes the ‘fix’. In Blairs case by the end every ‘initiative’ became another sign that he was losing it. Politicians have to understand policy formulation and brand building is a long game.
This headline-a-day stuff is political suicide. He only had to look at William Hague. He also got a populist journalist to make sure he got a headline at any cost. By the pitiful end they were to counting his pints as a teenager.
I can only think he’s so worried about an October election that he doesn’t care about long term damage.
Yep we’re back, Hague when he became leader, sang from the Cameron song sheet, when it didn’t work, soon reverted to type, its just laughable. When any politician talks about crime and how they are going to ’solve it’ I look at my fingernails, look at the ceiling, out of the window, anywhere but at them.
We’ll this had better work for the Tories ‘cos they’ve tried everything else, and nothing else has.
Previously it seemed that the Tories had to change to win the election, but probably they have all the time been hoping, that they could openly say what they really think and still win (but been prepared to conceal their real thoughts, if necessary). Now they saw their opportunity when the circumstances (shooting of 11-year-old to which John L referred) were right to try and become popular with their traditional themes.
When there’s the feeling that a place is under siege and the social fabric is breaking down, many outside a traditional party group will vote for the fix.
Cameron is looking for Reagan democrats on the one hand and Guiliani dems on the other, as it were.
9 - It’s a bit ludicrous to suggest that politicians are now not allowed to make any comments about Criminal Justice Policy.
Out of interest, is Cameron meant to ignore the issue of crime altogether?
If this signalled the abandonment of the way in which he has highlighted issues such as Education, the Environment and Health, then perhaps the tag of “lurching to the right” would have some validity… but it simply doesn’t.
Cameron is responding to events, as any good politician will do, at the moment crime is emerging (along with the NHS) as a key concern amongst the electorate… Cameron has no alternative but to address it. However those expecting (or hoping) for him to beat the drum on Europe and Immigration to the detriment of the issues with which he has made so much progress already will be sadly disappointed.
Stand by! for climate change is all blx. in fact its your patriotic duty to buy a 4×4, and pack in as many cheap flights as you can per annum.
Whats wrong with a lurch to the right anyway ? Did the trick in 1979 when the Uk got its act together after a wasted decade.
Worked again for the Labour party when Tone got in - he lurched it to the right so far they became electable again..
Hello everyone. What a fine morning!
Back after the weekend. Nice polls with a bit of something for everyone. Labour just about sustaining lead. Tories off the floor. Poor Ming still scrabbling around for some exposure.
Actually, what is new here? Using prison ships and army camps? The former has been looked at before and (I think) discounted; army camps aren’t designed to keep people in but to keep people out. More prisons, but always in someone else’s back yard, of course. Judges can already impose minimum sentences, etc, etc
It’s all spin, it may cheer up the troops, it won’t actually change anything.
In fact, Cameron is still to the left of Labour on the issue, since it is Labour who are proposing to give the police the power to extend sentences indefinitely through control orders, carrying a mandatory five year sentence if broken, which can impose any conditions the police like on released prisoners (short of deportation) without the right to legal representation to contest their reasonableness. A completely crackpot measure, as anyone can see if they think through the consequences.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think Cameron has any particularly strong beliefs, and sees his job as a marketing problem. I don’t think he’s a closet right-winger or a secret socialist, just a yachtsman tacking to the wind.
The difficulty, and the reason he’s not done this before, is that the tone conflicts with the tone he’s wanted to present up to now, and for DC tone is vital. He had the same problem when he wanted to declare an end to yah-boo politics and rubbish GB at the same time.
But he clearly feels he’s not made enough progress with the fluffy-bunny approach, so it’s time to try something else, and as Mike says it’s a familiar pattern. It is possible that the brand is so contaminated that there are not enough people prepared to vote Tory either way.
Its hardly a move to the right. Its a cohesive strategy that attempts to cover the conceptual - focus on the family as a key part of the fix through to the practical - not necessarily more police, just reduce their paperwork and double their time on the street.
He said it all on Friday on Talksport and got a right going over by some right wingers later in the day
More like smart thinking, and not an ID card in sight
I’m sorry Mike but you’ve not considered the context in which the crime campaign is precisely placed.
Since when is talking about social breakdown at a time when a 10 year boy is gunned down randomly by a teenager a swing to the right?
Surely this is precisely the time to debate such issues regardless of whether you are right, left or loony.
Funnily enough, Cameron’s misquoted and misinterpreted speech about ‘hug-a-hoodie’, which should have been read that kids like these need more love and parental support, is backed up by the comment of Rhys Jones’ mother who put the blame for this killing fairly and squarely on bad parenting.
Apart from mumbling a few words of shock and sympathy, has Brown made any serious attempt to address the underlying cause of such social malaise? I think not.
20 - Agree totally, its all about the context in which this has been raised, in the past Hague and Howard raised this “out of the blue” (no pun intended), not only is what Cameron has said responding to the events of the last few days but is also part of his broader approach and the “broken society” narrative… the question is, doest the political credibility that Cameron built up in his first years as leader mean that he is able to be taken seriously on this issue when his predecessors were not?
I don’t think it’s that much of a tack to the right to be worried about violent crime. Gun and knife attacks are a real worry to people, and I suspect a disproportionate number of attacks are happening in inner city Labour held seats.
Labour has been in power for over 10 years now- they can hardly blame previous Tory Governments for what we’ve got now- Gun crime, knife crime, Borders which aren’t secure, no idea about their immigration policy (and associated problems such as East European organized crime, radical Islamicism etc.).
It’s ‘Wild West Britain’ out there!
And I think Cameron should keep talking about the Private Finance Initiative, Sure Start and Tax Credits. All failing policies which Brown has championed.
I’m not a Tory- I just despair at how poorly thought out a lot of these policies are.
Sure Start is actually a tremendous policy which is designed to strike at the very core of the problems facing the poor in our society. It will take 20-30 years to see whether this has had any effect.
Why don’t politicians just tell the truth on crime, ‘Bad people will always do bad things, we as politicians will do our best to stop them, what success we will have, we can’t guarantee. But the one thing we can guarantee, is, bad people will always do bad things: end of story.
When a politician says anything different than that, well if they told me they are going to walk too Mercury I’d be more likely to believe them!
Oh, and PFI was originated by the Tories. And is DSC proposing to abolish tax credits? Love to see how he would replace the money lost to families up and down the country.
Cameron does not have a cohesive stgrategy. He is just trying to get his noggin in the papers more, with a few soundbites here and there. In fact, the lack of any “winning strategy” or vision for the country is shocking for an opposition party that is supposed to be zooming into Downing Street.
26. Tax credits - a lot of families don’t claim em - infact take up rate is a shocker.
Raising the threshold would do the trick - as would reinstating the 10p rate - Gordo removing it has stuffed the poor by removing it.
I thought there was an independent report showing that Sure start has had no discernable effect on children’s literacy etc. How many billions will have been spent before we get the answer in 20-30years time?
PFI was Tory policy- but it is still a waste of money as implemented by Labour.
Agree with many upthread - this is not a lurch to the right, but placing crime in a multi-dimensional context, encompassing both criminal justice elements and societal drivers - the broken society angle.
The narratove of the media may well be “lurch to the right”, but this is a risk Cameron needs to take in spelling out a more developed policy platform.
In any event, even at its most basic level, it won’t do DC any harm to have a couple of days coverage to dispell the policy-lite charge and raise the troop’s morale. He’ll appear to make good on his promise to come out fighting, and providing that he balances the crime with the NHS and education themes too, I think most voters will take a balanced longer term view.
I think most-except for Coldstone-are missing the point. It’s a well known fact in advertising that the ‘365 day Sale’ is completely ignored as a Sale. Ben’s idea at 6. is only valid if people are firstly listening and secondly take him seriously.
A politician who has something to say on every subject at the drop of a hat just becomes background noise. Rent-a-quote. Wallpaper. Lift music. All the evidence is in the polls. Ming hasn’t opened his mouth and his ratings on ICM have been consistent. Cameron’s have dropped significantly. People are not taking him seriously anymore. This wouldn’t have happened if he’s taken the time to build up his party’s credibility.
Red Top journalists (Coulson) only think one or two days ahead. Ad men (Hilton) think in terms of campaigns. Blanket coverage is their success. The reply coupon are the polls. In Labour’s years ‘94-97 there were enough serious and experienced politicians to avoid this trap.
Nothing was hoisted up the flagpole until it had been through the party mill line by line and then-and only then-was it given to the inner circle to work out a selling strategy. It was when this method fell apart after AC’s departure that Blair became a the sad headline chaser that led to his going.
I can see it now, ‘ol Bandwagon Dave, flinging himself on the coffin of Ryhs Jones, sobbing, ‘Why oh Why’ then lifting his head, drying his tears, and saying, ‘If you want to know the answer to this and so much more, its all in the Tory manifesto! so grab one today folks while stocks last, and remember, its free free free,go on, you know it makes sense’
29
Agree with many upthread - this is not a lurch to the right, but placing crime in a multi-dimensional context, encompassing both criminal justice elements and societal drivers - the broken society angle.
Whaaaaat ?
As Axel implies at [3], these announcements are probably part of a longer term strategy; one which might have changed its timetabling due to events, but which was always on the cards. We’ve already had “tough on the causes of crime” (and indeed got repeats of it in these policies), now we’ve got the associated “tough on crime”. It had to happen this way round otherwise the perception was that Cameron was just another Tory out of the Howard stable. (Actually, that’s almost literally true given his time as a Home Office advisor, but then as noted above, Reid and Blunkett have been way to the right of Howard in office, which is probably a harder concept to sell to the public and not worthwhile).
So no, this isn’t a core-votes strategy - or at least not in the way the phrase is commonly interpreted. It’s usually employed to mean picking up votes among the party’s natural or even more extreme supporters at the expense of the centre-ground floating voters. I think this is more an attempt to sure up the ‘core vote’ while not undermining the centre-ground strategy. This issue at this time is one of few that could do it - immigration or tax cuts couldn’t for example.
In fact, crime is probably the most potent issue at returning the Thatcher/Major coalition into being. As John L noted at [2], it’s not natural Tories being hurt most by crime. It is, however, the sort of people who were also hurt most by the disruptions of the 1970s and voted Callaghan out, and who trusted Major over Kinnock to safeguard or return their jobs after 1992 to return the Conservatives.
For the record, I don’t think all the policies are on the mark. The attack on the video game / music culture is hitting a symptom, not a cause (and this probably is more of a core vote dog-whistle), but then it’s hopefully not a vital plank of the proposals. People take notice of and aspire to that culture because of the lack of direct examples of successful role-models - the celebrity culture and lifestyle becomes a substitute. Get the role-models and the substitute will wither in importance. Likewise, the 24-hour drinking legislation undoubtedly causes some problems but is IMO far better than what went before and in any case gets rid of some unnecessary nanny-statism that was a hangover from WWI.
Overall though, the right issue at the right time, probably done in the right way. An interesting question is how prominent crime will be come the October conference in the party’s positioning. That should give more of a clue as to how the Tory leadership will be playing it in the event of an early election.
24/26 – Have you got any first hand experience of “sure start”? Its not that it isn’t a good “idea” but the level of waste is phenomenal! (As with the vast majority of this Government and in particular Brown’s pet projects) While the management and coordination of these projects is at best haphazard and confused… and your suggesting we wait 20 or 30 years till we can venture a judgment as to how successful these projects have been? – If we’re going to be working to those sort of times frames we might as well abandon the four/five year election cycle and adopt a 35-year cycle instead!
And don’t even begin on issues like Tax Credits, a project that has been an utter farce in terms of its organisation and generates mountains of waste and bureaucracy without any tangible help for the least well off, all when the simplest form of direct and effective relief for the least well off in society would be a tax system that exempted them from paying income tax… it yet another instance where Labour has persisted with the failed notion that the only way to solve a problem is to introduce a new law, a new program, a new tax, a new q.a.g.o or some other body or group at the tax payers expense – while the simple fact is that government should concentrate on doing a few things well and that often the best way to address a problem is for government to get out of the way, the to quote Reagan: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
25 - The assumption that people are “born bad” is total twaddle IMHO, the notion that an individual is “born” anything is totally without foundation – perhaps genetically predisposed to certain forms of behaviour but nothing more.
“I’m not a Tory but..”
The Conservative party will next regain power and form a government when people who hold small “c” conservative views stop feeling the need to always qualify their support for Conservative announcements with “I’m not a Tory but…”
It sounds silly, but many people in “my” party just fail to appreciate how completely repellant our organisation is to most people. Still a long way to go.
On the subject in point; just how much of the media has picked up on this? I see the BBC, Sky, ITV and much of the liberal media has ignored it.
One can’t help but wonder why..
Is this a gimmick?
No: heralded by DC’s society paper.
Will it strike a chord? Many peops are fed up paying for record police numbers and their concerns about local issues ignored whilst police have time to arrest (in numbers) citizens guilty of PC type crimes.
So yes..
All DC needs now is for some union to start some stoopid dispute…
Old Cammy has blown a lot of his appeal. He just comes across as, well, a bit pointless to be honest. He does not have any gravitas.
Agree entirely with your article Mike, and posts 7, 8, 18 and 26.
Am I the only one to find Dave’s exploitation of the Rhys Jones murder very cynical?
What’s the main task at the moment? Find the killer. Are people talking to the police? No, not enough. If Dave wanted to help he could support the police, and add his voice to the appeals for help from the community. And this way, he could still get his mug in the paper, too.
“And don’t even begin on issues like Tax Credits, a project that has been an utter farce in terms of its organisation and generates mountains of waste and bureaucracy without any tangible help for the least well off”
Garbage. Unlike you to speak about something for which you obviously have no knowledge.
38. Entirely in character for you though.
**** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS
The breaking news is that WIND is receiving an exclusive news report on the campaign of Jack W in the PB Election to be held this weekend.
Speaking from the bowels of Castle Jack, the butler to his nobleness said :
“His graciousness the divine Scottish being and part-time diva of the politics world will be campaigning quietly from his estates under the dual slogans of ‘Are You Drinking What I’m Drinking ?” and ‘Jack W - Breaking Wind Here’.
Massive contributions of £3 2/- 4d have flooded in after Jack’s speech on law and order called ‘Hug and Hang the Hoodie Hoodlums the Conservative Way’.
Jack W would also like to disassociate himself from the rabid attack ‘Andrea Isn’t Working’. Rumours that the Italian stallions absence from the site for a few days has anything to do with him languishing in a Scottish cell cannot be confirmed.
His lordship urges all electors to vote early and often and join him in his crusade to prevent PB from falling ino the clutches of Rupert Murdoch and his Italian child eating, granny bashing, Rutland dwarf loving spawn of the devil.
We hope for a clean campaign.”
Cameron can only be helped by the illegal strike called today by prison officers over pay
I’m looking forward to the next polls! what a priviliage it is to live in (well not me) the same country as the genius comeback kid Cameron, the next Prime Minister!
So much for our much vaunted “special relationship” with the United States government:
The US will continue to refuse requests for its personnel to appear at inquests into the “friendly fire” deaths of British troops, a report says.
The MoD has sent written guidance to coroners across England and Wales over the holding of military inquests.
According to the Times, its letter says the US “confirms categorically” it will not provide witnesses for inquests.
It comes six days after three British soldiers were killed by US “friendly fire” in southern Afghanistan.
The Times reports that the letter to coroners states: “The US have confirmed categorically that they will not provide witnesses to attend UK inquests.
“While coroners may continue to ask for US witnesses to attend… they should be aware that there will in all cases be a refusal.”
38 - Roger are you denying that nearly £2billion has already been written off as a result of overpayments through the tax credit system? – What is that if not a total, organisational farce?
Without getting into a detailed policy debate (was at the football last night and don’t have the head for it!) – Tax Credits has always struck me a symptomatic of the left of centre view that the answer for any problem is a government agency with a nice letterhead (and all the cost and complication that goes with it).
41 Ted. Why ?? Is Cammy about to “Hug A Screw” ?? or am I confusing that with the new “Screw You Huggies” campaign on enviromental nappies ??
Interesting article Mike, but on the day he gave his “hug a hoodie” speech he also gave a fairly hard hitting one on crime, (See my blog here: http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/07/hugging-hoodies-part-ii.html
or the speech itself here:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130821)
so the line is consistent, what has changed is that journalists may be paying attention in a different way this time.
Last week you could get 2.58 on Cons to have the most seats on betfair and 1.63 for Lab : Now 2.46 and 1.68…
Is the pendulum swinging back ?
So what happend to the NHS bare knuckle fight then ?
I’d echo Rogers comments about the 365 day sale. Cameron saying some vague things about crime isn’t tacking to the right, it seems like a sensible thing to do.
It’s the perception that he may be lurching about per se thats the danger.
The ‘bare knuckle fight’ was a debacle partly because it was so hyped.If Cameron doesn’t have anything concrete to say about crime then his supporters should downplay and not hype up.
Commenting on contemporary events is fair enough.Pretending that they are a campaign will backfire (again ! ).
41 - Only if the media gives his crime speech some attention and thus far outside of the print media they haven’t! The strike will hurt Labour perhaps, but without media attention relating to his speech on crime there will be little to fuel an improvement for Cameron.
44 Ben. Overpayment is effectively a tax cut !!
41 - Why will it help Cameron? Doesnt it show what a tight reign Labour has on public sector pay by imposing below inflation pay increases?
Cameron won’t be vulnerable to attacks over crime from NuLabour, they are rapidly losing all credability.
NuLabour is increasingly appearing “arrogant, complacent and out of touch.” with regard to crime.
People have had enough, they don’t want to be lied to about crime statistics or told about parenting classes and acceptable behaviour contracts.
They want the government to put the fear of God into the scum that make peoples lives a misery.
It is unnaceptable that there should be a single street in this country where people should have cause to feel scared to leave their home.
The bunch of failed polytechnic lecturers and lawyers that currently govern us have shown themselves to be incompetant in every area.
All they are interested in doing is running society in the interests of the corrupt financial plutocracy who really set the agenda.
Untill a party is prepared to tackle the issue of money supply and the banks ability to create money from thin air it is completely irrelevant which party forms the government.
Re 17, Innocnet “In fact, Cameron is still to the left of Labour on the issue, since it is Labour who are proposing to give the police the power to extend sentences indefinitely through control orders, carrying a mandatory five year sentence if broken, which can impose any conditions the police like on released prisoners (short of deportation) without the right to legal representation to contest their reasonableness. A completely crackpot measure, as anyone can see if they think through the consequences.”
Labour are planning that? Surely that puts Ghengis Khan well to the left of them?
I am sure a version of “Tough on crime… and the causes of crime” is the right way to go. The trouble with the current approaches is that our main parties have stupidly got themselves stuck with a laissez faire economic prescription which directly conflicts with “societal approaches” (see Monbiot in yesterday’s Grauniad for a summary of what is going wrong - I don’t say I agree with every word, I don’t, but the overall diagnosis is undoubtedly correct).
With our increasingly global and interdependent world, we can no longer rely on market - based “solutions”, or for that matter purely British - based solutions. It is a pity that Thatcher - Reaganism intervened in the “post-war consensus”. We might have been able to move forward in a high-population, high conflict, environmentally-threatened world working from that than from the current situation. The market should play a part, but so should the public / collective sector (in whatever form it is redesigned to take in the international dimension).
But then, “I wouldn’t start from here…” has never been a brilliant practical political slogan! So, Ben at 33, how do we adopt the needed long-term policies, because, boy do we need them!
50 - Well when you put it like that…
…I full endrose and congratulate the Labour gov…
44. Well, Roger, I am actually GETTING tax credits because my audited income, as a self-employed person, is so low.
So I can indeed speak from experience - and I can assure you the tax credit system is chaotic and farcical. Credits are a nice idea, maybe even a good idea - but they haven’t been thought through.
How often can one say this about New Labour policies? From the Dome to Iraq to immigration..
One main problem with tax credits is that they can’t cope with people whose income varies by the month. Which means most self employed people, which means millions of people. I won’t bore you with the details but here is a brief resume of what happened to me.
I didn’t ask for tax credits. They just started sending them to me. Great, I thought, £100 a week. Nice. So I took the cash - as you would.
Over the next year my income went up, a little… and the credits people started asking me for the money they had given me. They wanted it back. All of it. £3000 or whatever. Obviously I didn’t have it.
So they threatened to take me to court. I told them it was ludicrous that they were threatening to take me to court for money I hadn’t even asked for in the first place.
Meanwhile, my income had gone down again. So they started paying me more money! This at the same time as another department was trying to claw back the previous money.
This went on for another year. Threats of legal action at the same time as I was receiving more money from a government which already claimed it had given me too much.
Then I had a baby and it got still more ludicrous - as child tax credits kicked in…. I can’t even tell you about this but the outcome is bizarre.
Trust me. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to tax credits. You do not.
[53] Yup, they are. John Reid’s body lies a moulderin’ in the (political) grave, but hissoul goes marchin’ on.
My first attempt at a hyperlink, let’s see if it works…
“6. Tax credits - a lot of families don’t claim em - infact take up rate is a shocker. Raising the threshold would do the trick”
It’s about time this myth was put to bed.
When you raise personal tax allowances EVERY taxpayer over a certain level benefits by the same absolute amount, whereas only people with low incomes get tax credits. Therefore abolishing tax credits and using the same amount of money to raise tax thresholds would actually represent a very significant redistribution away from people on low incomes and towards the very rich.
I’m sure the Conservatives on this forum are economically literate enough to know that, so I can only conclude that that’s exactly what they want.
50 tell that to the people who are paying it back you stupid rich old duffer (and I mean that in a caring way) - tax credits is such a shambles because it relies on complexity to ensure take up is low - raising thresholds by a significant amount is just too easy for politicians to grasp.
Ben. Sorry to have been offensive. I was just disappointed that a young Labour activist could so quickly change into a Tory prepared to parrot the ‘Daily Mail’ in such an unthinking way. I happened to listen one morning to a discussion on tax credits and they are not at all the monster they have been painted. Suffice to say that apart from a few early teething troubles they are actually very popular and one of the few ways of targeting tax relief on the lowest paid without including the better off which the 10p rate does.
58. But the efficiency is so much higher - you are guarenteed that every deserving person gets some money.
With the admin saving and lack of fraud/errors you can also give back much more than a credit system can.
The govt should do less better.
Re 57, Innocent Aborad, with regret the link did not work.
61, “you are guarenteed that every deserving person gets some money.”
I’d be surprised if it comes out at more than a few pence a week by the time you’ve given a tax cut to everyone. I’m not denying that there have been huge problems with tax credits, but they are slowly being ironed out.
Believe me, as a Labour activist I would like nothing better than for the Conservatives to go into the election with a promise of scrapping tax credits. Please, please please sell the idea to Cameron!
56. Tax credits have a deserved reputation for being problematic.
My own parents have had the same issue. They knew they were being overpaid and held on to the cash. They also told the Revenue.
Lo and behold, eventually, when it suited them, the Revenue came calling. Give us it all back.
The problem is with the system which depends on people form filling. Very often, to put it bluntly, those who are most liable to get tax credits are not necessarily the most form filling savvy and also its retrospective nature.
Is there a simpler way of targeting people on lower incomes?
Course there is.
Imagine how much those never to be returned overpayments could have been used to pay for more policemean to contribute to stopping the poorest in society being most hit by crime.
Improving the lives of the least well off isnt just about giving them more money its about improving their environment and overall quality of life. But no, lets just throw some cash at some complicated bollocks.
51 In Gordon Brown’s Economic Miracle we have to go back to 1970’s pay restraint? Doesn’t fit the everything’s rosy picture does it?
Then we get the Prison Officers walking out - its serious in a time of heightened public concern on crime, prisons. Will Macavity come out of hiding for something other than photo ops with Merkel and Mandela?. Governments rarely come out well in pay disputes and the opposition can be both concerned for effect on public and supportive of the hard done by public servants.
63. Personally I would scrap all credits and have a high threshold for a combined tax and NI (£10K+)
Free Money Alert
It’s on the spreads again - General Election seats.
Sporting Index - Sell Labour 315
Cantor Spreadfair - Buy Labour 313
There’s a fair bit of it too - £70 after I had my fill. That’s a straight £140 gain and if you are betting on credit, no interest cost.
Though it was a shorter strike than Gordon’s holiday so it might have little effect
Kingbongo. Raising thresholds applies to everyone not just the low paid. This is the whole purpose of tax credits and apparently in nearly all cases they work. SeanT. Your story doesn’t make sense. As a self employed person you would only do one tax return a year.
66: Thus removing at a stroke the whole point of them, which is to help people who have had children. The children:pensioners ratio is low enough already!
Must say, tax credits have been good for my family, and don’t seem to have been anything other than well executed in our case.
“Improving the lives of the least well off isnt just about giving them more money its about improving their environment and overall quality of life. But no, lets just throw some cash at some complicated bollocks”
A strange policy for a Tory? I thought the idea was for self help not the nanny state?
69. What, you’re saying I’m lying? Duh.
Let me talk you through it. When you are self employed you are asked by the tax credits people to estimate your income for the coming year, based on the previous year, because obviously you don’t know how much you are going to earn exactly.
Using this estimate the tax credit people give you an award. But if your income rises they will then ask for all the money back, sometimes many months or even years later (because the system is so slow and chaotic). If your income goes down again they will then give you more money even as they ask for the previous lot back. This is what happened to me.
It’s a total shambles. And there are hundreds of thousands of people in my situation - some of them not very well educated who probably find threatening letters and possible legal action very frightening.
It’s an idiotic Labour policy. Well-meant but idiotic.
And as for child tax credits. Gah! I have a very close friend who is seperated from his partner. They have a two year old son. Because they are seperated they get £10,000 child tax credit. They wouldn’t get this if they were together as their joint income would be too high. They are paid to live apart by the state. Great outcome for the kid. Not.
You really don’t know what you are talking about here, so I advise you to go back to stuff you do know about. There must be something.
58/61: These two posts summarise the pros and cons of tax credits pretty well. Jamie, I don’t think the efficiency argument actually works. Everyone in work would benefit from a higher threshold, but higher-rate taxpayers would benefit more. Assuming the same total, the ‘target group’ of low earners would get around a quarter of the money they get from tax credits. Even if you make generous assumptions about admin savings and elimination of errors, it is very unlikely to compensate for this 75% reduction.
One can of course argue that the state shouldn’t be subsidising low wages at all - why not leave it to the free market? But the reason to do it is that otherwise it doesn’t pay to work at low wages (the old ‘poverty trap’) as you were better off on benefits - effectively tax credits are giving you some of the benefits you’d have had as unempployed, in order to make it worth your while to work. The theoretical free market answer is to abolish unemployment benefits - it then pays to work at whatever you can get and you starve if you can’t. Even Mrs T balked at that, though, and if one doesn’t go that far then the free market approach simply doesn’t work.
I see the system in operation at close hand since I get the cases that go wrong in my surgery - there’s roughly one a month though new cases are now rare because of the changes in last year’s Budget. Even the constituents who have problems generlaly don’t want to see the system abolished.
By the way, belated thanks to Benedict for his interesting comment on contract law a couple of threads back, which told me several things I didn’t know.
Tax all income; pay a universal benefit without means testing.
71. Shows how little you understand.
Improving the environment for its citizens is not exactly nanny state. It is the states job to provide proper law & order for example, a thing which can help improve people’s environment and quality of life.
Jesus Roger is that the best you can do?
67. This is breaking my heart. I’m in the office and do I have my Sportingindex login..
Noooooooooooooooo
Also SeanT as a self employed person you will have to get used to paying tax based on the previous year and then paying or claiming back the following year depending on whether your income goes up or down.
This applies as much to someone on tax credits as not. There is no other way of doing it for the self employed
[62] B*gger. And it looked so good. Let’s try again more in hope than expectation
[78]
77. So that’s your answer. “It’s bound to be a mess”. Brilliant.
Yes I am used to estimating my income and paying taxes accordingly. I am not used to the government coming after me brandishing cash upfront, and then saying a year later Ooops we shouldn’t have given you that, and then saying a few months later Give it us back or we will put you in prison but meanwhile saying Hey here is some more money!
What am I meant to do with this money? Bank it and leave it there just in case they want it back at some later date? But that means the whole system is pointless, I can’t use the money they give me. Maybe I should spend it, but what happens if they then want it back? I’ll be in jail.
FFS. Only a moron could have come up with this policy. a very clever moron, but still a moron. i.e. a Labour policywonk.
The fact is the government just didn’t sit down and think it through. It looks good on paper - here’s a great way of targeting money at the poor. But in practise it is flawed.
73, Nick,
I’d disagree that “abolish unemployment benefits” would be the free-market approach.
In my view, “free” is the key element of free-markes, and “work or starve” isn’t really a free choice.
I’ve ssensome on both right and left propose “Citizen’s Basic Income” - a subsistence wage paid directly to every adult in the country, to replace such benefits. The idea is that you have much more discretion in making your free choice, and everyone who works is better off than those who don’t - but those who don’t can survive.
It’s fairly radical and I’m not certain about its repercussions; the left-wing economic blogger Chris Dillow calculated that £100 per week per adult would be feasible (It would also strongly incourage cohabitation at the least).
It’s an interesting idea and at least sidesteps some of the administrative nightmare.
o/t yesterday I nominated tpkfar as my fave Tory poster when I actually meant Tjm. hope thats cleared up any confusion, though I am sure that tpkfar enjoyed his/her brief flirtation with the Tories tho
back on topic, Law and order is important to voters so the Tories have got to make it a key part of their platform and after 10 years of Labour and increasing gun and knife crime they would be fool not to.
Andy Cooke at 81: yes, I agree that Citizens’ Income gets round the poverty trap problem, and I nearly mentioned it, but didn’t want to make the post too long. The LibDems flirted with it, as have some think-tanks on left and right, but it’s very expensive.
What it boils down to is making Income Support available to everyone as a right, instead of being means-tested. Unlike higher income tax thresholds, this helps everyone equally, with no bonus for higher-rate payers. But as I believe only 1 in 6 adults get Income Support now, it would mean that the bill was multiplied by 6.
The money has to come from somewhere, so left-wing proponents suggest high income tax, the idea being that we all have a decent standard of living but those who earn extra chip in more. The snag is that you really do have quite a tempting package then for people who aren’t keen to work, since (a) they have an adequate income anyway and (b) they’ll pay a lot of of tax if they do. There are obviously other ways to raise money which are less left-wing - higher VAT, for instance. But overall there would be some big losers and more incentive not to work, which is why every party has backed away in the end.
May I say without exception that this mornings contributions have been excellent. And I expect them so to be for a few days to come !!
Well done you voters !!
Mr Smithson
I know you were saying that its hard work getting topics during the summer political recess but is there any chance of something on the economy?
I’m not sure how to frame it and no doubt it will descend into stats upon stats about boom and bust etc but economic conditions may have a big bearing on a) the timing of an election and b) its outcome.
PUNTER JOINS RACE ***PUNTER JOINS RACE ***PUNTER JOINS RACE ***
News reaches PB.com that Peter the Punter is the latest to join the race to be PB Poster of the Year. Speaking from Campaign HQ, a spaciously appointed kennel by Walthamstow Dog Stadium, his Agent, Mr William Hill announced:
‘Early soundings have been most encouraging and both his supporters are fully committed to voting.”
Rumours that the campaign was having financial difficulty were scotched by news that the sale of retired greyhound, Mighty Fella, had fetched an unexpectedly large amount at the local abattoir.
‘As far as we’re concerned, it’s a one-horse race. Naturally we respect the other candidates and are glad that they have already committed to a good, clean fight, but we just can’t see the other voters passing over a thoroughbred Cockney for a geriatric, upper class Celtic twit with short arms and deep pockets, or a ginger Wop operating out of a Mafia stronghold.’
Under the slogan – ‘Back The Punter – You Know It Makes Sense’ – PtP has been campaigning vigorously recently and spent a week at ConHome gathering opinions from potential voters. ‘It was a tough experience’, he said, ‘but I learned much and will never again make the mistake of overestimating their intelligence.’
Ladbrokes have cut PtP’s odds to 1,000-1.
[86] Are PtP and Jack W one and the same? No one’s ever seen them together…
83. An alternative approach is to make most benefits strictly time limited or conditional on being in work. To some extent this has been done, but there is always a problem of displacement - the most obvious case in the UK being that the work shy have migrated from unemployment benefit to incapacity benefit, gratis the medical profession.
Any welfare state is going to run up against problems of this sort, unless it is extremely limited in scope. It is probably fair to say that the UK system doesn’t exactly minimise the problems though.
“It’s a one horse race”
Normally the only one’s Peter the Punter sucessfully tips !!
83
For the record, quite a lot of LDs continue to keep Citizens Income on the party’s policy agenda. Myself I have no doubt that it would be a major contribution to an (economically) fairer society.
There is a technical irritation, namely that CI, (in common with all social security benefits), would count as government expenditure rather than negative government income, and thereby increase the proportion of GNP in or passing through the public sector. I find the definition used to underpin the maximum threshold unhelpful to say the least.
Re 73, Nick Palmer, “By the way, belated thanks to Benedict for his interesting comment on contract law a couple of threads back, which told me several things I didn’t know.”
Many thanks. You can email me if it helps. As I said it does not matter a fig what the law actually is if people do not enforce their rights.
Re 78, innocent, many thanks that worked.
Looks fairly bonkers on a quick scan to me.
Anyway .. I’m off for a long campaign lunch with Johnny Walker and William Haig …..
Laters.
89 Jack W (The Celtic Cundidate)
I appreciate that education isn’t what it used to be North of the Border, but please note that there is no apostrophe in ‘ones’, or indeed ‘Cockneys’. In the interest of a fair contest, I thought I should point this out before you repeat the error in your campaign literature and make a fool of yourself - not that that would be too difficult.
Toodle Pip.
83 - Nick P ( or anyone else) can you point to where it has been discussed in the Labour party as I’ve recently become interested in the citizens income argument ?
re 24 Sure Start is a failed policy it’s the state looking after kids from breakfast to bedtime because the state has forced their parents to work on the threat of penury. It’s probably the most stalinist thing that the government has done
32 sums my views up best…
A lot of tosh being spoken about Sure Start… SS is a good idea, but is not working as intended. In short, the jam is being spread too thin (its a universal intervention), with the result that it is being highjacked by middle class mums instead of being used by those that need it most.
Read Alice Miles’ piece in today’s Times for more info http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article2343869.ece
SeanT. At the end of the last thread I offered you an even money bet on whether there is a referendum in the UK on the proposed EU treaty. I bet there won’t be one here. David Herdson suggested a reasonable way of defining the bet.
Interested? I’ll match your stake between 5 and 50 pounds.
re 96, Chris A, remind me, which party are you in?
BTW, i agree with the sentiment to some extent. That said parents, even single ones getting out to work even some hours per week gives them a life outside of the home and makes them calmer (depending on the work they do) then they would otherwise be.
I don’t believe that labour supporters really do believe that this is a lurch to the right, I think they are just spinning.
Having been back ‘oop north’ this summer, this is, instead, a policy designed to appeal to those who have crime and societal problems around them every day. Too many comfortably off posters here won’t understand what things are like beyond their world or how Cameron’s message is aimed. You may as well be speaking Martian to them.
The big problem that Cameron has is getting that message through. Firstly, this section of society have been let down by government full stop so why should they trust someone else? Secondly, they are less likely to vote to change their lot.
Something that is welcome however is the link between society and crime. That labour posters, brought up opposing the Thatcher ‘no such thing as society’ position, try to ignore this or feign incomprehension is just very, very sad and partisan politics of the worst sort.
well said ukpaul
96. Quite. This is an appallingly authoritarian regime which the Tories only want to outdo in repellence.
police state anyone?
BTW - the problem with the speech is still keeping a belief that governments can change things by legislating to do so, labour’s biggest mistake on crime. Yes, there is also a view that it is up to individual people and organisations to pitch in, and that is welcome, but trying to change the music industry and stop video games is just flannel. It won’t work.
94 I do hope that once Mike has checked the nomination papers and established the bona fides that the nominees get the chance to present their case for election through a short election address prior to voting opening.
Re Tax Credits, any system which takes money away and then asks people to ask for it back is ludicrous. All it does is give the government a veneer of munificence the expense of billions of pounds.
re 58 its not rocket science. If you double the personal allowance AND increase the tax rate (e.g. doubling the allowance to £10k+ and raising the rate by 3%) you benefit those on the lowest income the most both in real terms and proportional terms and provide no cash benefit to the better off at all. Of course GB went entirely the opposite way in the budget and that will cost the lowest paid money.
98. Just caught up on the thread last night. Interesting.
However I am going to decline your offer. This is partly sheer cowardice, because I am not at all sure there will be a referendum here (though I’m not sure there won’t, either).
I do believe the chances are mounting that there will be a vote - they’ve gone from 3 to 1 against six months back to maybe evens now, but that’s still very far from a sure thing. And I only ever gamble when I think I am bound to win.
But my main reason for not betting is that this issue simply matters to me too much. I really really really do care about this, and making a frivolous bet on the entire future of my country just seems wrong. It’s like betting on the outcome of the second world war in 1940 or something.
Ugh.
I accept that others do not remotely feel as seriously as me about this, and I do not criticise them - or you - in anyway for that. However that is my position, so: no dice.
But I’d be very interested to see how others might bet on this issue. Could be very entertaining. Pony up, guys!
103. The speech was explicitly about not legislating to change but practical steps to help tackle crime and long term steps to change things in Britain. The music industry stuff was preripheral stuff that the papers picked up because it makes an interesting story as opposed to pieces on cutting paperwork for police.
re 99 Benedict I’ve never been in any party, but as you know I’m currently a LD supporter princiy because of their Iraq war and human rights stance. I have voted Tory in the past but IDS was practically the last straw. His craven support for the war and his anti-gay rhetoric were totally offputting and many of the Tory’s woes stem from that one moment of complete and utter lunacy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6968105.stm
Tricky. A chance for Gordon strongman or a quiet climbdown coming up the TUC conference?
105-ukPaul-tax credits are redistributive, that is there strength.
11-Test- the social fabric breaking down is nonsense talk- surely you can remember our inner cities from the late 70’s- through to the 90’s? A mixture of heroin, unemployment, endemic crime, police no go areas, complete and utter wretched poverty. Thanks initially to Heseltine, and followed by Labour our inner cities have been regenerated. Sure gangs, guns, crack have all appeared in the last 10 years or so, but our inner cities are much better places to live than they were. The riots in 1980’s where whole communities of youths destroyed their own surroundings is unthinkable now.
24-redflump- surestarts are not as great as the government would like to think. They do not reach the disengaged underclass, and many are poorly managed by do-gooding social workers who are clueless about managing effective organsisations.
111. Can we have a competition for the most single ludicrous statement to appear on pb.com over the year?
This one by Tyson must be a strong candidate:
“Sure gangs, guns, crack have all appeared in the last 10 years or so, but our inner cities are much better places to live than they were.”
Delicious.
Mind you Tyson manages to put in second bid for the award with his very next sentence: “The riots in 1980’s where whole communities of youths destroyed their own surroundings is unthinkable now.”
He seems to have forgotten the towns of Oldham, or Bradford, or Lozells in Birmingham, or…
On citizens income - as a right-winger - I like the idea.
Firstly, I wouldn’t make it £100 per adult. I’d make it £50 - or at a level just below or at the bare minimum for survival. This would make living on it alone so unattractive that the vast majority would choose to work.
Secondly, I don’t buy that the cost would scale up 6-fold based on Income Support. Ditching means-testing would drop a lot of overheads and you could also use it to replace other benefits, like incapacity, or council tax benefit.
My understanding is that social security - and its associated costs - makes up the largest chunk of the governments budget as it is. If benefits could be combined and the bureaucracy reduced drastically, you would find it would be much more affordable.
And, finally, on income tax why not set the threshold for paying the basic rate at an index-linked 60% of average income? It would ensure the poorest wage earners are always exempt.
113, Casino Royale,
The £100 would replace all other benefits. Income Support, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit as well.
It’s not quite as munificent as it seems.
If you don’t think our inner city areas are better now than 10 years ago then you must be blind! Look at Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Brimingham! Our regional cities are enjoying a (not at all problem-free mind you) rebirth, with thousands moving back into the centre.
thousands of immigrants moving in and thousands of whites fleeing
115. Oh is that why they are losing parliamentary seats, then?
115. I travel a lot around Britain. I would not deny that Labour have done some good things in fighting abject poverty; I would not deny that the centres of Britain’s major cities are looking a lot better than they did 20 years ago - though I would ascribe this to the Thatcherite improvements in the economy (merely continued by Brown).
But I think major problems remain - and these problems are perhaps getting worse. What’s happened is that, as rich white people have moved back into the centres of towns, the poor and their problems have been removed from the hearts of our cities - to the inner and outer suburbs.
Places like Peckham or Tottenham in London are still utterly depressing, and riven with violence.
I have a feeling this is a case of reacting to recent events. It would be ridiculous if he didn’t.
The fact he is commenting is not an attempt to undo his modernising work. Indeed addressing gun-crime “culture” could go to the heart of the “new approach” he’s been working on in the past year or so. As has been mentioned, I think he’s already said before this he wants to talk with musicians and the musical community over the messages they’re sending out.
But simply talking about crime is a return to the old ways? Come on, Mike - no politician can be expected not to comment on issues like this that are important to many people even who don’t usually vote Tory.
112-seanT- Toxteth, Brixton, Broadwater farm- could not happen today.
I worked on poor estates in the early 90’s- Preston, Skelmersdale, Runcorn, Warrington. There were police no go areas, there were kids smoking heroin visibly on street corners, there were rows and rows of boarded shops, derelict houses, garbage spilling onto the streets, stray animals, people hunkered in their houses, no economic activity, decaying schools, decrepid community centres, poor bus services that stopped at 6.00- this was the picture of many of our poorest inner city areas in the Tory years.
And the bloody cheek of Cameron saying that society is broken down. Looking for silly, stupid soundbites when he has no understanding or experience of the problems he talks about. Crass Etonian pillock.
re 85. The economy for a thread is a good idea. I go on holiday on Friday and Paul Maggs will be in charge.If anybody has thoughts about writing a guest slot on this or other subjects then I’ve no doubt that Paul will be appreciative.
His email is electiongame@yahoo.co.uk
Roger, don’t defend the current state of tax credits, it’s a complete mess when your circumstances change mid-year.
I became a single parent about a year ago, and eventually had to reduce my hours to cope. The Tax Credits people wouldn’t let me “modify” my existing “joint” claim, I had to stop it and start a new one. Result: I found myself down to my last £12 and 64 pence last midwinter, before the paperwork completed its convoluted journey and I received the backlog.
The problem is that they got rid of a perfectly good system that had existed in 2001, when they tried to combine different schemes into one. The old WFTC was worked out on a four-weekly basis, so responded a lot more smoothly to changes in income. Tax Credits are worked out on annual income, so the whole year gets recalculated when you change income - resulting in more overpayments.
At the same time you had the Children’s Tax Credit, which was simplicity itself, being incorporated into your tax code. This gave you about £10 a week and all you had to do was fill in a form that was a single sheet of A4 once (not once every year!)
They also rolled income support into it, and some other things I think.
So I disagree with the Tories - the policy isn’t to blame. However, I also disagree with Labour, because the implementation has been horrendous - and it isn’t just teething problems, it is inherent in the design of the systems. I don’t think this is a “policy” issue, it’s simpler a matter of how you design a system to be robust when things change or mistakes are made.
However, if you use a combination of:
1. Abolishing Tax Credits.
2. Raising Tax thresholds.
3. Increasing Child Benefit.
4. Increasing income tax, particularly on higher earners.
5. Extend the Early Years Education Funding system to cover more hours and from an earlier age.
Then you could preserve the redistributive effects of the current system, be revenue neutral and get rid of the damaging form-filling.
The Tory proposals only do numbers 1 and 2, with the result that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. Hardly surprising coming from them, but dishonest of them to claim otherwise.
111 and 112, Tyson may have a point, but it’s because a lot of inner city districts have gentrified over that period. The West End has spread out into Hammersmith, and places like Surrey Docks, and parts of the East End have become very fashionable.
At the same time, the problem families have moved into inner suburban areas, like Wembley, Mitcham, North Croydon Edmonton etc, triggering movement out by long-established residents. Look at changes in local election results in London, from 1990 to 2006 and you can see which areas are gentrifying (and switching from red to blue) and which inner suburban areas are deteriorating (and doing the reverse).