Monday, March 23, 2009

George Osborne or Ken Clarke - who to trust?

Ken Clarke says that changes to the inheritance tax regime are now a lower priority for an incoming Conservative administration. They are, he says, an 'aspiration' and 'not something we are going to do the moment we take power'.

George Osborne says that it will be a manifesto commitment, and that it is 'a promise we will keep'. Putting aside the fact that it is one of the precious few commitments that any Conservative has made on anything, it demonstrates the ongoing tension between George and Ken and, in turn, between the Conservative frontbench and Conservative activists.

And this is where the Conservative failure to comprehend how strategies employed by others work before using them themselves shows itself. In the years from 1992, New Labour promised financial stability but also investment in public services and infrastructure. There was a tacit understanding that this would mean higher levels of public spending, and voters knew that Labour would do that - it was in their historic DNA.

The Conservatives, by applying the same strategy of promising little but embodying change, need to persuade people that they can cut taxes without hurting the public sector. Therefore, David Cameron and George Osborne talk about the well-off 'paying their fair share' and have withdrawn their public opposition to the proposed 45% tax rate. Unfortunately, the activists and carriers of the Thatcherite 'low tax, smaller government' flame don't like it. Indeed, they don't like it at all.

The risk for Messrs Cameron and Osborne is that they fall between two stools, failing to convince the public that they want fairer taxes whilst maintaining public services, whilst at the same time leaving their activists disenchanted and less committed to the struggle. As an activist, the question is, who to believe? Is it Ken, the big beast brought in to add ballast to the Conservative frontbench, or George, the unproven Shadow Chancellor with a tendancy towards flakiness under pressure?

The answer to that question may cast a shadow over perceptions of Conservative competence on tax and the economy for some time...

No comments: