Tribune leader, 13 March 1992
And so, at long last, we know for certain that the election
is on April 9. John Major's announcement on Wednesday means that the tedious
phoney war is over. Now the battle can begin in earnest.
This election is a make or break election both for Britain
and for Labour. If the Tories were to win again, the country would face up to
five more years of economic mismanagement, sleaze, contempt for democracy,
obstructionism in Europe and crumbling public services. Labour, having lost
four elections in a row, would be disastrously broke and demoralised. It is
essential for Labour and for the country as a whole that it wins. Labour might
well be fighting this election on policies somewhat different from those that
Tribune would have preferred. But that is as may be. Along with party members
of all persuasions, Tribune knows that a Labour government is the only hope for
getting Britain back on to its feet again economically, the only hope for a
fairer and more humane society, the only hope for modernising our creaking
constitution.
Luckily, Labour is well placed to win. The effects of the
Tories* assault in January on Labour tax policies has worn off, and this week's
budget was a damp squib. Labour is now 3 percentage points ahead in most opinion
polls, and governing parties tend to lose support during election campaigns.
There is, however, no room for complacency. The opinion
polls are desperately close, and every vote will count. The election could be
won or lost during the campaign. As Larry Whitty said a couple of weeks ago,
the efforts of Tribune readers could make all the difference. It's time to get
those fingers out.
The bribe won't work
Norman Lamont sprung a surprise in his budget on Tuesday:
instead of simply reducing the basic rate of income tax by Ip or 2p, as
everyone had expected, he reduced the tax rate from 25p in the pound to 20p
for the first £2,000 of taxable income. Most people in work will get £2.64 a
week extra in their wage packets.
That made Neil Kinnock's job in replying to the budget
address on Tuesday afternoon just a little more difficult than it would have
been if Mr Lamont had done what he had been predicted to do. Introducing a
lower band of tax for the first £2,000 of taxable income is better targeted on
the low-paid than a Ip or 2p reduction in the basic rate: it is less easy to
portray as a handout to the already well-off.
It is, nevertheless, just as much an attempt at electoral
bribery as the Ip or 2p would have been, and Mr Kinnock was right to describe
it as such. And, despite the Tories' crowing, it will almost certainly prove a
singularly ineffective bribe. A Ip or 2p reduction in the basic rate would
have put significant amounts of money (more than a fiver a week, in other
words) into the pockets of many skilled working class and lower middle class
voters – the very people that will determine the outcome of the election in the
key marginals.
For these moderately affluent voters, £2.64 is peanuts, the
equivalent of a packet of cigarettes or a couple of pints of beer or a
takeaway Chinese meal. It looks even more measly after the effects of raised
excise duties are taken into account. It is emphatically not an
election-winning bribe. Labour's campaign has been given some unexpected help.
