Tribune leader, 24 January 1992
It is difficult not to have some sympathy with Neil Kinnock
over last week's upset about Labour's taxation plans. If any of the
journalists eating at Luigi's had bothered to read the string of policy
documents produced in the past two-and-a-half years - and, however dull the
documents, that is part of their job - it would Have come as no surprise to any
of them that Labour planned to introduce its tax increases on higher incomes
gradually rather than in one fell swoop. As it was, Mr Kinnock's off-the-cuff
remarks came over to them as desperate back-tracking in the face of an unfavourable
opinion poll. When members of the Labour Treasury team subsequently also showed
only a hazy acquaintance with the small print, the journalists had a good story
on their hands almost by accident.
Nevertheless, the episode did show that taxation remains a
banana-skin for Labour, and that is cause for concern. Tax, along with public
spending, is at the heart of the Tories' election campaign against Labour.
The Tories believe that voters who tell pollsters that they
would rather have public spending than tax cuts are not telling the truth and
that Labour has failed to convince the electorate that it would not increase income
tax for those on average as well as high incomes. The Tories are already
getting up a head of campaigning steam on tax. If Labour starts to look
evasive on its tax plans, the Tories will punish it mercilessly.
That means two things. First, the front bench needs to work
out precisely how a Labour government will introduce its new taxes and
everyone needs to stick to the same story. Secondly, and crucially, Labour
needs to toll the whole truth about its tax plans as soon as possible.
It is not enough to state, in the words of the party's
election campaign pack, that "nobody earning leas than £21,000 annually -
about £400 a week - will pay a penny extra in income tax or in national
insurance contributions". Particularly in the south-east, it is not
unusual to earn between £21,000 and £30,000, nor, because of housing and
commuting costs, is such an income necessarily a guarantee of notable
affluence. Voters in that income bracket have to be reassured that they are not
going to be stung by Labour.
Of course, they are not going to be stung: Labour's plans
mean that a single person on £25,000 a year will pay less than £10 extra a
week. Given that it will pay for improved child benefits and pensions, that
should not be too difficult to sell except to the extraordinarily selfish. But
Labour has to make all this absolutely clear. Until it produces accurate and
credible "What you will pay under Labour" charts, it will remain
vulnerable to Tory attack.
"The next Labour government has no intention of legalising
cannabis," Roy Hattersley said last week in response to a suggestion from
Tony Banks to the contrary. Mr Hattersley should reconsider. Cannabis is
non-addictive and not harmful to health, and the law banning it is a joke -
except to the 30,000-odd people every year who are prosecuted for possession:
Even the Home Office reckons that 1,500,000 people have smoked it. Does Mr
Hattersley really want to turn them off voting Labour at the election?
