Welcome to tax and spend politics, 1992 style

Unpopular government seeks fourth general election victory in a row in midst of a recession. Sound familiar? Welcome to 1992.

Back then it was the Conservatives in power facing a Labour opposition and David Cameron was working for the Conservative Party, as head of the political section of the Conservative Research Department.

I suspect it’s memories of 1992 that help explain the vagueness of Conservative tax and spend plans this time round. In 1992 the Labour opposition had spelt out its spending commitments in advance in some detail and so, when Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont sprung a surprise in the spring 1992 budget, their plans came unstuck.

Lamont introduced a new 20p rate of income tax for the first £2,000 of taxable income, a measure which helped the low paid (as Gordon Brown was reminded to his cost years later with his botched abolition of its successor). This new rate boxed in Labour because, with spending commitments largely fixed and their own need to demonstrate economic credibility meaning Neil Kinnock wouldn’t countenance an increase in their budgeted deficit, Labour either had to come out against this tax cut or drop their own planned surprise (a 1% cut in national insurance contributions). In order to avoid being seen as opposing a tax cut for the low paid, Labour therefore dropped its tax cut to appeal to the middle classes.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling would appear to be trying to box the Conservatives in this time in reverse fashion, though this time the implement of choice is tax rises rather than cuts. However, with neither firm budget deficit commitments in the short term nor detailed spending commitments from the Conservatives so far, Brown and Darling are left trying to box in the Conservatives, but with only one side of the box. All makes for rather frantic waving around, but not much boxing in.

One ironic footnote: in order to make the Conservative government’s sums add up clearly enough to ensure they had a firm base from which to attack Labour’s tax and spend policies, Norman Lamont insisted on several manifesto ideas being dropped. What was one of them? Axing inheritance tax.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • ‘Given the likely downgrading of our credit rating, isn’t the truth that all political parties are keeping quite about the fact that taxes will have to go up and public spending will have to be cut regardless of who wins the next general election?’

    I thought all 3 political parties and almost gone out of their way to make this clear. What they aren’t making clear is where these cuts will come from

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Alex Macfie
    Lorenzo Cherin: By-elections (called "special elections") do happen in the US. Electoral law depends on the state, even for federal elections, so casual vacanci...
  • Peter Martin
    I'm not sure why it is only recently that the convention has arisen. It should have always been like this. There is little, if any, appetite or enthusiasm fo...
  • John Marriott
    @Mark Vallarades Bonjour, Marc. J’espère que vous prophiterez de votre séjour canadien. Vive Le Québec! Vive Le Québec…..libre?...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Is it possible for Lib-Dems to be effectively liberal and democratic without denouncing and undermining Neo-liberalism and its covert transference of wealth fro...
  • Barry Lofty
    With regards to trust on negotiated agreements, Johnson has a history of unreliability and being economical with the truth, I would not blame anyone dealing wi...