Wednesday
(0)The Conservatives have at long last committed themselves to a tax-cutting agenda:
The Conservatives plan to offer tax cuts at the next general election in a shift aimed at highlighting the divide between their policies and the tax increases introduced by Labour.
So is that settled then?
Oliver Letwin issued a statement clarifying the party's position after earlier appearing to slam the door on a manifesto commitment to reduce the tax burden.In an interview with the Telegraph yesterday, he surprised senior colleagues by declaring: "We will not go to the polls at the next election saying that we will reduce the tax bill."
Er... so it's not settled.
A spokesman for Mr Letwin said: "The Tory party has always and will always be a low tax party.
So they are going to cut taxes?
"We will not make any irresponsible promises or do anything which that put the public services or Britain's finances at risk."
Or, they're not.
So that's clear then. Or not. They want low taxes. Or they don't. Or they do. In principle. If nobody minds too much. They have made a commitment. Or not. Well, a bit of a commitment. A qualified promise. More of an aspiration really. An idle thought. Just a suggestion. They are going to run it up the flagpole and see if the cat licks it up. But not yet. Soon. Maybe. Possibly not though. Let's not be too hasty. The Conservatives are muddled. Well, a bit muddled. Not coherent at all. But they expect to be. Sometime. Cannot promise when. Er, what was the question? Can't we change the subject? Good grief, is that the time? They have just remembered..er, a very important appointment. Must dash.
[My thanks to Melanie Phillips for the links.]
Just an innocent just-want-to-know question Mr. Samizdata: why does a Brit care about US Supreme Court decisions regarding our freedoms (important as they may be to Americans)?
Posted by Mark at December 11, 2003 12:17 AM
"No, no, this is abuse. Arguments is down the corridor, third door on the left."
Posted by Simon Jester at December 11, 2003 01:11 PM
There is no inconsistency if you say you will cut taxes and at the same time say that you "will not make any irresponsible promises or do anything which that put the public services or Britain's finances at risk."
If you move the payment for much of the public services into the private sector, that wouldn't put them at risk, for example.
Posted by Alex Singleton at December 11, 2003 01:14 PM
Don't say "public services" say the "coercion funded sector of the economy" it's far more accurate.
Posted by Rob Read at December 11, 2003 03:09 PM
If you move the payment for much of the public services into the private sector, that wouldn't put them at risk, for example.
That depends on what you define risk as, and what services you want.
Posted by Dave O'Neill at December 12, 2003 12:14 PM
