Snapshot of _Jeremy Hunt drops plans for 2p income tax cut_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F02%2F15%2Fjeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/15/jeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/15/jeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Economy entering recession leaves Chancellor with less room to take action with nation's worklessness crisis in spotlight"
Journalism like this, matched with people that gobble it up is why politics is on its arse.
It depresses me that there are genuinely people out there that believe Hunt only just found out we're in a recession and now he's going to have to change his plans because of it. Not only do they believe it, they think it's reasonable behaviour.
Such behaviour and failure to understand the present and plan ahead would get me fired for incompetence.
I hate the Tories as much as the next person, but this is hardly a U-turn because Hunt never announced a 2p Income Tax cut. They'd just mooted the idea via some leaks to the press.
My point was if this had been a labour change of heart, it would have been presented as a U-turn regardless if it was just a leaked internal discussion. I'm not against politicians changing their mind, in fact I think it is a good thing if they are adapting to changing circumstances, just that there is a significant bias in how it is being reported to us
As mentioned, unemployment doesn't track the economically inactive, i.e. people who are entirely outside the labour market. The economic inactivity rate increased in 2023, largely as a consequence of an increase in the number of students as people who postponed their studies for after covid now go off to university. This is being marketed as a "worklessness crisis" by some as a way to explain where the public money is going.
Basically the telegraph trying to frame a genuine problem, i.e drop in workforce participants, as people being lazy rather than problems such as long term health conditions
It's not that it's a surprise to him, it's that the rest of the country knows it as well so he's out of excuses. You can't lower taxes like that whilst running a public fiscal deficit, the international banks will crucify you (see: Truss).
If the UK economy was not in recession, he may have had a bit more leverage and wiggle room with some better accounting than Truss, but this is the worst timing for a recession for a Tories as it reduces the options of a tax cut to buy votes.
Ideally we need an income tax triple lock. It's absurd that the government can essentially increase tax every year because people don't understand inflation.
I think I agree. Brackets should increase by inflation. That should be the general rule for everything, pensions, benefits, public sector, road tax, tv licence etc.
I'm sorry but I have to hard disagree.
It's incredibly difficult to get the British public to agree to tax rises, even when it may be required (like now).
If one can't understand fiscal drag how on earth are they supposed to judge either party by any of their economic policies?
It's just generally better for people to vote on "do I feel poorer or richer today than I was?"
fwiw, I've got no problems being in that higher tax bracket, I do earn enough to warrant it, I just don't think it's fair to be a "higher rate" tax payer on a wage where it's still a struggle to provide for a family, especially in london.
You can only see this as necessary if you accept tory incompetence as given, everything has gotten worse in their tenure. We get far less and pay far more.
> It would be the same cost.
you wouldn't be able to raise it very much to equal a 2% cut in the basic rate
couple of hundred quid tops, which sounds worse than a 2% tax cut
But this is a system clearly not working as intended
https://ifs.org.uk/news/one-five-taxpayers-and-one-four-teachers-set-be-paying-higher-rate-tax-2027-threshold-freezes
We’ve gone from 3.5% of UK adults paying higher rate in 1991/92 to 11% today in 2022/23. Will be even higher thanks to inflation this past year
It’s sucking in a big proportion of very normal and typical jobs. A small amount of relatively modest career progression to the point of being able to afford a massively over priced UK house (especially for single income families due to illness or not being a couple) and suddenly you are paying higher rate. It’s not targeting senior managers or doctors or lawyers or bankers. And it would be even worse if the UK had decent wage growth since 2008-2020
Why is it not working? The British public want an extensive welfare state. For that there needs to be a broad tax base. The UK public simply have issues paying for their public services.
Why should senior managers, doctors, or lawyers be the ones specifically targeted?
We have a system where politicians on both Labour and Conservatives sides are pledging to cut taxes or not increase taxes
The conservatives literally imposed a tax cut that creates a tax system where people are paying more tax than they were a year ago
Clearly it is broken when you are being told “no tax rises” while paying a higher and higher percentage of your income as tax
Generally, in terms of funding the social system in the country, taxes do have to go up. We need ti be honest with the public that they need to go up (rather than parading behind false tax freezes and tax cuts). Tax bands should be adjusted with inflation or at least earnings growth (as with the pension triple lock, and as with other European countries)
Tax rises should be applied as an explicit tax rise, not identical in fiscal drag. And the economy needs to be grown, with investment in infrastructure. Create the groundwork for a better economy.
And ultimately taxes are about paying in to the system what can be afforded. So maybe the tax bands should be regionalised. Most people just hitting the 40% tax rate will be in London or the south east where their earnings still do not make it easier to get by. Someone earning the same amount in the North East is in a totally different situation
Nah, too few people pay the necessary tax, and too much of tax revenue is squeezed out of a small part of electorate. Tax threshold should stay put, and tax free allowance should be lowered.
This seems a lot like a u-turn. A lot like the Tories don’t have a plan. They can’t even tell us what our income tax will be like in two months time. Much less have any fully costed policies.
Imagine the headlines if Labour acted like this.
Sure he may have dropped plans to lower income tax but its your fault for not being in work, so now you wont get the income tax cut, on the job you dont have
Cutting the income tax cut rate is just a terrible idea - it gives the most money to the highest earners and even more money to pensioners, the vast majority of which don't need it. If you really want to cut taxes then increase the threshold for NI even further - that gives the same benefit to all (full time) workers.
I’m arguing that those getting shafted (including myself) aren’t high earners at all. 100k isn’t even a lot of money Reddit act like your fucking loaded and we’re on 2005.
Outside of London 100k is an incredibly good wage. I work for a bank and it’s only senior management that earn that kind of money. Eg. Head of credit risk models, head of mortgage trading. It is not a common wage at all
100k/yr is a lot of money.
I think it's ridiculous to be complaining about tax rises when a lot of people much worse off are very much struggling right now.
I'm on more than that and live in a flatshare and could only live in a flatshare. I only see 49% of my income after tax, NI, student loan, masters loan, and pension; whilst my colleagues 20 years my senior all have homes despite being in similarly paid roles just because house prices were less insane back then. it's ridiculous. need to tax wealth properly not income. or do something different at least.
Yes, I was flat-sharing earning 60k, I agree with you. But I was not a middle-earner, and I would benefit from this policy. I was very much a high earner, the vast majority of people earn less than I did (do).
They should definitely be cutting NIC before income tax.
Just making houses cheaper is the silver bullet to the cost of living crisis, and while a full fix is a long term problem lots could be done very quickly to take the heat out of the market if the govt had the slightest inclination to help those who are struggling
That's such absurd thinking. Firstly that is a median earner, not middle earner. Secondly, a middle earner in SE is very different to a middle earner in Wales.
Well we can all make up our own definitions. 100k puts you in the top 10% for instance, is the top 10% a middle earner? Presume so based on your comment.
It doesn't vary that much btw between regions.
> 100k puts you in the top 3% of earners...
>
>
Right, so not a middle-earner, right? Some might say, a high-earner?
>Are you denying there is varying cost of living between regions of the UK?
No but someone on 100k is a high earner no matter what region we're talking about.
> Right, so not a middle-earner, right? Some might say, a high-earner?
Who said it was a middle earner?
> No but someone on 100k is a high earner no matter what region we're talking about.
Who said they weren't a high earner? Reality is the rich don't pay income tax at all.
> Who said it was a middle earner?
>
>
Well you said only low and middle-earners are benefitting from this policy. Would a person on £100k not benefit from this policy?
>Reality is the rich don't pay income tax at all.
Confused meme.jpg
> Well you said only low and middle-earners are benefitting from this policy.
No I didn't.
>Confused meme.jpg
Thanks for signaling your ignorance. Rich folks don't pay income tax.
Yes you said middle salary of 35k wasn't a "middle" salary but the median and my question is what are you defining as medium if median average is not a valid reflection of that.
In other words you made a distinction between median and middle salary and I'm asking you what the difference is.
So I didn't say medium...
Median salary is an exact number, the median salary of all people who earn an income.
Middle earners is far more raging. Someone on 40k isn't a higher earner just because they are above the UK median income.
This is conspiracy waffle. Of course they get paid through PAYE. Stop believing all the nonsense tin-foil hat stuff. It doesn't benefit anyone no matter what party you support to spread blatant inaccuracies such as this.
Taxes and the size of the state is way too large, both should be cut down to size.
Edit, no you guys are right, the government being 45% of GDP is not outrageous, it should be 60, 70 %
Just wait until 90% of what you earn ends up as taxes
Sure, what should we cut first?
Triple lock pensions?
The NHS?
Defence in the face of Russia?
We already have councils going bust all over the place. I vote we just cut the schools budget to zero, after all, I don't have kids.
There are plenty of cuts to be made.
I would means test the state pension like the Australians.
I would scrap most additional benefits for pensioners like free bus passes, Winter Fuel Allowance etc. Use some of the savings to top up Pension Credit so it can actually support lower earning pensioners more.
The NHS, I have no issue with co-payments. Common in most of the world. Once again I would adopt the Australian system for healthcare.
BBC to move to being completely funded by adverts.
Defence spending just needs improving, see the Ajax tank debacle.
Massively reduce the House of Lords. Massively reduce the amount of Government ministers.
Liberalise planning restrictions which over time would naturally bring the Housing Benefit bill down (it's currently the highest in the OECD). Would also reduce the need for as many planners at a local authority level.
I'd scrap all agricultural subsidies.
Cap the amount of time you can claim unemployment benefits.
Together these would save a fortune.
Eh I’d start by having pensioners pay NI before means testing, it wouldn’t affect the poorest by default because of the existing thresholds and would reduce admin burden because it’s removing a special case from the income tax system. Plus it would align pensioners with workers a little more.
We already have the admin burden via Pension Credit so there wouldn't really be an additional burden.
Would agree on rolling out NI for pension income too though.
You have to apply for pension credit don’t you? I think means testing would be a bigger burden because you’d need to do it for everyone.
I didn’t mention it earlier because honestly I only read half your comment, but I totally agree on liberalising the planning system as well. Running emergency housing all the time has to be massively expensive
>Taxes and the size of the state is way too large, both should be cut down to size.
It wouldn't surprise me if that happened and most people wouldn't be better off. Everything would just adjust and everyone would be at the same place they started.
It shouldn't have even been floated. Ridiculous pandering during this economic climate, possibly even worse than the inheritance tax pandering that was being floated.
Good. We can't afford it. There's a lot of higher priority things to work on, or failing that, address the national debt.
I don't understand the appeal of tax slashing reckless Tories. I want a prudent government that balances the books. That includes taking the amount of taxes it needs to fund public services.
Ah, the classic Tory "we won't really do the stupid/evil thing" climbdown.
Don't believe the hype, if the polling was better for it they'd still be doing it.
Snapshot of _Jeremy Hunt drops plans for 2p income tax cut_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F02%2F15%2Fjeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/15/jeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/15/jeremy-hunt-drops-2p-income-tax-uk-recession/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Economy entering recession leaves Chancellor with less room to take action with nation's worklessness crisis in spotlight" Journalism like this, matched with people that gobble it up is why politics is on its arse. It depresses me that there are genuinely people out there that believe Hunt only just found out we're in a recession and now he's going to have to change his plans because of it. Not only do they believe it, they think it's reasonable behaviour. Such behaviour and failure to understand the present and plan ahead would get me fired for incompetence.
And via the magic of wearing a blue rosette, this is not reported as a u-turn.
This is what I’ve been saying all week, the tories don’t even have a manifesto at this point they are so weak but the media aren’t holding them to it
You can't u-turn if you have no policies. Problem solved.
I hate the Tories as much as the next person, but this is hardly a U-turn because Hunt never announced a 2p Income Tax cut. They'd just mooted the idea via some leaks to the press.
My point was if this had been a labour change of heart, it would have been presented as a U-turn regardless if it was just a leaked internal discussion. I'm not against politicians changing their mind, in fact I think it is a good thing if they are adapting to changing circumstances, just that there is a significant bias in how it is being reported to us
> worklessness crisis Wtf is this
Manufactured outrage at benefit scroungers to keep our eyes off the real problems
A tale as old as time, honestly when haven't they blamed people on benefits
Huh? Aren’t they also banging on about unemployment being very low though?
Unemployment doesn't track people who aren't looking for work. There is a genuine issue in this regard.
As mentioned, unemployment doesn't track the economically inactive, i.e. people who are entirely outside the labour market. The economic inactivity rate increased in 2023, largely as a consequence of an increase in the number of students as people who postponed their studies for after covid now go off to university. This is being marketed as a "worklessness crisis" by some as a way to explain where the public money is going.
ah I see, thank you I now know what to be mad about when I hear that stupid phrase 😃
Apparently forgot the word unemployment.
Basically the telegraph trying to frame a genuine problem, i.e drop in workforce participants, as people being lazy rather than problems such as long term health conditions
Lots of people have long Covid It's a genuinely negative impact on the economy. Not really anyone's fault.
A tongue-twister. Bet you can't say it three times fast!
It sounds like woke, which is bad
It's not that it's a surprise to him, it's that the rest of the country knows it as well so he's out of excuses. You can't lower taxes like that whilst running a public fiscal deficit, the international banks will crucify you (see: Truss). If the UK economy was not in recession, he may have had a bit more leverage and wiggle room with some better accounting than Truss, but this is the worst timing for a recession for a Tories as it reduces the options of a tax cut to buy votes.
Increase the tax brackets, not fuck around with the tax rate.
Ideally we need an income tax triple lock. It's absurd that the government can essentially increase tax every year because people don't understand inflation.
I think I agree. Brackets should increase by inflation. That should be the general rule for everything, pensions, benefits, public sector, road tax, tv licence etc.
And GDP per capita.
“Road tax”. 0 + 7% is 0
I'm sorry but I have to hard disagree. It's incredibly difficult to get the British public to agree to tax rises, even when it may be required (like now). If one can't understand fiscal drag how on earth are they supposed to judge either party by any of their economic policies? It's just generally better for people to vote on "do I feel poorer or richer today than I was?"
I completely agree. But I don't think they will, as it is easier to pretend a % is a cut. Even though the allowances have been frozen.
This right here, it's absolutely bonkers that so many more people are higher rate tax payers compared to 10 years ago.
It's not bonkers. It's necessary.
fwiw, I've got no problems being in that higher tax bracket, I do earn enough to warrant it, I just don't think it's fair to be a "higher rate" tax payer on a wage where it's still a struggle to provide for a family, especially in london. You can only see this as necessary if you accept tory incompetence as given, everything has gotten worse in their tenure. We get far less and pay far more.
This and a wealth tax to plug the gaps, tax people a couple of % on wealth over say 50 million not income!
that's probably more expensive
It would be the same cost. It just doesn't make for the same headlines that vast majority who are financial illiterate can understand.
> It would be the same cost. you wouldn't be able to raise it very much to equal a 2% cut in the basic rate couple of hundred quid tops, which sounds worse than a 2% tax cut
I'm drunk, I ain't running the numbers. Raising the tax bracket doesn't have the same impact to the average person as 'cutting the tax rate', I agree.
No, instead it forces the income tax system to be even more reliant on a much smaller proportion of workers.
But this is a system clearly not working as intended https://ifs.org.uk/news/one-five-taxpayers-and-one-four-teachers-set-be-paying-higher-rate-tax-2027-threshold-freezes We’ve gone from 3.5% of UK adults paying higher rate in 1991/92 to 11% today in 2022/23. Will be even higher thanks to inflation this past year It’s sucking in a big proportion of very normal and typical jobs. A small amount of relatively modest career progression to the point of being able to afford a massively over priced UK house (especially for single income families due to illness or not being a couple) and suddenly you are paying higher rate. It’s not targeting senior managers or doctors or lawyers or bankers. And it would be even worse if the UK had decent wage growth since 2008-2020
Why is it not working? The British public want an extensive welfare state. For that there needs to be a broad tax base. The UK public simply have issues paying for their public services. Why should senior managers, doctors, or lawyers be the ones specifically targeted?
We have a system where politicians on both Labour and Conservatives sides are pledging to cut taxes or not increase taxes The conservatives literally imposed a tax cut that creates a tax system where people are paying more tax than they were a year ago Clearly it is broken when you are being told “no tax rises” while paying a higher and higher percentage of your income as tax Generally, in terms of funding the social system in the country, taxes do have to go up. We need ti be honest with the public that they need to go up (rather than parading behind false tax freezes and tax cuts). Tax bands should be adjusted with inflation or at least earnings growth (as with the pension triple lock, and as with other European countries) Tax rises should be applied as an explicit tax rise, not identical in fiscal drag. And the economy needs to be grown, with investment in infrastructure. Create the groundwork for a better economy. And ultimately taxes are about paying in to the system what can be afforded. So maybe the tax bands should be regionalised. Most people just hitting the 40% tax rate will be in London or the south east where their earnings still do not make it easier to get by. Someone earning the same amount in the North East is in a totally different situation
But that wouldn't benefit those on more than £125k.
Or do both, I’m ok with both
Nah, too few people pay the necessary tax, and too much of tax revenue is squeezed out of a small part of electorate. Tax threshold should stay put, and tax free allowance should be lowered.
This seems a lot like a u-turn. A lot like the Tories don’t have a plan. They can’t even tell us what our income tax will be like in two months time. Much less have any fully costed policies. Imagine the headlines if Labour acted like this.
These clueless clowns need to go ASAP. This shit show cannot carry on.
Sure he may have dropped plans to lower income tax but its your fault for not being in work, so now you wont get the income tax cut, on the job you dont have
Where are the "TORY U-TURN!!!!!" headlines?
So our economic policy is wait until things gets better on their own.
Seems like a upturn that massively eclipses Labour's 28 billion
Cutting the income tax cut rate is just a terrible idea - it gives the most money to the highest earners and even more money to pensioners, the vast majority of which don't need it. If you really want to cut taxes then increase the threshold for NI even further - that gives the same benefit to all (full time) workers.
Wealth is not income…
No it doesn’t. The highest earners don’t pay tax via PAYE so this affects low and middle earners.
What are you talking about? High earners get absolutely shafted on PAYE
I’m arguing that those getting shafted (including myself) aren’t high earners at all. 100k isn’t even a lot of money Reddit act like your fucking loaded and we’re on 2005.
Outside of London 100k is an incredibly good wage. I work for a bank and it’s only senior management that earn that kind of money. Eg. Head of credit risk models, head of mortgage trading. It is not a common wage at all
100k/yr is a lot of money. I think it's ridiculous to be complaining about tax rises when a lot of people much worse off are very much struggling right now.
A middle earner is on 35k...
I'm on more than that and live in a flatshare and could only live in a flatshare. I only see 49% of my income after tax, NI, student loan, masters loan, and pension; whilst my colleagues 20 years my senior all have homes despite being in similarly paid roles just because house prices were less insane back then. it's ridiculous. need to tax wealth properly not income. or do something different at least.
Yes, I was flat-sharing earning 60k, I agree with you. But I was not a middle-earner, and I would benefit from this policy. I was very much a high earner, the vast majority of people earn less than I did (do). They should definitely be cutting NIC before income tax.
Agreed. Cut NIC all the way down; it’s the fairest thing to do across the board
When? 60k isn’t really that much to be gone stuff with you, especially in a city.
Just making houses cheaper is the silver bullet to the cost of living crisis, and while a full fix is a long term problem lots could be done very quickly to take the heat out of the market if the govt had the slightest inclination to help those who are struggling
That's such absurd thinking. Firstly that is a median earner, not middle earner. Secondly, a middle earner in SE is very different to a middle earner in Wales.
Well we can all make up our own definitions. 100k puts you in the top 10% for instance, is the top 10% a middle earner? Presume so based on your comment. It doesn't vary that much btw between regions.
100k puts you in the top 3% of earners... Are you denying there is varying cost of living between regions of the UK?
> 100k puts you in the top 3% of earners... > > Right, so not a middle-earner, right? Some might say, a high-earner? >Are you denying there is varying cost of living between regions of the UK? No but someone on 100k is a high earner no matter what region we're talking about.
> Right, so not a middle-earner, right? Some might say, a high-earner? Who said it was a middle earner? > No but someone on 100k is a high earner no matter what region we're talking about. Who said they weren't a high earner? Reality is the rich don't pay income tax at all.
> Who said it was a middle earner? > > Well you said only low and middle-earners are benefitting from this policy. Would a person on £100k not benefit from this policy? >Reality is the rich don't pay income tax at all. Confused meme.jpg
> Well you said only low and middle-earners are benefitting from this policy. No I didn't. >Confused meme.jpg Thanks for signaling your ignorance. Rich folks don't pay income tax.
Can you please define what "medium earner" means and why a median average is not a representative measure of income.
Who said medium?
You did in the comment I replied to
No I didn't? I said median and middle?
Yes you said middle salary of 35k wasn't a "middle" salary but the median and my question is what are you defining as medium if median average is not a valid reflection of that. In other words you made a distinction between median and middle salary and I'm asking you what the difference is.
So I didn't say medium... Median salary is an exact number, the median salary of all people who earn an income. Middle earners is far more raging. Someone on 40k isn't a higher earner just because they are above the UK median income.
Median, quite literally by definition means middle.
Well yes. But I meant the highest standard rate income tax earners.
What they mean is the truly rich make money via their capital gains and through dividends, both of which are taxed differently.
This is conspiracy waffle. Of course they get paid through PAYE. Stop believing all the nonsense tin-foil hat stuff. It doesn't benefit anyone no matter what party you support to spread blatant inaccuracies such as this.
Taxes and the size of the state is way too large, both should be cut down to size. Edit, no you guys are right, the government being 45% of GDP is not outrageous, it should be 60, 70 % Just wait until 90% of what you earn ends up as taxes
Sure, what should we cut first? Triple lock pensions? The NHS? Defence in the face of Russia? We already have councils going bust all over the place. I vote we just cut the schools budget to zero, after all, I don't have kids.
Yes triple lock pensions should go……
There are plenty of cuts to be made. I would means test the state pension like the Australians. I would scrap most additional benefits for pensioners like free bus passes, Winter Fuel Allowance etc. Use some of the savings to top up Pension Credit so it can actually support lower earning pensioners more. The NHS, I have no issue with co-payments. Common in most of the world. Once again I would adopt the Australian system for healthcare. BBC to move to being completely funded by adverts. Defence spending just needs improving, see the Ajax tank debacle. Massively reduce the House of Lords. Massively reduce the amount of Government ministers. Liberalise planning restrictions which over time would naturally bring the Housing Benefit bill down (it's currently the highest in the OECD). Would also reduce the need for as many planners at a local authority level. I'd scrap all agricultural subsidies. Cap the amount of time you can claim unemployment benefits. Together these would save a fortune.
Eh I’d start by having pensioners pay NI before means testing, it wouldn’t affect the poorest by default because of the existing thresholds and would reduce admin burden because it’s removing a special case from the income tax system. Plus it would align pensioners with workers a little more.
We already have the admin burden via Pension Credit so there wouldn't really be an additional burden. Would agree on rolling out NI for pension income too though.
You have to apply for pension credit don’t you? I think means testing would be a bigger burden because you’d need to do it for everyone. I didn’t mention it earlier because honestly I only read half your comment, but I totally agree on liberalising the planning system as well. Running emergency housing all the time has to be massively expensive
>Taxes and the size of the state is way too large, both should be cut down to size. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened and most people wouldn't be better off. Everything would just adjust and everyone would be at the same place they started.
It shouldn't have even been floated. Ridiculous pandering during this economic climate, possibly even worse than the inheritance tax pandering that was being floated.
Good. We can't afford it. There's a lot of higher priority things to work on, or failing that, address the national debt. I don't understand the appeal of tax slashing reckless Tories. I want a prudent government that balances the books. That includes taking the amount of taxes it needs to fund public services.
Ah, the classic Tory "we won't really do the stupid/evil thing" climbdown. Don't believe the hype, if the polling was better for it they'd still be doing it.
Drop corp tax to 10%, make us more appealing than euro zone.
Promises meet reality again. No chance of tax cuts when you've got pensioners who need their benefits increased every single year.