A few days ago, Channel 4 put on a docudrama called ‘When Boris met Dave,’ or something like that. The main thrust of the piece was to show the two characters in contrast, and endeavour to shape the narrative of their future rivalry through their mutual past. Dave was, therefore, easy-going, politics coming naturally to him, while Boris was more deeply driven and ultimately frustrated by how hard he had to work to get there. The reality, however, might disabuse us of this assertion, but there we are.
It, therefore, seems that Boris’s attack on the 50p tax rate in the Telegraph, ‘We should worry that Tracey Emin, Hugh Osmond and Michael Caine are fleeing the 50p tax rate,’ might have been a proverbial raising of the fingers to Dave and his leadership, from the maverick, and ultimately right, Boris, who should really be the next PM and not merely a provincial Mayor.
I am not so sure that they work in this way, although the article can be seen as a swipe at Cameron’s decision to not immediately repeal the 50p rate. But let us not forget, Cameron has said he wants it gone, but just not yet (ever the politician).
Although Boris does not specifically call for a change in Conservative policy, one must assume that he would like it gone sooner rather than later. And in this, he is right; high taxes destroy enterprise. The tax is little more than an envy tax from economic illiterates who care more about shoring up their hardcore support than serving the best interests of the country (could we ever believe different?).
That it will not raise significant amounts of money (if any) should be reason enough to get rid of the rate, but the overriding reason why this tax rate is idiotic, is because we, paradoxically, need low tax rates to bridge the budget deficit. We need people to be happy paying tax, which means they must be lower, and we need entrepreneurs to be incentivized and to stay here to drive the economic growth we need to fund the deficit. Just as recession reduces the tax take, so growth increases it. If we do not have serious growth in the next few years, we will never get the public finances back on an even keel.
Economics aside, it might just be that Boris has identified the true needs of the electorate. Cameron has taken the view that he must not rock the boat, he must avoid upsetting people who might vote against him and so secure office through damage limitation. However, the example of his friend and No. 2, George Osborne, should be noted. The dramatic change in Conservative fortunes almost to the day coincided with his bold declaration that inheritance tax would be reduced.
The electorate are in dire need of a politician who says what he believes and says it with conviction, even if that upsets a portion of the voters. In short, they need and want proper leadership. Perhaps Boris understands this, and is showing that he has the conviction to lead the country better than his ‘rival.’ Then again, perhaps he is merely showing Cameron, his friend and colleague, the way, as a generous team player, and we are not, in fact, seeing a variation on the abysmal feud between the two most destructive politicians of this century so far, Blair and Brown.
On what other policies should they show leadership? The EU? Immigration? Welfare State? Education? Unfortunately, the Conservative only seem to be grasping the educational nettle, the other areas remaining leadership free zones. This is why support remains lukewarm for the conservatives. Why, oh why, do they not try putting forward a genuinely conservative manifesto? They might be pleasantly surprised at how well they do.