This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/10/theresa-may-tax-climbdown-brexit-backbenchers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Theresa May’s tax climbdown shows her weakness Theresa May’s tax climbdown shows her weakness
(about 3 hours later)
One minute you are monarch of all you survey, the next minute it all goes wobbly. Theresa May’s climbdown yesterday on Philip Hammond’s tax plans was humiliating. Overnight, £2b in tax revenue vanished from the finance bill and evaporated into “consultation” and “further review”. The reason was equally humiliating: 18 Tory backbenchers had only to murmur their “concern” and May backed down. Eighteen is one more than her working majority. One minute you are monarch of all you survey, the next minute it all goes wobbly. Theresa May’s climbdown yesterday on Philip Hammond’s tax plans was humiliating. Overnight, £2bn in tax revenue vanished from the finance bill and evaporated into “consultation” and “further review”. The reason was equally humiliating: 18 Tory backbenchers had only to murmur their “concern” and May backed down. Eighteen is one more than her working majority.
This argument is not over the tax change itself. The increase in national insurance for self-employed workers is, in the view of most experts, reasonable and fair. The institute of fiscal studies said so, as did the government’s review of employment practices. The prime minister agreed, reiterating that the way self-employed people can use companies to avoid taxes paid by the majority was a loophole, and unfair. With the explosion of the “gig economy”, it was also “eroding the tax base”. The intention now is to review the comparison between employed and self-employed benefits, and to make the change more defensible. This argument is not over the tax change itself. The increase in national insurance for self-employed workers is, in the view of most experts, reasonable and fair. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said so, as did the government’s review of employment practices. The prime minister agreed, reiterating that the way self-employed people can use companies to avoid taxes paid by the majority was a loophole, and unfair. With the explosion of the “gig economy”, it was also “eroding the tax base”. The intention now is to review the comparison between employed and self-employed benefits, and to make the change more defensible.
So what went wrong? The answer is politics. The Tory party had promised “not to raise taxes” in its manifesto. Parties promise lots of thing in manifestos that do not happen. May and Hammond protested that the tax rise was actually “technical”, and covered by subsequent legislation. But their backbenchers said, pull the other one. The rise will cost 1.6m people an average of £240 a year. So what went wrong? The answer is politics. The Tory party had promised “not to raise taxes” in its manifesto. Parties promise lots of thing in manifestos that do not happen. May and Hammond protested that the tax rise was actually “technical”, and covered by subsequent legislation. Pull the other one, their backbenchers said. The rise will cost 1.6 million people an average of £240 a year.
The reality is that no prime minister can steer the ship of state through rocky waters without a full complement of crew. Any party will have a couple of dozen natural rebels, and May’s majority is too small for her whips to feel secure. Thatcher might have seen this squall out with a few harsh words, but May is no Thatcher. She is cautious, and easily swayed by lobbying and pressure. She is about to enter Brexit negotiations, and has shown herself vulnerable to murmuring backbenchers and howling front pages. The reality is that no prime minister can steer the ship of state through rocky waters without a full complement of crew. Any party will have a couple of dozen natural rebels, and May’s majority is too small for her whips to feel secure. Margaret Thatcher might have seen this squall out with a few harsh words, but May is no Thatcher. She is cautious, and easily swayed by lobbying and pressure. She is about to enter Brexit negotiations, and has shown herself vulnerable to murmuring backbenchers and howling front pages.
No wonder voices of temptation are whispering in May’s ear. You have Brexit ahead, they say. You have a cargo of hardened remainers below decks, banging on the woodwork. You have a double-figure lead in the polls. The opposition is in disarray. There has not been a better time to hold a general election in living memory. Nor with Brexit ahead has there been a better reason for doing so. Stop pussy-footing. Get on with it. Go to the polls. No wonder voices of temptation are whispering in May’s ear. You have Brexit ahead, they say. You have a cargo of hardened remainers below decks, banging on the woodwork. You have a double-figure lead in the polls. The opposition is in disarray. There has not been a better time to hold a general election in living memory. Nor, with Brexit ahead, has there been a better reason for doing so. Stop pussy-footing. Get on with it. Go to the polls.
What price an autumn election?What price an autumn election?