Daily Archives: March 19, 2012

By Andrew Hill

I’m getting fed up with the UK coalition government’s ritual invocation of Victorian values or visions whenever it wishes to urge a put-upon populace to new heights.

In David Cameron’s latest speech, the prime minister calls on the spirits of Brunel, Telford and Stephenson, to inspire new infrastructure investment in the UK, from nuclear energy to new towns. He accompanies nostalgia for the Victorian era with the inevitable negative comparison with other nations’ superior efforts: the French, Dutch and Swiss have cheaper, less crowded railways than the British; the South Koreans have faster broadband; the Indians have newer nuclear power stations; and the Chinese have bigger airports.

In his speech on Monday, Mr Cameron blamed a failure by governments to break down “vested interests and bureaucratic hurdles” to progress:

 

Kiran Stacey

The Lib Dems have made raising the personal tax allowance (what you can get paid without paying income tax) one of their flagship policies. So when George Osborne says at the Budget in two days’ time that he will raise that allowance beyond inflation, it should be a major victory for the junior coalition party.

It is interesting therefore, to take note of a piece of research published today by CentreForum, a think tank with close ties to the Lib Dems, showing that raising the tax threshold* to £10,000 (the eventual aim), would not be especially progressive. It fares especially badly when compared to an alternative proposal, to lift tax credits instead, which would cost the same amount of money.

The think tank produced the following table detailing who benefits from either move, which paints the difference in stark terms: