FactCheck: tax and by-elections

The analysis

The first part of the claim is true: as the government admitted when introducing last week's emergency tax cut, around 20 per cent of the 10p tax losers will only get at least half of their lost cash back.

Today, respected independent thinktank the IFS published its analysis of the 10p tax-related changes, which said that 0.9.million families are still worse off than they were pre-April.

But the second part of the claim is part-IFS, part-Cameron. The IFS also said 18 million families would be left worse off unless the compensation measures - "one-off" income tax changes and an increased winter fuel allowance for pensioners - are extended.

Whether that will come to pass has yet to be seen - Brown deflected Cameron's questions on the issue today.

Source
IFS: 18 million families set to lose if 'one-off' giveaways not extended

The analysis

Sort of. According to the IFS's Green Budget, Labour's tax and benefit reforms since 1997 "have increased the incomes of the poorest tenth of the population by 12.4 per cent (£1,300 a year) and reduced those at the top by 5.5 per cent (£4,200 a year) on average".

That said, not all of the poorest have gained equally. Labour's efforts have focused particularly on families with children, and pensioners. Some groups such as young single people, or childless couples, have done less well.

There are counter-arguments to be made: under one of the most common measures of inequality, the Gini coefficient, the gap between richest and poorest has widened under Labour.

It's a complicated area, and one that FactCheck will be watching closely when the latest poverty figures are released this summer.

Source
IFS: Green Budget 2008

The analysis

What exactly is this advice to which Brown's referring? Cameron made a big speech on his tax plans this week, where he talked about his desire for "low taxes for the long term, not tax cut promises for the short term". But it's not this which Brown quotes today.

Instead, the PM's paraphrases parts of an article the Conservative leader wrote back in April 2002, when he was a backbench MP. FactCheck examined the article, which Cameron later tried to dismiss as a "sketch", in detail last month.

In the piece, Cameron calls for a simpler tax system, ending by saying: "I long for a chancellor who stands up and introduces a Budget which abolishes all of Brown's endless reliefs and credits - and uses the money to cut tax rates at the same time."

Cameron does indeed note that then-chancellor Brown could have set one tax band - "somewhere around 20 per cent". But as the scrapping of the 10p starting rate of tax showed, simplification isn't always going to be the best thing for the poorest, many of whom have been helped substantially be Labour's tax credit system.

On more of an aspiring Robin Hood note, Cameron does also suggest the government could have "massively lifted tax thresholds to take millions of the poorest people out of tax altogether".

Either way, it's debateable how much weight should be put on to an article Cameron penned six years ago.

Sources
Taxing Times - David Cameron, Guardian Unlimited, Thursday April 18 2002
FactCheck: Cameron's tax cut 'sketches'

The analysis

Should have gone with your first answer (or rather question), Cameron. It's a relatively minor point, but one worth clarifying given the ongoing 10p tax rumbles.

Scrapping the rate originally left 5.3 million of the poorest families worse off, but that's a family in the tax credit sense of the word: an adult, their partner or spouse and any dependent children.

So a "family" may just be one person - in fact around half of those affected fall into this category. There may also be more than one family living in a household - parents with a grown-up child, for example, or adult siblings sharing a home.

We have to stick to this slightly bureaucratic terminology for reasons of accuracy, however. It's not possible, the IFS reckons, to say exactly how many individuals lose out - some halves of a couple may end up better off, but overall they'd end up worse off.

The analysis

Or how much weight should be put on to an article an ex-PM penned a decade ago, perhaps. The Crewe and Nantwich looms tomorrow - and the Conservatives challenge Brown again on why he isn't out on the campaign trail.

But what about his predecessors? Tony Blair decided to break with convention and become the first PM to risk the embarrassment of losing and actively campaign in a by-election since, it seems, Alec Douglas-Home (Tory premier from 1963-64).

Cameron today quotes Blair's opening salvo from an article for The Mirror on 24 July 1997, a week before the Uxbridge by-election. And how did Blair's doorstep-bashing go down?

The Labour candidate, Andy Slaughter, was quoted on the campaign trail as saying Tony Blair's visit had changed the mood. "It raised the profile of the campaign," he said. "It won't make a jot of difference to parliament but the result will make a difference to the people of Uxbridge."

But Labour failed to wrestle control of the seat from the Tories, and Blair didn't repeat the tactic.

The analysis

Do the staggering stats reflect more domestic violence taking place, or rather an increase in its reporting? It's the latter, down to better advice and support services and support for domestic violence, according to the PM today.

The British Crime Survey, which asks people about their experiences of crime, doesn't show this dramatic increase, and so backs him up - although the low conviction rate is another matter entirely.

A full report on the figures, which were uncovered by More 4 News in March, can be found here.

Your view

You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.

Email news@channel4.com

FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.

Share this article

Send this article to a friend »

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?