'Not in my name'

Writing about the Chilcott inquiry last month, Jonathan Freedland gave this insightful analysis of the Iraq War:

Observers of the future will surely conclude that it was the Iraq war that broke the bond of trust between this government and the nation. True, Labour won the election of 2005, but it did so with a meagre 35.3% of the vote in a verdict that was more about the unelectability of the Tories than enthusiasm for Labour.

The damage extends far beyond one party. It was the widespread belief that Britons had been led falsely to war that planted the seeds of distrust which grew to full bloom in the expenses affair. After Iraq, voters believe the very worst about their ­politicians. There is no graver responsibility than sending men and women to face enemy fire: if our leaders can lie about that, they can surely lie about anything.

At the risk of implying somewhat simplistic cause and effect, I was reminded of this when I saw this graph in The Economist, reflecting on the latest British Social Attitudes survey:

Bearing in mind that the years along the bottom are when the survey was conducted, not published, it seems reasonably clear that something changed in the British political psyche in 2003. Was it the fact that Brown had just started to throw money around with real abandon, and that was 'enough'? Or was there something more profound about the interplay between fiscal policy and democracy, linked to what Freedland says above? The 18th century revolutionary slogan 'No taxation without representation' highlights the fact that when democracy breaks, so does fiscal possibility. Which makes me wonder if the 21st century protestors' slogan 'Not in my name' applies not only to neo-conservative wars, but to social democratic goods as well.

Comments

[Bruce Davis]

Or perhaps this is when a weakened Blair gave way to Brown's grip on the treasury and we shifted from the politics of opportunity to the politics of envy once more. I am pretty sure that those answering the survey were not voting to increase their own taxes, personally speaking, but rather 're-distribution' of the cake overall (wasn't the term 'stealth tax' invented about this time?). Would it be more interesting if the question was directed at the individual rather than the general?

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1333366645]

Will, I think the fact that taxation has largely been increased for those on middle and low incomes rather than across the board has played a big role in people's attitudes to taxation.

And Bruce - "Blair gave way to Brown's grip on the treasury and we shifted from the politics of opportunity to the politics of envy once more."

WTF?

Stealth tax as a term has been used since 1999 when Labour shifted from the Tory spending plans it had committed to retain to its own, which involved increases in spending.

[Bruce Davis]

I stand corrected - wish I could say it was a mispent youth of drink and drugs which left the millenium hazy - more likely to have been toddler induced sleep deprivation.

My recollection of 2003 - observing people and their money was that was when tax became a more visible component amongst the two groups you mention (more in terms of council tax - which is visible due to its position as a Direct debit on a bank statement rather than relatively invisible and in code on your pay slip.

Whether it is a causal relationship or just a correlation - I have seen visibility have big effects where customers can 'compare a meerkat' and get out of Dodge when things get "visible" as a cost i.e. energy - perhaps the loss of trust affected the cloak of invisibility on the stealth tactics?