UK Community Charge (Poll Tax) WI

[Pete U]

First post after lurking, inspired by a discussion elsewhere.

When the Community Charge (Poll Tax) was introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1989 (in Scotland), one of the issues was that the minimum anyone paid was 20% of the charge, even if on very low income (i.e students, unemployed, pensioners, low wage earners).

The results of this policy are often credited with being a major factor in the downfall of Margaret Thatcher.

So, WI the Community Charge was levied on a stepped scale, based on ability to pay, that went all the way down to 0% for those on the lowest income.

Does that a) slow the decline in Maggie's popularity so that no effort is made to unseat her before the 1992 election, and if so what is the result?

b) change the result of the leadership challenge, and she wins, but carries on to 1992 as a wounded PM

c) butterfly the Poll Tax Riots away?

 

[V-J]

I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing here; the whole point of the Poll Tax is that it wasn't, at least for the vast majority, income-based. What you seem to be angling towards is a local income tax, which the Poll Tax was pointedly designed not to be.

Even if there was more nuance to it at the lower end, I don't really see it making that much difference. It wasn't really the effect on people at the lower end, who would have already voted Labour, that cut into the Tories' popularity - it was the people in work, with families, who suddenly felt the impact. There was an ideological objection to it on the left, as it disproportionately hit people in Labour-run areas which had a greater burden of services, which lead to things like the riots, but what sank Thatcher was the way lower and middle earners were cut into.

 

[Pete U]

I was a student in Scotland at the time, and one of the biggest issues was that the minimum you had to pay was 20% of the charge, regardless of income. So, if the CC remained the same in principle, but went down to 0% for those on lowest/ no incomes, a (fairly) significant proportion of the opposition would go. The whole 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' thing was pretty big at the time.

So, lessened protests with a full rebate, is that enough for Maggie to survive in power until the end of the parliament?

My thought is that taking out the students and unemployed from the equation may mean the protests are more 'civilised' and therefore the riots don't happen.

While there is still disquiet in working/middle class households, it doesn't manifest itself in the same way, until the 1992 election campaign

 

[NCW]

Can Pay, Don't want to Pay

I was a student in Scotland at the time, and one of the biggest issues was that the minimum you had to pay was 20% of the charge, regardless of income. So, if the CC remained the same in principle, but went down to 0% for those on lowest/ no incomes, a (fairly) significant proportion of the opposition would go. The whole 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' thing was pretty big at the time.

So, lessened protests with a full rebate, is that enough for Maggie to survive in power until the end of the parliament?

My thought is that taking out the students and unemployed from the equation may mean the protests are more 'civilised' and therefore the riots don't happen.

While there is still disquiet in working/middle class households, it doesn't manifest itself in the same way, until the 1992 election campaign

As V-J said, what really hurt Maggie was the reaction of many middle class families. A large number of middle-income (and genrally Tory-supporting) people thought that they would pay less under the council tax system but actually ended up paying more. Putting the lower limit at 0% means that those middle-income earners are going to have to pay even more than in OTL to make up the difference. So while the 0% minimum charge would help low earners (who generally weren't going to vote Tory anyway), it would increase the anger of Middle England, who were the backbone of Tory support.

Another factor is that many low-income earners removed themselves from the electoral roll in order to avoid paying the poll tax. On the whole, that benefitted the Tories. With a 0% lower limit, those voters will remain and boost the electoral support for Labour.

So, strange as it may seem, the 0% lower limit would have damaged Maggie even more than OTL's 20% limit. We might not have seen the same sort of Poll Tax riots as in OTL, but the decline in her popularity would have been faster.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Pete U]

Ok, so I'll scratch that as a POD. It's interesting to realise just how much your personal circumstances dictate your memory of events..