Governments should absolutely be challenged over taxation. But shouldn't the same journalistic standards apply whichever government is collecting it?Roll back to 17 November 2022.
Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced that Income Tax, National Insurance and Inheritance Tax thresholds would remain frozen for another two years, extending them to April 2028.
It sounds innocuous. It wasn't.
Freezing income-tax thresholds while wages rise creates “fiscal drag”. Workers pay tax on more of their earnings and millions can be pulled into tax, or into higher tax bands, without the headline income-tax rates changing. And the financial consequences were enormous.
By November 2023, while the Conservatives remained in government, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the personal-tax threshold freezes and reductions introduced between 2021 and 2022 would raise £42.9 BILLION in 2027/28 alone, compared with uprating thresholds with inflation.
The OBR estimated nearly four million additional people would pay income tax, three million more would enter the higher rate and another 400,000 the additional rate.
Yet where was today's “TAX BOMBSHELL” treatment? This isn't an argument against scrutinising Labour.
*It is an argument for scrutinising EVERY GOVERNMENT BY THE SAME STANDARD*
The Conservatives' 2019 manifesto promised not to raise the rate of Income Tax, VAT or National Insurance. The subsequent threshold freeze preserved those headline rates while progressively increasing tax receipts through fiscal drag.
Parliament did approve the legislation implementing those freezes, another important fact that should be stated accurately.
AND THEN LABOUR DID IT TOO
Labour subsequently extended the freeze for another three years to April 2031. That deserves scrutiny too.
Media organisations even produced calculators showing workers how much the continuing freeze could personally cost them. Sky News and the BBC, for example, invited readers to calculate “how much more you will pay” following Rachel Reeves's three-year extension. Fair enough you might think.
But where was the equivalent public-facing perspective showing taxpayers what the existing Conservative freeze to 2028 was already costing them up until then - NO!
That is the media question. Why would the publicly funded BBC not inform the public that fund them - The public have seen how 'forensic' their journalists can be over the last 2 years since Labour came to power. The same can be said for all printed and digital media, the same can be said for ALL TV News channels.
*WHY ARE THEY NOT ANSWERING - COULD MULTI-BILLIONAIRE OWNERSHIP OF MEDIA BE WHY*
If substantially the same tax mechanism is presented as fiscal necessity under one government but a “TAX BOMBSHELL” under another, citizens are not receiving a politically neutral perspective.
They are receiving different versions of reality.
GB2GB isn't asking the BBC and media to protect Labour. We're asking it to stop protecting ANY government through selective context, prominence or language - OR EXPLAIN WHY?.
Democracy depends upon citizens judging governments from comparable facts. Same tax mechanism. Same scrutiny. Same standards.
GB2GB original analysis | Research & drafting assisted by AI
Evidence note: Factual claims and figures in this article were independently checked against available primary or authoritative sources before publication. If subsequent evidence establishes an error, GB2GB will correct the published record transparently. When will the BBC and ALL Media do the same?