The Times is reporting this morning that:
Rachel Reeves is weighing up plans to offer income tax or national insurance cuts in Labour's general election manifesto to show that the party is on the side of “opportunity and aspiration”.
They add:
The shadow chancellor is facing pressure from frontbenchers to make a “retail” offer on tax to voters who are struggling with the cost of living crisis.
They then note:
Reeves believes that tax cuts offered by Labour must be “bombproof” and should not put the party's fiscal credibility — which she views as integral to an election win — at risk. Labour's offer will also be contingent on the Conservative Party's tax.
I was scheduled to discuss this on Times Radio this morning, but Hamas is apparently taking the headlines, so let me look at the issues this raises here instead.
The first is the glaringly obvious point that this is speculation, not fact.
The second is that, the speculative nature of this having been noted, the key issue is that this is clearly well-sourced, and very obviously from the Labour front bench, if not from Reeves herself. The article makes that clear.
Third, I should add that I suggested that something like this might happen in my predictions for the year only days ago.
Then, let me note the much more significant political and economic consequences of this.
Firstly, this suggestion does, of course, make clear that the election campaign is underway.
Second, what the suggestion also makes clear is that this campaign will be base and dirty, with money-grubbing for votes at its core.
Third, then let me add that this makes clear just where Labour really is, and shatters almost all the claims it has made about itself and this campaign to date.
For example, its claim that it cannot comment on specific policy options because it has not seen the government's books is shattered by this suggestion, especially when put alongside its claim that it will raise no taxes and balance the government's books.
Together, what those messages make clear - when we already know from the November Office for Budget Responsibility report that this combination can only be possible with dramatic spending cuts - what the Labour policy promise really is: it is the end of public services as we know them.
And what that means is that Labour will abandon the NHS, schools, social care, the justice system, public investment and any chance of tackling climate change, all for the quick fix of offering tax cuts because the Labour leadership is so desperate to be in power that everything will be sacrificed to their personal goal of getting their hands on ministerial office.
The economics of even thinking about tax cuts whilst promising no tax rises on the wealthy and balanced budgets is not 'bomb-proof' economic thinking. It is straight from the economic madhouse, otherwise known as Tufton Street. Frankly, Liz Truss was no worse than this. That is how bad things are if this is what Labour is proposing.
A few days ago, the Guardian reported retiring Labour MP Jon Cruddas as saying:
[Starmer's] approach to economics does not appear to be grounded in any specific theoretical understanding of inequality, material justice and welfare distribution. Despite a successful career as a human rights lawyer, as Labour leader Starmer [also] appears disinterested in questions of liberty and freedom.
I think Jon Cruddas was overly generous. Starmer is interested in one thing, and one thing only, and that is power that blocks anyone on even the very moderate left from securing it. Nothing else matters to him.
My suggestion is that as yet he has never even asked himself about what he will do with power when he gets it, which I can suggest because as Cruddas notes, there is no suggestion that he has done so.
And so UK politics sinks ever further into the grubby more created by the far right - willingly assisted by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves - who are now doing all they can to out-Tory the Tories. They really are that desperate.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
‘Opportunity and aspiration’ is a code for self-interest and at its worst, greed.
Slaying the enemy this time called ‘taxation’ once again – total Fascism at work.
How long before our our politicians tell us that they have slain death itself in order to get into power?
Pathetic.
The cult of Individualism makes it all “OK” to be selfish. It is, after all “All about me”.
Thatcher sowed the seeds and we are reaping the consequences. While she is still venerated by a Labour (YES, LABOUR) leader there is little hope.
New Labour = New Tory
Reduced public services = Predatory capitalism
When there is so much that needs doing – rebuilding public services, tackling climate change, upgrading housing and infrastructure, investing in the economy – increased tax revenue needs to be a part of the funding package. Richard has shown some options.
None of the opposition parties have the courage to tell the voters. I can understand why, but it makes their promises to tackle our problems completely empty.
..”When there is so much that needs doing”……….which relies on a strong growing economy to generate sustainable profits, jobs & £ tax revenues. All politicians talk about ‘growing’ the economy but none of them specify how they will actually do it !
Starmer, it seems believes that Britain is Conservative, no matter what. Therefore, the only way to win an election is dress the Conservative wolf in the clothing of a Labour sheep. Reeves, it seems spent too long inculcating dogmatic neoliberalism in the empty vaults of the BoE.
There was actually a very revealing clip on Times Radio recently where Peter Mandelson went on about how Rebecca Long-Bailey, or any other leftwing leader, would’ve killed Labour electorally and so it’s good that Kier tricked people to gain his position.
His ideology is clearly left = bad.
Tax is suffocating and the tax take is at an all time high.. i support tax cuts as will the vast majority of the electorate.
There is no evidence to support that claim
People want functioning public services a great deal more
Iain
1). Who is being taxed too much? Which section of society because those at the bottom pay more as a percentage of their wealth as tax than those at the top?
2). What is your view on VAT which the Tories have expanded and increased since being in power? Do you think such blanket taxes are fair?
3). What are your views on the rampant exploitation of public services by rentiers/’investors’ and poor regulation by your government that has led to poorer services and increased prices?
4). What are your views about how your government – since 2010 – has encouraged this country to be low wage economy in order compete with economies abroad and has proactively reduced wages in sectors under its own control?
5). What are your views on the current Government for whom it is clear that the tax ‘take’ is just a mechanism to build up a cushion to bribe voters with tax cuts at the next election, and the claw it all back again afterwards when the voters have been used?
6) What are your views on BREXIT which has disrupted our economy and exacerbated all the above?
And why do we call it the ‘tax take’?
Have you considered what tax ‘gives’ (well, if we had a decent government keeping its side of the bargain unless that is something – like much else it seems – that you have not considered?).
Now, lets see some responses Iain or kindly go on your way to whatever Tory utopia you think exists, huh?
They seem to be happy to box themselves in further and further by ruling out any way to release or produce resources for the NHS and other public services.
Yet they still sort of say they are going to get waiting lists down etc,-
Their economics dont add up even in their own terms – but their lack of political instinct/courage ( ortheir explicit conservatism) stops them even trying to engage with all the economic ideas out there , showing how they could produce resources and invest in public services
Regarding labour and the NHS, this is scary.
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/01/01/exclusive-streeting-uses-nhs-privatisation-announcement-to-tout-idf-linked-health-firm/
Could this have anything to do with private healthcare companies paying Streeting £193,000 in “donations”?
Yvette Cooper has £295,000 and Starmer £197,000. All this is less than what the Tories have received.
Should not be allowed.
Source
This is how much Labour and Tory MPs get from private health firms, June 2023
https://www.thenational.scot/news/uk-news/23568478.much-labour-tory-mps-get-private-health-firms/
Where the NHS is concerned, what baffles me is how they think they can get more from what is a very finite total pool of skilled resource. To which the private sector contributes precisely nil. Shifting work to the private sector means shifting resources. Further reducing NHS capacity. The private sector offers faster response by having lower utilisation and hence shorter queues. It also leaves the tricky, multiple morbidity, time consuming stuff to the NHS. So overall it seems to me that it reduces health capacity whilst increasing cost.
No – the NHS was working very well before the Tories and austerity. It was not perfect but investing in that model properly is the way to go. But then Roy Lilley, a good observer of the NHS, refers to him as SillyBoy Streeting.
And now I find that a key local hospital Frimley Park, with an excellent reputation is going to have to be totally rebuilt because is made of RAAC concrete.
Agree with your comments
Streeting is an idiot told he’s very bright and given a prestigious brief thanks to his connections. He knows nothing but Westminister consensus and Consultants advice. Such as the not-so-secret Westminister consensus that the NHS model has failed and needs to be further privatised to be fixed. I’m sure the donations are unrelated to him wanting to hold the door open for rentiers to leech off of the NHS…
I do not disagree with the overall trajectory of this blog.
But I am puzzled by this reality: “the loyal opposition” is miles & miles ahead of the tories in all polls.
but as noted:
“who are now doing all they can to out-Tory the Tories”
Which begs the question – why? why out-tory the tories when you are miles ahead in the polls?
There is summat funny going on & I don’t mean “ha-ha”.
Agreed
Which was sort of what I was getting at in my (heretical) post reflecting on what Starmer’s Labour might be getting right. Or at least doing what appeals to voters – in opinion polls anyway. Just not being the Tories is a big part of it of course but it’s more than that. Acknowledging some positives makes it easier to push back on the serious negatives. Of which there are a few…
I get that they are setting expectations very low, and maybe – just maybe – they will be more ambitious in practice. However, if they stick to Reeves’ desperately orthodox economic policies, people are going to be very disappointed indeed. We’ll be swopping one form of austerity for another.
It appears the populist right wing Reform Party is going to outflank the Conservatives. The leader, Richard Tyce has called for the income tax threshold to be raised to £20k, presumably just to cause real consternation in the Red Wall seats (a sort of upside-down, Northern Liz Truss strategy). Reform can do this because there is really no downside for them. The Conservatives are probably more scared of Reform than Labour. They may survive losing an election to Labour; but losing it because Reform took sufficient votes to cause the Conservative Party to lose a General Election, perhaps by a wider margin than even they expect? It couldn’t happen to a nicer Party.
On PM R4 programme Richard Tice head of ultra right wing Reform UK argued for not paying interest on previously created QEmoney to commercial banks! What an earth is going on in British politics? All other parties – seem to reject any such thing. Do you have to welcome such support Richard?
That’s support I could do without
When the Governing Party is in disarray, and the principal Opposition is too cowardly to take a stand for genuine reform of a discredited politics; somebody will exploit the vacuum. The Reform Party has nothing to lose.
Mr Warren – I agree – I have argued for some time that there is a political vacuum & that it would be filled by a populist with populist policies.
Tice is ghastly, but compared to the ciphers leading “the loyal opposition” he actually starts to look human & as another poster noted – what’s not to like about not paying interest on money given by the BoE to banks?
My prediction is that Tice & co will pick up some tory seats – perhaps enough to stand on equal footing with the tories in a new HoC. Lib-Dems could well end up larger than Tories (in numbers of seats). Which leaves the party-in-waiting for gov. If it does what it says then “buyers regret” will kick in very very quickly. Tice & co will provide simplistic solutions (to often complex problems) & as many contributors to this blog have noted, the Uk will take another step in the direction of fascism. Civil disturbance – following buyers regret? possibly.
Just heard someone from Reform UK on the Radio 4 news programme at around 17:40 today talking about how they would stop paying the interest on the balances in the BoE saying it would save £30-£40 billion a year. Not sure if the amounts are correct, and it’s a shame to hear it coming from a right wing populist party such as Reform UK, but the important thing is that the message is getting through and it’s being aired on Radio 4 prime time. Now if only Labour would prick their ears up and take heed…
The figure is right.
I calculated it, but not for them.
They do say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but there must be a risk that this (excellent) proposal becomes discrdited by being associated with that lot.
Re: what we can expect for the NHS under Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting’s rule go here:
https://lowdownnhs.info/analysis/labour-will-not-turn-on-the-spending-tap/
The NHS Support Federation and John Lister’s research and reporting is to Health what yours is to Political Economy. Long and loud may you both be heard
Thanks
It’s going to be an interesting year this year as far as the NHS is concerned.
Once the general election has been confirmed and the candidates named, weownit is going to ask every one of us to ask all parties and candidates if they will support the NHS as a fully funded health service.
https://weownit.org.uk/act-now/starmer-reinstate-the-nhs-fully-public-service
First campaign meeting tomorrow.
Thing is it’s hard to get elected by saying you will increase taxes , so both parties say they won’t , then probably will once they are in for a bit. Most ordinary people ( and I guess most who post on here are not the man on the Clapham omnibus ) just want a sensible government who will provide good public services and have a steady hand on the nations tiller. Most of us don’t subscribe to the left or the right , just a bit of good old common sense. I’m afraid that in government and the public sector that is sadly lacking.
UK public top 5 concerns: 1) cost of living crisis, 2) NHS, 3) climate change, 4) illegal immigration, 5) Russian invasion of Ukraine
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/more-in-common-issues-tracker-april-2023/
That’s well out of date and before the present Gaza conflict started in October. Why do they call it a tracker when it doesn’t?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/356825096968505/
Weownit’s campaign for the NHS, for anyone on Facebook.
They have also started a Whatsapp group.
There’s a good debate on what Labour is/is not up to on the latest Politics Weekly with John Harris.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/politics-weekly-uk/id136697472
Thanks
It’s out of date, Robin.
Sorry, but what is out of date? I cannot see what is being referred to here.
The politics weekly podcast happened last August. Lots of things have changed in the labour party since then.
But as John Harris said, the substance has not
@Richard – you know me well so take this as it reads.
As someone who hasn’t been political for 50 years I became sufficiently concerned with what I saw that I joined the Labour Party and am now a branch secretary. The theory is that it’s better to be inside the tent pissing out than the other way around.
What I can say is that what you see in the public domain is pretty much all there is to see. Some of ‘us’ are asking the exact same questions many here, including your good self. Answers are thin on the ground and some of our leaders are borderline idiots, promoted well beyond their capabilities beyond those required to get elected. Trust me – I’ve met a handful.
What I have said many times is: 1 – Party comms are shambolic and whoever is in charge needs firing. Witness the Starmer/Gaza fiasco which IS affecting wards and constituencies. 2 – Labour needs experts and not the Big 4. It needs the expertise of those who have been IN the care/NHS systems. 3 – the Party’s understanding of tech is appallingly poor and misguided. I could give some embarassing examples. 4 – Reeves is backing herself into a corner that will almost certainly torpedo her aspirations. In short, Labour needs to get REAL experts who know WTAF they’re doing or risk a one term meltdown with Reform charging through the middle in 2028-29.
Den
Thank you
Your comments echo those I hear elsewhere – and the confusion many CLPs feel
Go well
Richard
PS I presume you know you may well be expelled for this?
We shall see…
So you are on the inside now, and only allowed to see what they let you see. Some of us have been on the inside for decades and did not like what we saw and have got out. Who are the bigger fools?
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/12/17/leading-hastings-councillors-quit-labour-and-form-independent-group/
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/12/09/former-east-worthing-and-shoreham-labour-candidate-quits-party/
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/12/31/2023-a-year-of-stagnation/
Once labourhub.org.uk started the labour party itself called itself Labour Hub. They are scared.
Labour Hub isn’t the Party and I get to see what I need to in order to undertake my duties as branch sec. When I need more then I have ways to get stuff done. Are they good ways? I don’t think they’re as efficient as they could be and as a former tech person I can see ways the system could be modernised but right now I need to focus on helping to get the Tories out.
Do you not care about the number of people who have been blocked from being members of the party, Dennis?
@jenW – you’re skewing the conversation in a direction of your choosing about matters on which I have scant knowledge. I’m not minded to fall into those traps. My focus is on helping our local candidates get elected and ensuring I have messages in which I believe can be taken to voters.
We shall see but there are plenty of activists champing at the bit supporting some excellent candidates for local and constituency elections. What we need is solid content which is lacking.
Good luck, Den.
Do you support this, Dennis?
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/01/05/exclusive-how-the-poplar-and-limehouse-trigger-ballot-was-rigged-against-apsana-begum/
Did you know this had happened ?
Once again you’re attempting to draw me into matters over which I have little knowledge beyond what has been reported.
What I can say is that I was at Conference in 2023, I supported PSC and we have been showing a Palestinian flag in our front room window since Oct 9th. No one from the Party has levelled any criticism at me as they would get a swift lesson in the history of Palestine they would not enjoy listening to and reminding of Labour’s historical problems of positioning re: international affairs. In the alternative, I have had plenty of good conversations with those who support Palestine and from I have added to my understanding ding of their issues. I can also say that we have a good few South Asian heritage Muslims in our immediate family and are well informed on matters affecting Muslim Labour Party members and the wider Muslim community in our area. That knowledge helps me explain topics to local Labour members who don’t have those same connections. I would argue that is a good example of benefitting from being in the inside.
Thanks Den