I asked the question that heads this post in The National yesterday, starting by noting that:
IN the 1960s the US writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin said “I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do.” His message was simple. He was saying that what people said about their attitude towards racism did not matter; it is what they did that counts. I think we should apply that lesson to Rachel Reeves, and her approach to tax abuse.
I concluded, having appraised the evidence, suggesting that:
So, to go back to James Baldwin and his instruction that we should not believe what someone says, but that we should look at what they do, is it really the case that Rachael Reeves is serious about tackling tax abuse?
Or has she, by choosing advisors on this issue people who appear remarkably poorly qualified for the task given their previous occupations or comments, sent out the very clear message that she might have filled the hole in her spreadsheet for the time being but that she has no real intention of tackling tax abuse in the UK?
I will watch what she does, but I am not optimistic. Labour seems to be in the habit of making policy claims that do not stack, and this looks like another one of them.
As is the case with so much that Labour is doing, nothing seems to add up on Reeves' new policy. I wish it were otherwise.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
As I have previously noted: politics as performance art.
LINO not “rocking the boat”, “safe pair of hands”, “part of the establishment” (oh look we have appointed some of them), “steady as she goes”.
The upper middles and upper uppers not spooked, lefties (includes you lot reading this – which is how LINO sees you) noses tweaked.
Machine politics at its best (worst?) – putting the interests of those with 1st…………. and the interests of those without – last.
Absent an electoral upset, things will remain the same.
The drastic cuts in staffing at HMRC, down to about 2/3 of what they were seems pretty unarguable to me along with the cuts to local tax offices. Both suggesting a loss in tax revenues, but both points consistently missed by commentators and interviewers. Put those together with the ‘return per tax head’ which you’ve highlighted and there’s solid business case. I guess Labour are scared stiff of anything that suggests more tax.
I think you are right on the last point
It isn’t oxygen that the Starmer Party is sucking out of the room on behalf of the establishment it’s fairness! This is a recipe for trouble!