I couldn't quite believe this in the FT this morning:
One of the very few tax commitments Labour has made is that it will close the absurd tax loophole as a result of which private equity operators are taxed on their income as if it is a capital gain.
And now, even before the election, Labour is creating loopholes in its own plans.
Is anything Labour says of worth?
And are the wealthy the only people that really matter to Rachel Reeves? You would certainly think so when it was reported yesterday that she told bankers and big business that:
SHADOW chancellor Rachel Reeves has told business leaders their “fingerprints” are “all over” the Labour manifesto.
The top Labour politician told attendees of the meeting in the City of London on Monday morning, which included the heads of both the Lloyds Banking Group and Santander UK, that they had influenced the party's policy offering on the economy.
And then look at this from a Tweet she sent:
So, business first and then, maybe, an increase in employee wellbeing - without there being any known or specified transmission mechanism.
I despair.
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!
So we’re going to change our terrible UK business practices (low investment etc), but by giving businesses what they want?
A true ‘pro-business’ leader in the UK would be anti current business leadership. As they’d need to force a new way of working.
That Reeves is not going to do this means we’ll see no great improvements.
Interesting phrase:
make working people feel they are better off. Not, I note, make them better off, just make them feel that way. SMoke and mirrors. And why only working people? What about those who, for whatever reason, don’t work? Does it not matter how they feel?
Indeed. Perhaps they hope to get house prices shooting up, making homeowners feel better off, in the hope it will boost the economy.
Heaven forfend they actually help people.
And another interesting phrase. “Fingerprints all over.” This normally denotes criminality and guilt. Is Reeves admitting to collusion with the tax dodgers? Is she taunting us with her blatant contempt for social justice and equality?
Thank you and well said, Richard.
Santander is currently undergoing a remediation of its financial crime controls and may well have to pay more fines as scandals are unearthed.
Lloyd’s CEO was recruited from HSBC and is bringing in some of his former colleagues. They have an aggressive strategy, including more investment and international banking and laying off risk control staff as they are considered show stoppers.
One looks forward to a Labour government having to bail them out, even if secretly. Labour appears to have forgotten the lessons of the Blair and Brown regimes.
I work in the City and, if in government, would rarely go to City institutions for solutions for anything. The pair above would be far down the list.
This is reminiscent of the CUM-EX scandal in Germany – with the politicos prostrate and asking the erm… banks (the instigators) for help.
I’d also observe that the picture, Starmer/Reeves in front of workers, whilst talking about the ultra rich, whilst back tracking on tax pledges shows the total contempt of Tweedledum/Dummer for UK citizens.
Thank you, Mike.
The chancellor’s dealings with Warburgs is also a bit iffy.
HSBC’s record on money laundering controls is not great either…
I had a civil servant friend / ex City colleague stay last week. Before Labour’s latest u turn, she lamented that private equity talent, sic, will migrate and private equity would no longer invest, sic, here. I felt like dancing.
I know two people who work in the health services sector for companies that have recently been bought by private finance groups. Both companies are being driven into the ground by new management which has no concept of service or what made the businesses successful, and is only interested in maximising profit by minimising costs. Staff that used to be proud of what they did are rapidly getting fed up with being treated as numbers in a spreadsheet, and they are mostly seeking other employment. The companies’ reputations are nose-diving. The future is a few years of good return on the capital invested, followed by struggle as the investors move on leaving wreckage behind them.
If these were isolated incidents it would be sad but of no great significance. Unfortunately, they are merely examples of what happens again and again, and it is eating away at the core of our economy. Competent business owners are being seduced into selling up; their businesses are being stripped to the bone and discarded, the employees used and abused without remorse. We used to call it asset stripping, what happens now is even worse, it’s just less visible. Private finance is sociopathic evil.
Thank you, Kim.
I’m closely related to a government auditor and am aware of what you write arising from private equity owned GP practices and care intermediaries. Abuse and exploitation is rife. For example, investment firm intermediaries in care double, at least, what the fees should be and earn two thirds to three quarters of the pay out from government.
One Tory home county local authority has instructed its finance staff to pay invoices on demand and not to query anything.
They take the wealth out of welfare.
This tweet is just so Rachel Revees and Labour. They won’t make ‘working people’ better off, but they’ll make them feel better off. And – as a ‘working person’ I am just so fed up with Labour’s continuous talk of ‘working people’. It excludes half of our society and also treats ‘working people’ as one big blob.
You despair? I am incredulous. The real nature of the world is revealed as terminal for the human race, as greed remains the only motivation, camouflaged behind endless lies.
My wife last night, after reading the Labour leaflet, “I think honesty left the Labour Party with Mr Corbyn”. I reminded her of localists like Sultana, but don’t blame her for her view.
I’ll say it again, we need to stop people like Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting from winning their seats. It seems to be a forgone conclusion that Labour is going to win the election but we can try and stop these monsters from winning their seats.
Streeting’s Ilford North seat may not be as safe as he thinks.
https://themuslimvote.co.uk/who-should-i-vote-for/
You know Labour has to play the electioneering game and so cannot reveal their hand re probabke fiscal pathways.
Perhaps consider holding your frustrations until they’ve actually got the keys to no.10, had a budget etc.
If I have read your excellent tax document Richard, Reeves will have; Reform have actually included elements of it, so why won’t Labour?
Politely, that’s utterly crass. They are absolutely clear about their intentions for now and only failure will force them to change. These people are hardcore neoliberal right wingers. Why pretend otherwise? And do you always trust liars, which is what your claim suggests you do?
Morning Richard, not sure how you square crass with polite!!! However, I’m not an oversensitive soul.
Just to be clear, I’m not naive regarding the obvious derth of fiscal information due to electioneering and I’m certainly not narrow minded enough to see Labour’s plans through a narrow lens. What I am willing to do is wait, watch, then respond accordingly. What is crass with that?
If you can’t appraise the evidence before you now, what slills will you acquire by the time Starmer is in office, and how? The evidence now is, after all, overwhelming.
You are not a politician, you are not an economist, you are a tax expert and you look at a very complex political world through a very narrow lens; politicians have a lot more balls to juggle and most of them are not good at juggling.
I’ll not respond to the liar accusation btw.
Yes, it would be great if Reeves launched the new Labour world of MMT…but in the real world that’s not going to happen because Tory’s and others would rip them to shreds in the right-wing media; just look at political election history. As you and your readers know, the UK economy, what’s left of it, has unfortunately been propped up by neo-liberal free markets and that will take some time to transition away from if indeed that is the plan; but transition cannot happen until a political party with that vision is elected; that’s hopefully where we are. Yes, Reeves and co. have not shown any signs of modernisation, but can you see the headlines in the Mail, Telegraph etc if MMT was introduced to the electorate!! It would be the biggest own goal in politicking history and you know how difficult it is for the average Joe to even begin to grasp MMT principles.
In your response above, you carefully use ‘….their intentions for now….’, perhaps a safeguard you’ve factored in?
We all have our failings, and like most, you are not comfortable with those who don’t agree with you, quite evident in your peevish replies.
So Richard, what you do well is Tax analysis but in order to synergise that into the political world i would respectfully suggest you change to a wider angled lens….even a tiny bit.
Keep up the good work!
You start with some weird claims.
I am sufficiently a politician to be considered a politically exposed purpose for money laundering databases.
I was a professor of political economy for five years.
I think I am the only person in the world who has created their own accounting standard and seen it become the law in 70 countries.
I have been a visiting professor in sustainability.
And I do some tax, too.
But, according to you I see the world through a narrow lens.
How much wider a lens would you like me to have? Without using a fisheye I doubt I could take a much broader view.
As those the other side of the pond would say, your ‘priors’ look to be seriously wrong. We might call them assumptions.
No wonder your conclusions are so wide of the mark as well.
‘Feel’ better off…
From Order Order:
Rachel Reeves, on the other hand, actually had her official expenses credit card suspended in 2015 after ” failing to show spending was valid”. At the time IPSA suspended her expenses card, she owed over £4,000. Shadow education minister Toby Perkins also had his card suspended while owing almost £700.
Emily Thornberry was the Shadow Minister responsible for creating this dossier, asking 350+ written questions to force the information from the government. At around £150 per written question in time and administrative costs, she spent £52,500 asking about government waste. One of her questions was about a hotel stay by Rishi and his Treasury team in Venice – information already publicly available thanks to a 2022 Guido article. Wasting taxpayer money.
Do we remember the stink in parliament resisting calls for expense transparency? But some how we can trust then with everything else. I share your despair on all of them regardless of party devolved governments or not.
Afternoon Richard, hope the blood pressure is okay!
Accept your qualifications are of a sufficient level to analyse, comment, critique.
However, given those qualifications and yes your standing in fiscal debating quarters, (I often use your work as a reference to justify an opinion) it still comes back to, and supports, my point why you judge before the working evidence is available.
Do you agree Richard, that during their first term, Labour are LIKELY to announce other fiscal savings pathways that are LIKELY to be from some of the work you have uncovered?
Do you agree, that with the projected super-majority, Reeves will adopt MMT associated public spending announcements, in-line with Kelton/Mazucatto’s thinking? (I assume you are familiar with Mariana M.)
Finally Richard, it really doesn’t matter what qualifications we have, (just look at the privileged idiots who’ve been in power for 14yrs), it’s how we use them; no one is always right and a sound effective leader is a sound effective listener Richard.
Have a good day!
Of course they might change
They will have no choice if they want a second term
But Starmer has assembled a team who will have t9 eat massive humble pie to do so
He might cull the likes of Reeves (he would have to as she is the owner behind the existing policy) but will he really change much. Let’s agree on the fact we disagree – I think he has not given himself enough room and you think he has
a good compromise Richard, thanks for the conversation.
Andrew
If what you suggect may happen, actually happens. the Labour leaders will have shown themselves to be liars. I tend not to believe liars. If they are not liars then what you see is what you get. I don’t like what I see in the Labour party at the moment.
Why, for example, can they not criticise the current Israeli government behaviour in Gaza? Because they see nothing to criticise?
Why, for example, can they not criticise the Bank of England’s current interest rate policy? Because they see nothing to criticise?
Why, for example, did they come so close to banning Diane Abbot from standing as an MP when they have allowed others, of a different political opinion, to behave in a much worse way without censure?
Just a few little examples why many people do not need to wait until ‘the working evidence is available’. It is available now.
And if (heaven forfend) Labour get a huge majority, why should they change when they have massive support for what they are proposing now?
Andrew,
This is a new one for me! Vote Labour in on the basis of what they might do and not on what they say they would do! Wow!
Good evening Cyndy, thanks for the feedback and opinion.
I’ll respond in the order you’ve written.
1. They can only be found to be liars if they do something they have actually said they would not do and I agree the electorate will hold them to account should they do that. We have heard very specific, measured political electioneering language so far because history tells us the right-wing controlled press/media machine can very quickly turn the tide on any polling numbers; think 1992.
2. Gaza; the example is self evident with Starmer’s ham-fisted LBC interview just after the massacre; whatever way he chose to respond he was always going to ‘get-it’ in the neck, but I suspect the years of work he has done to rid the party of anti-Semitism played a significant part.
3. Agree completely re BoE comment…I personally hope the BoE is taken back under Govt control but can’t see it happening. Also remember Cyndy, he is not yet PM and so in opposition could always use it as a weapon to criticise the Govt; but yes he should have married the interest rate with peoples higher cost of living.
4. Dianne Abbot: the idiots on line have targeted DA since Corbyn was leader, they have history, she’s on the left of the party, what she said was clumsy but not wrong IMO; so I think it’s the negative legacy and association with Corbyn that’s at the root of a very poorly handled situation in order to protect themselves from social media. It failed.
5. Huge Majority: because the electorate (perhaps 60% of it) are more savvy of the lies and deceit over the past 14yrs and they will be held to account.
Appreciate your time.
thanks
Hi John,
Assumptions that I am voting Labour…..hmmm you could be wrong my friend. Where I live Labour are not in contention.
regards
Please do not patronise other people on here if you want to stay around for long
Richard, who the hell have I patronised?
Read the comment I responded too
It was patronising
You did it to me as well – falsely describing my experience
Is it your habit to behave in this way when arriving unannounced without giving a clue as to who you might be?
Good Morning Richard,
So the impasse has finally arrived my friend; a shame.
There was no intention in ‘falsely’ describing your skill-set, yes I hadn’t googled you (seems the modern way), because I respond to peoples opinions/language as i see it rather than putting them in a special ‘aren’t they clever’ box; a box you would be in btw.
I learnt many years ago, in both of my careers (25yrs Military then 14yrs NHS), that accepting an individuals skill-set because of their position is a weakness and that listening and responding accordingly provides a better balance.
You clearly have an impressive skill-set Richard and I have learnt a lot from reading the blogs/opinions by contributors thus far, however it is the autocratic tone with which you ‘control’ the blog that for me undermines and contradicts what should be a continuum of the democratic tenet you so much advocate.
So rather than being asked to leave, I will exit stage left (relief all round I’m sure) but will still hopefully be able to continue reading yours/others ideas but without contributing.
I bid you all well, good health and happiness and for a better Britain for our families going forward.
thanks.
You really are pompous
….and so say all of us and good riddance!
Thank you Richard for all your hard work.