The shadow chancellor, [John McDonnell], said Labour would review the complex system of tax reliefs, which businesses and wealthy individuals could use to reduce their payments to HM Revenue and Customs. “Tax reliefs have grown into an unmanageable thicket of different schemes and wheezes. This tangle is estimated to cost the taxpayer at least £110bn a year. Labour thinks it's time for a pruning.”
It would appear that comments by Jolyon Maugham and me have been noted.
Next the task is to get the government to notice, but if the Opposition does it helps.
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!
There are lots of ways at looking at last night’s vote to drop bombs in Syria – especially if one takes a dialectic approach.
For me therefore, it polarised what is happening in the Labour Party at the moment so I wonder what will happen when the leadership line on tax policy is revealed and which neo-libs in the PLP will not support it and side with ‘the markets’.
Yes- at some point the Labour party has to sunder over these issues, Syria is one step towards this process. Eventually the heterodox economics has to be explicit and the separation from neo-liberalism much clearer.
This reminds me of George Lansbury who briefly headed a ‘rump’ Labour Party of about 50 M.P’s as Ramsay McDonald joined a National Government. In some ways we now have a one party system. Baldwin thanked Lansbury for maintaining democracy by maintaining an opposition-quite different from our present P.M. who has shamed himself, his office and the population.
Interesting insight
There’s an even better reason for citing the Lansbury parallel, which is contained here:
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/labours-panicky-establishment-referencing-the-wrong-period-in-history
It was eschewing the madness of the 1931 version of TINA and “no Plan B” that enabled Labour to “come back from the dead” in 1935, by nothing up 100 gains, and that laid the foundations for Labour’s 1945 victory, which would probably have occurred in 1940, except for the War.
Note also the extraordinary fact that George Lansbury – so like Jeremy Corbyn in his sincerity, attachment to peace and refusal to let his status as Leader of the Opposition go to his head, as he never moved from the East End constituency of which he was MP – was only replaced by Atlee in October 1935 – a scant MONTH before the November election of that year that saw Labour capture an extra 100 seats.
As the article makes clear, this improvement came about as a result of the coherent and principled opposition to rge National Government’s economic nonsense – exactly the sort of increasingly coherent, and certainly principled, opposition to, and dissection of, the kindergarten policies of Osbornomics.
Final point, the gentle pacifist Lansbury was replaced by the apparently innocuous and modest Mr Atlee, only ONE month before polling, and STILL Labour triumphed.
I can’t help feeling that the same result will not apply, if Labour dumps Corbyn and replaces him with the “business as usual” Hilary Benn, who is clearly aiming to get to the top of the greasy pole. For the lessons of 1935 DO apply – it is principled and coherent opposition to the nonsense of Osbornomics that will reap dividends: those, like the other leadership contenders, who opt for “business as usual” will sink without trace, as did Ed Milliband for failing truly to oppose Osbornomics.
great points Andrew- Benn was clearly positioning himself as his speech had the quality of a ham-actor-it was utterly atrocious and an example of how we have got used to cheap imitations rather than substance. What made Benn look even worse was his tokenistic and weak attempt to chide Cameron for shaming his office-Benn looked and felt like one of the Tories.
Andrew,
The one quote which stands out from that period is Sidney Webb’s response to the penny eventually and metaphorically dropping in Snowden’s head when he took Britain off the Gold Standard.
“No one told us we could do that?”
Which should be the epitath on the political gravestone of all those arrogant know nothings in the Labour Party who have swallowed the neo liberal austerity narrative whole in much the same way as their predecessors on that wing of the party did in the 1930’s.
Disappointing rhetoric from McDonnell. Deliberately insinuates that the entire £110 billion are “schemes and wheezes” when of course the vast majority are entirely reasonable and well thought out.
I really don’t know why he can’t isolate individual items to trigger serious debate, rather than make cheap political capital about £110 billion he can just find down the sofa because evil capitalists are up to their “schemes and wheezes”.
The cheap shot is to imply a review means an abolition of them all
Not at all – I’m just pointing out McDonnell’s obvious politics.
He could have said “tax reliefs are a sacrifice of £110 billion of revenue to the Exchequer. We propose to review which of these remain appropriate” Who could argue with that?
He didn’t though he went for:
“tax reliefs are a thicket of wheezes and scams. These cost the taxpayer £110 billion”
The difference is surely clear?
Only in the way you suggest to those wanting to be obtuse
Since it tends to be the bigger corporations, often international in nature who can afford tax advice and have subsidiaries which allows more creative accounting, then Labour should have no problem with selling this as “being fair” and levelling the playing field to allow smaller businesses to compete.
Fair tax’s for all.
“Fair tax for all” is quite a good line. An easy concept to grasp and put on posters.
Like Arthur Greenwood before him, Hilary Benn did “speak for England”. He exposed the disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical posturing on principles of the Corbynistas – accompanied by the ugly, bullying targeting of those who couldn’t stomach this posturing. The posturing on the economic front ranging from the cringe-inducing quoting of Chairman Mao (when even a half-competent politician would have totally skewered an arrogant but exposed Osborne) to the hapless responses to important policy issues as highlighted here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/nils-pratley-on-finance/2015/dec/02/socialist-firebrand-john-mcdonnell-pussycat-nils-pratley
suggests the game is very close to being up for the Corbynistas.
However, it is likely to be a long drawn-out bitter fight which will keep Labour out of power probably for longer than the 18 years between 1979 and 1997.
Odd how I see so much aggression, offered continually, by the right
Maybe it’s all a matter of perspective
And media capture (Pratley being an excellent case of misinformation)
A little more humility would become all sides
Corbyn has it, I know. I would hope his followers also take note, I would add
I wonder what Tony Benn would have said about all this?
And why there is so much focus on Corbyn vs Benn the Younger and not the awful stuff Cameron said about ‘terrorist sympathisers’ – obvious bullying going on here.
The huge cheer that greeted Benn’s speech was out of step with the sombreness of occasion and indicates to me more than ever that the PLP seem to be fully paid up members of the establishment – spoiling for a fight and blood lust.
The long game being played by Corbyn (perhaps?) is that those Labour MPs who voted with this nasty Government must now explain themselves to voters. Now this will be very interesting indeed. I do not know how it works but is it possible for constituents to deselect an MP for not representing their views?
It is possible to deselect – and has happened
It would create considerable stress in Labour but it is hard to see how it will not happen
The members want to partake in democracy, not cronyism
BUT in seats where it happens the party tends to do worse in subsequent elections
Ah Diddums! Did the nasty members upset the poor little Lord Fauntelroys?
“ugly, bullying targeting”
That line really is rich coming from the individuals who make up the entryist cult known, without an hint of irony, as ” Progress.” Funded as it is by people like Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
These hypocrits are openly plotting to get rid of a recently elected leader, elected via a process introduced at the behest of this section of the party, with the intention of excluding that elected leader from the ballot paper. And they, along with their useful idiot trolls, have the audacity to whinge like mardy five year olds about possible reselection. You cannot face both ways on this at the same time and expect to be taken seriously.
Cowards and hypocrits the lot of them. Including their trolls. The sense of entitlement from those who have never done a decent days work in their lives is staggering. Arrogant bullies who are simply projecting their own behaviour onto others.
As someone called Tony Benn observed, on more than occasion, the first question you ask of any representative is who elected you, how were you elected, and how do we remove you. If people cannot take it they are in no position to dish it out.
I admit this comment pushed me to the limits of what I will accept on the blog
I prefer more moderate language
Quite right Richard but the neo-liberal media will never give a platform to people like you to elucidate such concepts. What we need is democratic control of the media to ensure the population are appropriately educated in this regard. I firmly believe that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have the correct approach. We need a final solution for the neo-liberal problem, and your work is pointing in the right direction.
Of the £110 billion, about £33 billion relates to contributions to or returns of pension funds, £2.5 billion to ISAa, £13 billion to capital gains on principal private residences, £41 billion to VAT zero-rates, and £5 billion to the 5% VAT rate on domestic power.
Which of these should be abolished?
It is not up to me
But given a choice between curtrting benefits and any of them bar 5% VAT I would cut the tax relief
And so would anyone else cmpassion foir the human condition