The spring statement

 

Spring Statement

 

When Herbert Morrison, deputy leader of the Labour Party during the Attlee Post War government (and grandfather of Peter Mandelson) was asked to define socialism he loftily replied “Socialism is What a Labour Government Does."

 It is hard to apply that description to the actions of the present government which could better be described as "Toryism continued," and not even all that “lite.”

 Given the present run down condition of just about every public service you can think of, and not least the prison service, it is absolute madness  for this rich country to be talking about even further cuts in public expenditure.  More expenditure is needed in almost every area.

 Nor is it in the least bit  humane, honourable or In any sense socially acceptable   to fund the additional arms expenditure now thought to be necessary on the back of the world’s poor (overseas aid) or our domestic disabled citizens.

To be fair, the government is hemmed in by four  problems:

 1.  The press is largely hostile  to Labour, and will rubbish whatever they do, even if that damages Britain (so much for patriotism.)

2.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is female and mocked as "Rachel from accounts"  (No one ever talked of Jim (Callaghan) or Denis (Healy) from accounts, still less Sir Stafford!)

3. She is hamstrung  in raising the extra money  because:

a)  The Liz Truss legacy makes it likely  that extra borrowing would make British government debt look dodgy and raise interest rates.

b)  Labour promised in its manifesto not to increase the major revenue raisers (income tax, NICs and VAT).

c)  Labour's pollsters think that reverting to "tax and spend" will ruin their electoral chances.

4. Labour lacks confidence, and rightly so, because it knows that it lacks robust support from the public.  Only a third of those who voted supported it, which, given the low turnout, represented barely a quarter of those entitled to vote, and many of those voted not FOR labour, but AGAINST the Tories (ABC: Anyone But Conservative).

 Nevertheless I believe Labour’s wisest course is to be bold and take the “tax and spend” alternative

 There was a letter in Saturday's Guardian (23^rd March)from a  Prof Helen Goodman (a former Treasury official) which listed some of the taxes Labour could raise without breaking its election pledge, viz:

·       raise capital gains tax to the same rate as income tax (£14bn);

·       reduce tax relief on pension to the standard rate( £13bn);

·       remove loopholes for City lawyers' partnerships (£8bn);

·       tax internet giants (presumably Amazon et al) to stop unfair competition with high street traders;

·       bring council tax up to date.

 The Liberal Democrat options  appear to be to tax the big banks, the social media giants and the online gambling companies.

 Any combination of the above, or further picks from the  list  of  the founder of the Tax Justice Network Richard Murphy, would suffice to repair the public realm and play our part in the proper defence of Europe in the immediate future

The long run  we need a full scale reform our out taxation system, which should include a long-overdue Liberal favourite of a Land Tax (It is easy to move wealth overseas and thus avoid taxation, but land tends to stay where it is.)

 Naturally the hostile press would scream blue murder but the necessary revenues would still leave our tax take no higher than the average of the other large European economies.

And it’s four years to the next election.  If  by then the public realm is seen to be in spanking condition, with hospital waiting lists down, special needs children and elderly pensioners properly cared for, young people able to buy or rent a genuinely  affordable home, the BBC World Service proclaim truth  and decency throughout  the planet, criminals  being re-habilitated, the potholes filled, cheap renewable energy  on tap,  etc. etc  . . . . the list is  endless. . . . then the confected indignation of a few non-domiciled media moguls on behalf of the rich would by then be forgotten.

 The alternative, of a continued dreary downward trudge towards further mediocrity could so easily result in the return power of a lying and deceitful combination of right-wing Tories combined with Reform.

Loving our neighbours

 

On the topic of social security for disabled people my starting point is that I’m jolly grateful I was born and have remained relatively normal in both body and mind.  That’s not to say that I wouldn’t have liked a better body (better hand, foot and eye co-ordination  to make a better fist of cricket and football) and a better mind (I’ve never been very good at spelling, and acknowledge that I’m probably better at explaining other people’s ideas than having original ones myself) but I’ve managed to qualify for and hold down a job which I thoroughly enjoyed and always managed to pay my way.

That is true of the overwhelming majority of people in the UK .

So why on earth is a Labour Government – A LABOUR GOVERNMENT – seeking to balance its books by cutting the help for disabled people rather than raising  the taxes of we comfortable  so that those less fortunate  can be enabled to live as decent a life as their disabilities allow?

Surely, after eighteen hundred years of Judaeo-Christian teaching, topped up in recent years by Hindus (“dana “ and “seva”) Sikhism  (Vnda Chhakna) and Islam (alms giving) that should be a no-brainer.

To argue that we abled bodied and minded in our society can’t afford it is nonsense.    The latest figure I can find, (for 2002) states that our national income per head is £37 371.  If that were shared out equally every family of four would be receiving just coppers short of £160 000 a year.

 Of course it isn’t shared out equally, and I’m not suggesting it should be:  I’m simply using the figure to demonstrate that we are a very rich society indeed and can well afford to look after those members of our society who, for one reason or another, can’t live comfortably without help from the rest of us.

Labour should show some courage, grasp the nettle and do what it was elected to do (along with restoring the overseas aid budget, removing the two child limit, and sticking to net-zero and its green agenda). 

Instead they seem to be as desperate as the Tories to make sure that no-one at the bottom of the pile cheats  the system and gets something for nothing.  I believe this fear to be without foundation.

 Years ago I heard a Humanist on the radio argue that everyone of us has three “wants.”  These are

·     ""to know that at least someone cares what happens to us (usually a spouse, a parent or child, or maybe just a friend);

·       to be able to feel that someone else has benefitted from our having lived;  

·       and to pay our way."

No one actually wants to be a scrounger. 

OK maybe the odd one slips through (and we all have our pride, so maybe some people boast of living off the system as that seems be the only way to survive, so they pretend it’s a choice, but they would much prefer the alternative.)

Labour has argued, with every justification, that the country cannot be turned round in just one parliament.  This will be even more likely if they waste this first term. The should stop looking back over their shoulders, implement the policies for which they were elected and sow the seeds for  an even more  progressive second term.