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 (23rd 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.
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!)
ReplyDeletePhil Hammond was often mocked as 'Spreadsheet Phil', and Jeremy Hunt had his rather rude rhyming nickname. Rishi Sunak was 'Dishy Rishi' (I suppose you could claim that was complimentary, though it was also patronising) and even though Kwasi Kwarteng was barely in the job for five minutes he managed to get himself called 'Kami-Kwasi' (see https://www.politico.eu/article/humiliation-uk-kami-kwasi-kwarteng-chancellor-bank-england-halt-market-rout/).
Of the two you mention Callaghan of course did get the nickname 'Sunny Jim' for his ability to resolutely ignore the country's multiplying problems under his premiership, but that was after he was Chancellor, so does it count? Prime Ministerial nicknames are of course more numerous than ones for chancellors; Mrs Thatcher had too many to even list, and even Mr Starmer has already acquired a few. Healy was more known for bestowing nicknames than having one:
Denis Winston Healey, poet, photographer, highbrow thug, has called people a lot of names over the years. Thatcher: "Virago intacta", "la Pasionaria of privilege" or "That bloody woman". Hurd: "A tattered Talleyrand"; Howe: "a dead sheep". Even Prescott, he once said, had the face of a man "who clubs baby seals".
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/jun/19/features11.g21
tax internet giants (presumably Amazon et al) to stop unfair competition with high street traders
Sorry how are inter-net retail companies 'unfairly' competing with high street traders? Inter-net companies can offer lower prices to consumers because they have lower overheads (eg, they keep their stock in big warehouses rather than having to pay expensive storefront rents). Surely giving consumers better deals by having lower overheads is the very example of fair competition, and something we should be encouraging because it makes us all as consumers better off?
our tax take no higher than the average of the other large European economies
The other large European economies are all far too highly taxed, which is one of the reasons they are, like Britain, trapped in a zero-growth death spiral. We don't want to become more like them, we want to become less like them.
Thanks for the list of nick-names. To my mind "Rachel from accounts" is the most patronising though I may be wrong, i believe it is based on a TV sit-com with which I'm not familiar. Sunny Jim seems admiring and Kami-Kwazi the air of a "boy's Own Paper" hero..
ReplyDeleteYou have a point about the on-line retailers with low rateable value premises. The way to ensure they pay their share is via a turnover tax.
Other European countries with higher tax takes than ours seem to have better public services. Certainly France, the one in which I've worked, gave that impression.
You have a point about the on-line retailers with low rateable value premises. The way to ensure they pay their share is via a turnover tax.
DeleteWhat a ridiculous idea. You mean you think a company which takes £1,000,000,000 in revenue for costs of £,999,999,950 — making £50 profit — should pay more tax than one which takes £51,000,000 in revenue for £1,000,000 in costs, and therefore make £50 million profit?
That's economically insane. What is the low-margin company even supposed to pay the taxes with, given it makes hardly any profit? Would you really want a tax system which would turn an otherwise profitable company into a loss-making company? Crazy. Utterly crazy..
Other European countries with higher tax takes than ours seem to have better public services.
The way to judge a country is not on how good its public services are. That's like judging a company on how good its IT department is. A country does not exist in order to run public services.
(And on a purely practical level, France is about to go bust, and we'll see how good its public services are then.)
Delete