1. 1. Although they have a massive majority in parliament, Labour received only 34% of the votes in the 2024 election. Given the low turnout, this means that only about 25% of those entitled to vote supported them, (and many of those will have given their support for what Labour isn’t – the disgraced Conservative party - than what it is. Thus our government lacks the confidence of the electorate, and this may explain why it seems to lack confidence in itself.
2. 2. A succession of minor “indiscretions” were revealed soon after Labour took office - from freebies for suits and designer spectacles to a failure to pay the appropriate tax on a property purchase.* These were relatively minor compared to the excesses of such as Boris Johnson and Lady Mone, but helped to confirm the more cyclical members of the already disillusioned electorate in their view that “They’re all at it; in it for themselves; all the same." So “No change there then.”
3. 3. Although the party promised “change” they are effectively continuing the policies of the past, based on the transparent fallacy that the UK can enjoy Scandinavian levels of public realm and services without funding them properly – that is, with adequate levels of taxation. Thus we are experiencing “the mixture as before,” albeit probably more honestly, though not as to date more efficiently.
4. 4. The government (and Sir Keir Starmer in particular?) seems “tin eared” and have clearly not sufficiently thought through the consequences and likely reaction to some of their policies (eg the abrupt cut in Pensioners’ Winter Fuel allowance without a “taper” for the second level of those most struggling; inheritance tax on land to catch tax-evaders without an “active farmer” clause or “grandfather clause;" the appearance of partiality towards the government of Israel whilst using a parliamentary procedural artifice to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group; meeting Reform’s anti-immigration rhetoric half-way by expressing fears of our becoming an “island of strangers.”
5. 5. There is also an alarming list of things that a Labour Government is simply not expected to do: continuance of the vindictive “two child” benefit cap; reductions to disabled people’s allowances; further cuts to the Overseas Aid budget; deliberately making life more difficult for immigrants (not least the overseas students who contribute so splendidly to our university coffers and international reputation.)
6. 6. The government is constrained by the “no increases in key taxes” promise they felt necessary to win the election. They have, however, allowed at least two opportunities to abandon the promise to pass: – the £20bm black hole the “discovered” in the public finances, and the virtual withdrawal of the US from guaranteeing the defence of Europe. Either or both could have been used to justify a change of policy.
7. 7. The Labour Government has to realise that the overwhelming majority of the media is against them and will exploit every error (as it has done very successfully so far), that rich resources, some of them foreign-owned, are being used to facilitate this, and if they muddle along in the current fashion for the next four years things are going to get worse rather than better. A dramatic change is needed (and a change of Prime Minister will be far from sufficient.)
8. 8. Almost exactly a year ago (4th November, 2024) this blog, under the title The Vision Thing, commented that, given its low level of support, the Labour Party could have honestly recognised the situation and offered the Liberal Democrats, Greens and such nationalists as were interested, membership of a Coalition which would have had majority support. These could, together, (preferably over two parliamentary terms) tackled the root and branch reforms which our country desperately need, probably after taking guidance from a series of Citizen’s Assemblies to consider :
· Voting reform
· Parliamentary reform
· Devolution to the nations, regions and localities
· Fair and effective taxation
· The housing market
· The media
· A realistic defence commitment
· Company law
· A constitution
· Our place in the modern world.
We’ve already wasted a year.
P.S. (added 30th October) And now, overnight, revelations about Rachel Reeves's lack of a license to let her property. Are they all completely gormloss?
membership of a Coalition which would have had majority support
ReplyDeleteI've told you before: you simply can't say something that wasn't put before the electorate, like a coalition cobbled together after the results come out, would have had 'majority support'. Voters don't work like that. You absolutely can't take my vote for party X as evidence that I would support any coalition in which party X is a member.
For example, in 2010 the Conservatives got 31% of the vote, and the Liberal Democrats got 23%. But if the resulting coalition government had been put to the electorate as a possible government before the vote, would 54% have voted for it? No, they most certainly would not. Likely it would have got less than 50% of the vote.
But in actual fact it got zero per cent, because no one voted for it, because it was not on the ballot paper.
However I'm mostly interested in the following:
A constitution
Given that we already have a constitution, I assume this means a written constitution. But I've been thinking about this, and it's simply impossible. For instance, what mechanism do you think could be used to enact such a constitution? The only means to enact a written constitution that we have in this country is an Act of Parliament: Parliament would have to pass a Constitution Act, which said that the constitution was X and Y and Z and so on, and presumably that it could only be amended with a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum, or some such.
But the thing is that no Parliament can bind its successors. So even if the next Parliament were to pass a Constitution Act along those lines, there's nothing to stop the next government from — with a simple majority vote in Parliament — passing a Constitution (Amendment) Act to either remove the two-third majority requirement, or simply to make whatever change they wanted anyway.
Indeed, there'd be nothing to stop any future government passing a Constitution (Repeal) Act and simply repealing the Constitution Act entirely — again, only a simple majority vote in Parliament would be required.
Indeed, we already have an example of how Parliaments can't bind their successors constitutionally with the awful Fixed Term Parliaments Act. That required a two-thirds majority of Parliament to vote for a premature dissolution. Mrs May sought and got such a vote to hold the election in 2017. But in 2019, the required supermajority was not there, so Mr Johnson's government passed — by a simple majority — the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019.
And then the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was finally repealed entirely (hooray!) by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
Such would be the inevitable fate of any Constitution Act.
On a written constitution I agree with you that it would not be the prefect defence against autocracy, as the current situation in the US demonstrates. However, we have to try. The "good chaps theory of government," which assumed that politicians would act like "gentlemen," have a sense of honour, behave decently, and respect the conventions, received the final nail in its coffin with Boris Johnson. One specialist commentator (I forget which) says that "the constitution is now what the government says it is" and believes this to be dangerous. However, I think we should try to put "best practice" in writing, especially entrenching as far as possible the rights of each individual, of parliament, the devolved administrations and local government
DeleteOn a written constitution I agree with you that it would not be the prefect defence against autocracy, as the current situation in the US demonstrates. However, we have to try.
DeleteDo we? Why?
I think the best defence against autocracy is the guarantee that whatever awful things a government (like this one) does, the next government can reverse them all. We would be far more vulnerable to autocracy if a bad government could change the constitution in ways that couldn't be easily reversed when the electorate gets tired of them and votes in the other lot.
One specialist commentator (I forget which) says that "the constitution is now what the government says it is" and believes this to be dangerous.
Well they can't have been that much of a specialist commentator if they think that is 'now' what the constitution is. The constitution has been 'what the government says it is' since 1689, when Parliament deposed a monarch and established that it was the supreme power in the land.
However, I think we should try to put "best practice" in writing, especially entrenching as far as possible the rights of each individual, of parliament, the devolved administrations and local government
That's another issue: any attempt to write a constitution would be massively divisive. I'm pretty sure that any constitution that was acceptable to you, I would hate, and vice versa. Reform UK are currently polling at 39% and the Greens at 18%. How could you possibly write a constitution that both of those groups would agree should be the basis of our polity? It's not just legally impossible, it's politically impossible.
To take one example, a written constitution would have to spell out once and for all, in detail (because you can't be vague in a constitution) exactly who was a citizen and what they were entitled to. There is zero chance of being able to write any such definition in a way that would command even a bare majority support amongst the electorate. I doubt you could even, at the moment, write one that would get 30% support.
And, again, it's unnecessary. Or constitution's malleability is our defence against tyranny. I hate what the Labour government is doing; but sooner or later they will be voted out, and the next government can reverse it all. The next government maybe a Reform UK one led by Nigel Farage (wouldn't be my first choice, but it is looking possible if not likely). You'd probably hate everything that government does. But sooner or later they will be voted out, and then the government after them can reverse everything they did that you didn't like.
That is our defence against autocracy, and it's the best, indeed the only, defence. A written constitution is impossible and unnecessary, so long as each new government can scrap everything done by all its predecessors.
based on the transparent fallacy that the UK can enjoy Scandinavian levels of public realm and services without funding them properly – that is, with adequate levels of taxation.
ReplyDeleteIt’s certainly true that we are in the terrible straits we are in large part due to no politicians — of either party — being honest that we simply cannot afford for the state to nanny everyone from cradle to grave, and therefore we must all reduce or expectations of what the state will provide for us back to more reasonable levels than we have become accustomed to of late.
I read someone point out that the problem is that the usual cycle was that Labour would overspend and ruin the economy, the Conservatives would get in and fix things, and so then when Labour got in they would have an economy in good shape that they would proceed to ruin by overspending, and so the cycle would repeat again.
Certainly it fits the seventies, eighties, nineties and two-thousands.
The problem this time is that the Conservatives never managed to get spending under control. Spending just kept going up and up and up all the years from 2010 to 2024 from the already-far-too-high levels Gordon Brown had left.
As a result Labour comes in and, as is its instinct, wants to go on a drunken spending spree — but there’s no money to do it with.
As you well know the UK "tax take" is about average for the size and type of economy we are. We can well afford to increase it in order to repair the damage to the public real after years of neglect (and not just under the Tories.) For most of my working life I paid income tax at around 33% and can't remember being particularity worried about it. It certainly didn't make me work any les hard or conscientiously. What we do need to do is try to switch the emphasis away from eared to unearned income, especially to that which arises from the ownership of land.
ReplyDeleteAs you well know the UK "tax take" is about average for the size and type of economy we are.
DeleteI do know that; and as you well know, that average is way way too high. That's why all the other comparable economies are stuck in the same zero-growth, zero-productivity trap that we are. The countries which are getting richer are the ones which have below-average tax takes. Therefore that is the group we should be trying to get into.
We can well afford to increase it in order to repair the damage to the public real after years of neglect (and not just under the Tories.)
Well, we can't, but the great thing is we don't need to! We could easily afford to repair 'the damage to the public realm' at current tax rates, or even at lower tax rates, if we could just slash the biggest component of public spending: welfare.
The welfare state — a noble idea — was meant to provide a minimum safety net to save those who, through no fault of their own, fell on hard times, from destitution.
But it has turned into a guarantee that the state will provide for everyone a minimally comfortable life.
That is not just financially unaffordable, but would have rightly been seen by those who set up the welfare state as immoral. One of the 'five giants' that Mr Beveridge wanted his welfare state to slay was 'idleness'. It would have appalled him, surely, to see that what he suggested had turned into a system which actively supports the idle.
Anyway. Cut welfare spending by half or more, by returning it to what it was originally meant to be, and we can easily rebuild the public realm and probably cut taxes as well.
For most of my working life I paid income tax at around 33% and can't remember being particularity worried about it.
And as I keep saying, anyone who has that attitude should send voluntary donations to HRMC. The treasury would be happy to have them. You should not try to force those of us who disagree to pay too.
What we do need to do is try to switch the emphasis away from eared to unearned income, especially to that which arises from the ownership of land.
The problem with that is that 'unearned income' usually means investment income, and investment means risk, and we need, in order to growth the economy and all get better off, to encourage people to takes risks. But why would anyone bother to take a risk if the government would take a greater share of the upside, should they make a lot of money? Why would you quit your job to start a company making a new product that might improve al our lives if (like all new companies) there's a 90% chance you fail and lose money, and even in the 1% chance that you hit it big and make billions, the government will take a huge chunk of it?
To be fair to you though, taxes on land are probably one of the least-harmful ways of taxing unearned income, as land generally isn't where risk creates wealth. However I doubt you could generate enough revenue to drop taxes on earned income significantly simply by replacing them with land taxes; you would have to tax capital gains as well, and then you're into discouraging people form taking risks and that is death for the economy.