Connect with us

Politics

It’s hard to fill a budget black hole if you’ve ruled out raising income tax | William Keegan

Published

on

It saddens those of us who waited so long to see the back of the last lot that the new government has been so inept in its first 100 days. And it is particularly distressing that, while one hopes one’s criticisms are constructive and made with the best of intentions, the Starmer government has been such easy meat for the rightwing press.

It was the economist James Ball who used to say: beware of the OBE. He was not referring to the Order of the British Empire: those initials stood for One Big Explanation. For Keir Starmer, and Rachel Reeves, the one big explanation for their troubles is “the inheritance” – far worse than they expected.

The pressing preoccupation of recent comment on the economy has been “how will they deal with it?”, with so much – perhaps too much – weight being placed on the importance of Wednesday’s budget.

But the inheritance is not the only explanation of their problems. Thanks to her manifesto commitments, Chancellor Reeves has approached this overhyped budget with one hand tied behind her back.

Advertisement

We need some historical background here. The fact of the matter is that Labour entered the campaign still recovering from the memory of the lost election of 1992.

As I have said before, that loss was a real shock: the day before the vote, the bookmakers at Ascot were offering 6-1 against the Tories. To my mind, Labour lost on account of the brilliant campaign run by the then Tory party chair, Chris (now Lord) Patten. He may have lost his own seat in Bath, but he helped John Major to win the election with his astute propaganda about Labour’s “tax bombshell” – much repeated by the predominantly Tory press.

What Labour’s shadow chancellor, John Smith, was trying to do was promise some socially desirable increases in public spending, but assuring the electorate that these would be financed by increases in taxation – a difference of approach from the short-lived Liz Truss-Kwasi Kwarteng budget of 2022, where there was no attempt to prove that their plans were financeable.

My strong impression is that Starmer and Reeves are haunted by the folk memory of the 1992 experience – even though they were nowhere near the political scene at the time – and, more recently, by the reaction of the financial markets to the Truss-Kwarteng fiasco.

Advertisement

A sensible response to this would have been to enter this year’s election campaign with a manifesto that emphasised the scale of the problems they expected to inherit if they won, but which did not commit them to a specific plans for taxation. Instead they rashly, indeed stupidly, promised not to increase the principal rates of taxation on the three taxes which between them account for more than three-quarters of government revenues – namely income tax, national insurance and VAT.

skip past newsletter promotion
Advertisement

Their justification was their desire to win the election at all costs without upsetting the electorate. But they didn’t need to do that. This year’s election was a bit like the one in 1997, won so resoundingly by Tony Blair. (I think Kenneth Clarke, Tory chancellor 1993-97, said something like “a monkey could have won the 1997 election”.) It was obvious that the mood of the country was to throw the Conservative government out; and so it did. But now Labour is landed with those rash commitments not to increase the rates of the principal revenue-raisers.

Now, although many commentators, including myself, have tired of the way Reeves has gone on about “the inheritance”, the fact is that the budgetary statistics are indeed far worse than expected – although not nearly as bad as the ones Chancellor Denis Healey inherited in 1974, or, for that matter, what the Attlee government had to cope with in 1945.

The result is that, in approaching this budget, the chancellor has fallen between a number of fiscal stools. True, it looks as though she is going to be more longsighted in her approach to borrowing for investment. But by ruling out the principal areas for raising tax rates, she looks like offending many people and investors unnecessarily – investors she is also trying to woo!

Advertisement

In my opinion it would have been wiser to use her horror at the state of the books as an excuse to break the pre-election commitment on tax rates. But there it is. She is hoist with her own petard.

Finally – I know you have been waiting for this – we come to the self-harm of Brexit, and the prime minister and chancellor’s obstinate resistance to applying to rejoin the single market and customs union.

Investment, investment, investment; growth, growth, growth are the chants. Yet the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe calculates that we have potentially lost up to £44bn of investment as a consequence of our exclusion from membership of the European Investment Bank.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

MP Liz Twist faces calls to resign Age UK Gateshead role over Winter Fuel Payment vote

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC Blaydon and Consett MP Liz Twist. She is being interviewed by a reporter who is holding a phone. Twist is wearing a glasses and a red top. She has blonde hair and is wearing a lanyard.BBC

Blaydon and Consett MP Liz Twist supported the government’s plans to cut Winter Fuel Payments to millions of people

An MP has faced calls to resign as chair of a local charity for older people after she backed the government’s plans to cut the Winter Fuel Payment.

Labour’s Liz Twist, Blaydon and Consett, who is chair of the board of trustees at Age UK Gateshead, voted with her party to restrict the payment to the poorest pensioners.

A number of constituents have emailed the charity calling for her removal, with one telling the BBC she felt it was “hypocritical” she stayed, as she represents “one of the poorest parts of country”.

Twist said she would work with the charity to ensure “every pensioner is in receipt of their full entitlement”. The charity said it was “advocating against the government’s decision”.

Advertisement

‘Fixing economy’

One resident, who did not want to be named, told the BBC: “I feel the government has set the threshold just right so that it excludes millions who fall slightly over the criteria meaning they are still in fuel poverty and will need to decide between heating and eating.

“Given she [Twist] is a North East MP, representing one of the poorest parts of the country, I feel it’s very hypocritical for her to hold this position and it’s disappointing that she did not vote against the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment.”

Both Age UK Gateshead and Twist’s office said rumours she had resigned from the charity role were untrue.

Advertisement

Twist, who as Sir Keir Starmer’s Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) acts as the prime minister’s “eyes and ears” among backbench MPs, said the values and aims of Age UK Gateshead remained close to her heart.

“As a government, it is crucial to ensure that we can fix the foundations of our economy and deliver on the promise of change,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Age UK Gateshead said its trustees maintain “the highest standards of impartiality in their work”.

“Age UK Gateshead is fully aligned with the older people we support in advocating against the government’s decision to means test Winter Fuel Payments,” they said.

Advertisement

It added it was working alongside the national arm of the charity to highlight “the huge impact” the decision “is likely to have on older people”.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Commons Speaker rebukes Rachel Reeves for Budget comments in US

Published

on

Commons Speaker rebukes Rachel Reeves for Budget comments in US

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has reprimanded Chancellor Rachel Reeves for giving interviews to reporters in the US about her upcoming Budget.

Parliamentary rules say major government announcements should be made to MPs in the Commons, ahead of journalists.

An exasperated Sir Lindsay said failing to do so was a “supreme discourtesy to the House” and he was “very, very disappointed” with Reeves.

Responding to the criticism, the prime minister’s spokesman said it was “entirely routine for government to make announcements in the run-up to Budgets and spending reviews”.

Advertisement

He added that Parliament would have “all the requisite time to scrutinise measures clearly”.

Reeves will deliver her first Budget on Wednesday in the Commons.

Last Friday, she outlined her plan to “change the way that we we measure debt” during a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington.

She explained she planned a technical change to loosen self-imposed limits on borrowing, to free up billions of pounds extra for infrastructure spending on projects such as roads, railways and hospitals.

Advertisement

The government has promised to get debt falling as share of the economy during the course of this parliament, rather than over a rolling five-year period.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Sir Lindsay said the policy changes “could hardly be described as a leak” when she had given on-the-record interviews, including to the BBC.

He said: “Ministers should expect to face proper, sustained scrutiny when these announcements are made to the elected members of this House and not the American news channels.”

This was because Reeves’ comments were major new policy announcements with “significant and wide-ranging implications for the government’s fiscal policy and for the public finances”, he added.

Advertisement

The Speaker said this was “totally unacceptable” and asked why Reeves expected MPs to wait “almost a week” simply to hear her repeat her announcements in her Budget statement.

MPs might be wondering, he added, “how they will get a seat on Wednesday. Well, to be honest the way it’s going you won’t need to – we’ll have all heard it.”

With Treasury minister Darren Jones making a statement to the House on “fiscal rules” later on Monday, the Speaker remarked: “Perhaps no coincidence.”

Alluding to previous breaches of parliamentary rules, Sir Lindsay noted that, when in opposition, Labour would complain about the previous Conservative government behaving in a similar manner, and demanded: “Get your acts together, all sides, treat Members with respect.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Just Stop Oil activists banned from London protests by judge

Published

on

Just Stop Oil activists banned from London protests by judge

Three Just Stop Oil activists have been banned from protesting in London ahead of their trial for allegedly throwing soup at two Vincent Van Gogh paintings at the National Gallery.

Mary Somerville, 77, Stephen Simpson, 71, and Phillipa Green, 24, are each charged with two counts of damaging the frames of Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888 by dousing the artwork in soup.

The three appeared at Southwark Crown Court earlier and pleaded not guilty before being released on conditional bail.

The judge banned them from protest action within the boundary of the M25 until their trial – which is scheduled to begin in January 2026.

Advertisement

Mr Simpson, of Shipley, West Yorkshire, and Ms Somerville, of Bradford, West Yorkshire, attended court in person, while Ms Green, from Penryn in Cornwall, appeared by video link.

Their lawyer, Raj Chada, argued the ban was a “disproportional” infringement on their right to protest because London is “the seat of government”.

But Judge Alexander Milne said: “The application of the defendants’ right to protest is a relative one – and there seems to be a great deal of blurring between the exercise of that right and the commission of criminal offences.

“This court is not banning them from lawful protest anywhere else in the UK, but I will ban them from participating in any protest within the M25.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt of court

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
Julia Quenzler Court sketch of RobinsonJulia Quenzler

Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 18 months after admitting contempt of court by repeating false claims against a Syrian refugee.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, admitted 10 breaches of a High Court order made in 2021 during a hearing in Woolwich Crown Court.

Lawyers for the solicitor general accused Robinson, 41, of “undermining” the rule of law.

Barristers for Robinson said it was his “principles that have brought him before the court”.

The hearing on Monday was the culmination of events that date back to October 2018.

Advertisement

That month, a video went viral showing how Jamal Hijazi, a Syrian in West Yorkshire, had been attacked by another teenager at school.

Yaxley-Lennon then posted his own response to one million Facebook followers alleging that his investigation had established that Mr Hijazi was a violent thug, a claim that was untrue.

The Yaxley-Lennon video spread widely and the Syrian teenager and his family received death threats.

Three years later, Mr Hijazi won £100,000 in damages when the High Court ruled the Yaxley-Lennon’s claims against him had amounted to defamation.

Advertisement

The court imposed an injunction on Yaxley-Lennon, banning him from making the false claims again.

In February 2023, Yaxley-Lennon began repeating the claims and went on to post online a film claiming he had been “silenced” by the state.

That film may have been viewed at least 47 million times.

Eventually, this July, Yaxley-Lennon showed the film to thousands of his supporters in Trafalgar Square, saying he would not be silenced. The following day he left the country.

Advertisement

Aidan Eardley KC, for the solicitor general, told the court that Yaxley-Lennon had intended to repeat the false allegations, despite the injunction, and then take “evasive” measures.

PA Tommy Robinson pictured on 25 October PA

Robinson has been jailed after admitting 10 breaches of a High Court order made in 2021

“This is a high culpability case because of the high number of breaches,” said Mr Eardley.

“It is a continuing breach, the material is still out there and some of it is under the defendant’s control.”

Sasha Wass KC, for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was a journalist who had been following his principles and was a passionate believer in free speech.

Advertisement

“This defendant has been neither sly nor dishonest nor seeking gain for himself,” she said.

She said that he was such a controversial figure he may be placed in solitary confinement by prison governors, as had occurred the last time he had been jailed, and there was medical evidence he had previously suffered trauma, panic attacks and nightmares.

Jailing Yaxley-Lennon for 18 months, Mr Justice Johnson said: “In a democratic society underpinned by the rule of law, court orders must be obeyed.

“Nobody is above the law. Nobody can pick or choose which laws or which injunctions they obey, or which they do not.

Advertisement

“Even if they believe that an injunction is… contrary to their views they must comply with the injunction.

“They are not entitled to set themselves up as the judge in their own court. Otherwise the administration of justice and rule of law would break down.”

The judge said that the contempt of court had been aggravated because the defendant had repeated the claims after the beginning of proceedings against him – and he had not taken steps to stop the false claims continuing to be in circulation.

The sentence could in future be cut by four months if the defendant showed the court that he had taken steps to remove the offending film.

Advertisement

But the judge added: “The defendant has not shown any inclination to comply with the injunction in the future. All of his actions suggest that he regards himself as above the law.”

This case was the fourth contempt case he has faced, having previously received a suspended sentence and a six-month jail term.

Yaxley-Lennon has been separately charged with failing to unlock his phone for police when he was stopped and questioned at a port under counter-terrorism powers. He will next appear in court in relation to that allegation in November.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Bus fares cap in England to be raised to £3

Published

on

Bus fares cap in England to be raised to £3

The bus fare cap in England will be raised to £3 in the upcoming Budget, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced.

It is an increase on the current limit of £2 which was introduced under the previous Conservative government to help with the cost of living.

The existing cap was due to expire at the end of December.

Sir Keir said: “I do know how much this matters, particularly in rural communities where there is heavy reliance on buses.”

Advertisement

The new £3 cap will run until the end of 2025.

There had been speculation in recent days that the chancellor would announce in the Budget on Wednesday that the current cap would be scrapped.

This would have meant that some passengers faced a steep hike in fares following two years of help.

Around 3.4 million people in England use buses. The Confederation of Passenger Transport said raising the cap from £2 has avoided travellers facing a “cliff edge” at the end of this year.

Advertisement

But it said: “An increase to £3 will still present challenges for many passengers, particularly those who rely on buses as their primary means of affordable travel.”

Greenpeace said it was a “‘tough decision’ the government didn’t need to make”.

“It makes no political, economical or environmental sense whatsoever,” said Paul Morozzo, Greenpeace’s UK’s senior transport campaigner.

He said buses are a “critical lifeline to millions of people, particularly those on lower incomes”.

Advertisement

“A government that was truly prioritising the needs of the poorest in society would rethink this decision at the first opportunity,” he said.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

PM ‘shocked’ by CCTV appearing to show Mike Amesbury MP punch man

Published

on

PM 'shocked' by CCTV appearing to show Mike Amesbury MP punch man

The Prime Minister has said video footage that has emerged of MP Mike Amesbury appearing to punch a man to the ground is “shocking”.

Mr Amesbury has been suspended from the party and had the Labour whip withdrawn after CCTV footage appeared on Sunday.

Sir Keir Starmer said the party had “moved very swiftly” to respond after the footage was published.

He added: “There is now a police investigation and in the circumstances you’ll appreciate there’s not much more I can say about that.”

Advertisement

Cheshire Police said a 55-year-old man had been voluntarily interviewed under caution in relation to the incident and had since been released pending further enquiries.

In footage obtained by the Daily Mail, the Runcorn and Helsby MP is apparently seen continuing to hit the man as he lies in the street.

Amesbury has been contacted for comment.

A different video, posted on X, purported to show Amesbury shouting and swearing at the man lying in the street in Frodsham, Cheshire.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com