by We need to know what Labor would do if it succeeded. There can be no more evasions, ambiguities and denials of the past without clear statements about the future. In short, no more messing around. Let’s hear it.
Do they admit that migration on the current scale is unsustainable? If so, what are their plans to deal with it? Are they determined to spend more on what their uneducated Marxist wing calls “schools and hospitals” when what they really mean is public sector pay rises? If so, where will the money come from?
It’s not enough to say, from higher taxes on “rich people” without saying exactly who they have in mind. Since the very rich can move their wealth out of the country, does it mean that anyone is earning about half as much again as the average wage, which is the current threshold for income tax at taller? Will they raise taxes on private businesses which are the only sector of the economy that functions effectively?
There is only one way that any governing party can make the kind of spending commitments that Labor is proposing. (I say “hint”, because they offer no clear program or detailed recommendations.) They have to raise more money through borrowing – which is now unthinkable – or through taxation. But no election in recent times has been won – and one was lost, the 1992 general election that must forever be etched in Labour’s memory, brilliantly – by a party that promised to raise taxes.
Indeed, it is tempting to go even further and say that no party in modern democratic history has won an election on such a prospectus, but it could be argued that the creators of the post-war welfare state achieved something of the sort. to do that. . In fact, that moment of change in the popular understanding of what led to government, still dominates our election debates. Is it the proper business of the state to take responsibility for those who cannot (or will not) take responsibility for themselves? But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The question for today is: how much do the two main parties disagree on the critical issues that everyone assumes will be an election dominated by the cost of living, mass migration and the housing market approaching the second and third? The Tory chancellor has just announced a tiny, unprecedented cut in the rate of National Insurance (income tax by another name) and that tiny cut even seems to have boosted the polling a bit.
That happens even before you get serious. Imagine the effect of raising the threshold for basic rate and higher rate income tax to realistic levels – say £20,000 for the former and £60,000 for the latter. You’d think that ordinary people who work hard in the public and private sectors – including the nurses and teachers that Labor so enthusiastically support – would have all had their birthdays come at once.
Even if this were done in stages so as not to create too great fiscal shocks, it would have the most miraculous effect on the morale of the country. The most important thing from an economic point of view is what those happy recipients would do with that extra money. They would spend a lot of it – which would stimulate growth especially if it was accompanied by supply-side reforms – and they would invest or save the rest which would help insure that they would not need state assistance to survive. old age They would probably help their dependents so that they too would need less government assistance. Some of it might help their children on what was once known as the “property ladder”. (Remember that? The property market is now all snakes and no ladders.)
Let’s assume for now that this is a vision for the future that the Conservatives are in favor of, and that they might have the courage to act on it sometime in the next year. Would Labor follow them down that road? Maybe he did under Tony Blair, but that was a long time ago – before the Corbynite fundamentalist resurrection. Could the tepid Starmer incarnation of Labor – a party that has traditionally favored redistributing people’s money rather than letting them spend it themselves – be willing to go there? The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has gone so far as to say she would not reverse the Tory NICS cut. Is that it? What would be the direction of travel from there?
We know next to nothing about Labour’s positive tax policies. They urgently attack the Sunak government for imposing the highest tax burden in 70 years but that is where the rhetoric stops. The questions are so clear that they seem simple. If taxes are too high, which ones would you cut? If you lower the tax levy, how will you fund all those wonderful public service improvements you promised? And please don’t say, by cutting public sector waste and red tape. The public sector is fundamentally, extremely wasteful, because the people who manage it do not see the cash they are spending as real money.
Then there’s that other huge issue at the moment: unprecedentedly high immigration, and most of it legal. The ethnic minorities who make up a significant part of the core Labor vote feel directly threatened by demands to limit their numbers. But if Sir Keir is unwilling to tackle that problem, his traditional Red Wall supporters could abandon him. They could even, in their desperation, turn to populist demagoguery of the type that is increasing in Europe. It is morally irresponsible to refuse to take a clear position on this matter.
This election will be – even more than usual – a battle for the trust of hard-working middle-income voters and those who want to join their ranks. They now feel completely abandoned by mainstream politics and urgently need to know who is on their side.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for a month, then enjoy one year for $9 with our exclusive US offer.
