Are we being nudged into welcoming him back?

 

Yesterday the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Kwasi Kwarteng presented his ‘mini-budget’. Predictably, the print editions of the Westminster MSM gave this event top billing. Equally predictable, the Guardian wailed that it’s a budget ‘for the rich’, the FT and iNews howl that the ££ ‘plummeted’ and the DM screams it’s ‘A true Tory Budget’. Check out the compilation in the usual place (link).

Here’s a brief summary from the report in The Times whose editors label it ‘a big gamble’:

“The prime minister and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, announced £45 billion of tax cuts as part of a “new era” for Britain. They include scrapping the 45p rate of income tax, bringing forward a 1p cut in the basic rate to next year and reducing stamp duty. Corporation tax will be frozen and the rise in national insurance contributions reversed. The tax cuts, combined with the energy support package, will fuel a £72 billion rise in government borrowing this year. Kwarteng said they were “central to solving the riddle of growth”.” (link, paywalled)

I’ll leave it to the economists and economic correspondents to pull this budget apart. All I’ll note is that the personal tax-free allowance has not been raised. Surely that would have helped everyone, no? All I’ll say is that it doesn’t look good  to ‘slash’ income tax by 1% to 19% for the lower incomes but by 5% for the upper tax bracket, but what do I know …

There are however two rather interesting interpretations by comment writers in the Broadsheets. One is by Alex Cochrane in the DT who writes that “London had better prepare for Scottish tax exiles”, pointing out that the tax reduction does not apply North of that border:

“It’s time the English get ready for a new breed of tax exiles: the Scots. For Chancellor Kwarteng’s decision to cut the basic rate of income tax to 19p and to abolish the 45p top rate will apply only to English taxpayers. […]The different rates on either side of the Cheviots will mean that middle income earners on £50,000 per year will pay nearly £2,000 more tax in Scotland than England, and anyone earning £200,000 a year in Scotland will pay an astonishing £6,000 or more in tax than in England. A very expensive price indeed. It’s not as if Scots are getting better services for paying such copious amounts.” (paywalled link)

To be fair, it’s not as if the English or Welsh have been getting better services before those proposed tax cuts either. I’m as sure as can be that the various local councils will be happy to make up the shortfall by another huge hike in their council taxes.

The other interesting opinion piece is by Matthew Parris in The Times. Parris was once a Tory MP. Now he’s come up with ‘advice’ to Keir Starmer, on how to make Labour look good, with the headline:

“Keir Starmer must seize this chance of a lifetime – Labour can outflank the Tories on tax with a call for prudence but that will require bravery from its safety-first leadership” (link, paywalled).

Blimey – could it be that, contrary to the old saying about those who aren’t communists at 18 having no heart but those who still are at age 30 having no brains’, Parris has turned from being a Tory when young to becoming a Labourite in old age?

I read the whole thing twice, to check if Parris was writing tongue-in-cheek but found that he really wasn’t. First, see this:

“There will never be a better time for Labour to argue against cutting tax. The voters know the debt the pandemic left us with and which is now paying to protect people from energy price increases. They know by personal experience how inflation looms. They know most economists worry that big-spend and big-borrow financial policy may stoke inflation, and about government debt hanging over the next generation. Most Labour voters would understand the argument for prudence but — just as important — most swing voters would notice and approve of an official opposition that cared publicly about fiscal irresponsibility. And be clear that this would not even amount to increasing taxes, only leaving them where they were.” (link, paywalled)

‘Leaving taxes where they were’ means that any increase in salaries due to inflation would reduce said increase for those earning £50,000+ by nearly 50% while the poor and downtrodden, Labour’s former clientele, surely won’t mind  not receiving that ridiculous 1% reduction anyway. And now see this:

“To hear Labour chiding a Tory government for living beyond its means would come close to a relaunch of the Labour Party in the public imagination. This is what Tony Blair achieved in 1997 by promising to stick to tight Tory spending limits. To hear Labour support for clipping the wings of public sector trades unions would add sharply to that sense of relaunch. It would spark a nasty row with the unions but this would showcase the relaunch, as did Blair’s abolition of the semi-Marxist Clause IV of Labour’s constitution.” (link, paywalled)

Did you note the name of that former PM cropping up? Is it possible that this former PM is angling for a come-back, perhaps even a second bite at the PM cherry, and that Mr Parris, with his praise, is surreptitiously giving him a helping hand? It gets more nauseating in the next bit:

“Somebody needs to soar above timid fussing around, but is Starmer that man? My guess is this: he won’t touch serious NHS reform; he’ll try to find a way of opposing the government’s new strike laws without declaring opposition in principle; he’ll lose his nerve on any proposals to reduce Labour’s constitutional and financial reliance on the trades unions; and he’ll react (as Labour always has) like a scalded cat to Tory chants of “tax-raiser!” and so lack the courage to contest Kwarteng’s borrowing.” (link, paywalled)

Interesting, isn’t it! TBlair once declared himself to be ‘heir to Thatcher’. Now we have a PM who has modelled herself on the Iron lady and is hailed as the Second Coming of Mrs T by certain comment writers. So why not prepare the way for a Second Coming of yon Blair, who after all would be the real thing, not a wannabe Blair? And so to Parris’ concluding sentence, showing that he’s serious in his support for Labour:

“ Kwarteng said we should stop banging on about “redistribution”, ie fairness. No. Government must be importantly about fairness and we need an opposition that can talk fairness without sounding like believers in the candy mountain. The Tories today offered us only fantasy. Millions ache to hear about reality. I still hope, perhaps vainly, Labour might supply it.” (link, paywalled)

It is true that Starmer’s Labour Party has been nought but a caricature of what a loyal opposition should be. I only mention their ‘loyal’ support for the covid measures. As for ‘words’ about fairness and reality: wasn’t it Saint Tone who started us on the institutionalised destruction of what used to be fair in British Society?

Can we expect more nudges by the likes of Mr Parris and other Westminster swamp dwellers, to make us accept a ‘new New Labour’ in the hands of Blair? It wouldn’t surprise me at all. Stay vigilant and enjoy this first Autumn weekend.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email