If I have despaired at the efforts of the Tories, LibDems and Greens when costing their manifestos, think about my horror when reading the Labour manifesto and their associated financial plans.
I applauded the Greens for their bold visions, even if I wanted more detail.
In contrast, Labour is grubbing about in the pretty cash tin, and even then doing it badly. Worse, the three tables it published are the clearest possible indication that Rachel Reeves will be intent on micro-management and has not a clue how to imagine the tasks that will face her in govermment.
These are the tables in question:
Labour is planning to change taxation by less than 1% of the current total raised. Can a party with less ambition have ever been heading for a landslide?
Worse, it then does not plan to spend all of that sum, because it thinks it prudent to hold some back.
As for the Green Plan, that provides evidence that £28bn can apparently be shrunk to £4.7 billion whilst utterly missing our net zero-goals.
And as for the last table, whilst I do not doubt the relevance of some of the issues raised, if spending of £5 million has to be mentioned in a manifesto then the Shadow Chancellor is most definitely demonstrating she really does not understand the macroeconomic significance of the role she is about to take on.
I could discuss this stuff, but doing so makes no point. This is small-minded, totally unambitious and intellectually bankrupt. I see no point in considering the detail when the metanarrative in the previous sentence is what matters.
I really am despairing of what is going to be coming our way now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thank you and well said, Richard.
To add to our collective despair, I have just heard from a Foreign Office official, who works on business matters, that the Corporation of London has just hired five advisers from Labour as part of the City’s efforts to keep Labour on side. You won’t be surprised to hear that said advisers, their political masters and civil service counterparts say there’s no money and, therefore, big business and gulf autocracies must be courted.
Hazarding a guess, doubtless the erm.,,”sheiks of araby” will be offered stakes in off-shore wind (goin’ cheap guv!).
Speculation of course, but given the last 45 years one realises that there is nothing the politicos won’t stoop to.
Or perhaps its just me?
Mike wrote: “…given the last 45 years one realises that there is nothing the politicos won’t stoop to. Or perhaps its just me?”
No, you’re right Mike, there’s nothing they won’t stoop to and for evidence, here’s a sample of their ideology, written by a very active member of a Tory-led Unionist propaganda silo in Scotland, from yesterday’s Scotsman newspaper under the headline “These resources aren’t Scotland’s” . It relates to Stephen Flynn’s statement on a BBC TV debate of 7 leaders about “Scotland’s winds and Scotland’s waves”: “No-one owns the wind and the waves and “Scotland” (her inverted commas – she doesn’t view Scotland as a country in its own right) certainly doesn’t. Private companies, mostly foreign-owned, are the proprietors of energy companies that utilise these resources. The SNP likes to harp on about “Scotland’s resources”. It isn’t “Scotland” (her again) and the Scots who have invested in and exploited these resources, or made successful businesses based on them. It’s a sad commentary on Scots that so many of them don’t seem to know that.”
What she writes is demonstrably true but is only a tiny part of the story. It’s also a sad commentary that the press gives space to a writer who blithely ignores the fact that Westminster has appropriated to itself the complete control of Scotland’s energy resources and, via the devolution settlement, the ultimate control of the Scottish economy. Scotland has effectively no say in these matters.
That was an absurd claim. I saw it….
“….off-shore wind”, Mike. (?) There’s precious little on-shore wind in England as far as I have observed. (And that’s easy peasy)
I recently travelled from Angus to Dorchester and all the windmills are in Scotland. You can travel (bloody) miles (hundreds of miles) and England and there’s not a windmill in sight even on the most distant horizon. I don’t ‘get’ the English obsession with windmills being an obscenity when the entire country is criss-crossed with pylons and power lines. They ARE hideous and produce nowt.
I’m ashamed to be English and glad to be living north of the border.
Its not only uninspiring its complete gibberish. And we will still get people suggesting we vote for a progressive party, they think that includes Labour! Someone on twitter said that Labour was the party of working people – you always find a comedian lurking somewhere!
Mr Wills – gibberish or not it would seem that the manifesto and some of the underlying number were………written by a Tory:
Step forward former Treasury economist Mr Ravinder Athwal who was head of growth strategy at the Treasury, where he worked under the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak. It would seem that he joined LINO in 2020 (why? – sensed the sinking ship?) & was the man that put together the 136-page Labour manifesto.
LINO’s manifesto, drafted by a Tory for Labour-Tories. Bless.
(more detail in the Guardian – but the core bits are above).
I just saw Rachel’s piece for the guardian. Sounds like she wants a time machine to go back to 2007. She is in denial about potential difficulties. Growth isn’t a switch that can be flipped on or a button that can be pushed down. Fiscal rules, low inflation, low mortgages etc. All very nu labour and none of it stopped 2008.
The IFS claim, very assertively made that there are £18Bn of cuts coming down the pike, has not been challenged – about the quantum. Starmer has said he is not turning on the “spending taps”, but crucially said this: ““I can say no return to austerity. We will have to make tough decisions. I ran a public service for five years. I ran the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and that was through some of the austerity years, so I know what that does. I absolutely fundamentally believe in public services, I spent five years of my life devoted to public services”. Pressed on a return to austerity, he replied: “Yeah, no austerity. I went through it running in a public service. I know what it feels like. I know the impact, the devastating impact it had and has had and continues to have. So we’re not returning to austerity. We will have to make tough decisions. Look, I believe in public services, I want them properly, run and properly funded under a Labour government. You can put more money in the top and get a slightly better product but you only get a materially better product if you reform. That was what we did when I was running part of the criminal justice system. I want the NHS not just back on its feet but actually fit for the future”.
Given his ‘carrying-a-Ming-vase’ over a slippery floor approach to promises, that is a big statement to make. The only way he can square the circle is by increasing the National Debt. He isn’t saying it, but that doesn’t mean it will not happen. The real point is, by the time debt increases materially register in the public mind (a noticeable movement in the debt to GDP %), he presumably trusts Labour will have its feet under the table, and people are feeling some sense of relief.
In the short term the relief people feel from being rid of the rancid Conservatives is positive in itself, he hopes – because nobody is voting for Starmer out of a convincing sense of hope. He will play for time. The problem is there is no indication that he knows what to do with this. The idea that a mere political party (or the people they rely on to tell them), actually knows how to produce economic growth, when there has been so little for so long in Britain it is clear none of the political class have any idea what to do; or even what is possible. Starmer and his crew have no track record whatsoever in producing economic growth in anything – except sound-bites.
No money. Ah well that means that LINO won’t be able to build the power network it needs neither will the UK benefit from all the off-shore wind planned to be built – cos to benefit – “growing the economy” will need gov money.
Specifically: “The UK is on track to miss its 2030 offshore wind targets (circa 40GW of new off-shore wind farms) by 18 years” report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). UK needs to triple its current installation rate to meet its goals. UK also lags behind Denmark, Germany, and Spain, in manufacturing key wind turbine components like nacelles, blades, towers, foundations, and cables. This deficiency has cost the UK up to £30 billion in lost opportunities from 2008 to 2022. With an investment of £3.2 billion in new manufacturing facilities, the UK could create tens of thousands of jobs, particularly benefiting small and medium-sized businesses.
But But but…Labour/Reeves/Starmer – “the UK’s credit card is maxed out” – is this an example of Reeves – growing the economy? Go on LINO do tell, ….oh don’t bother – all mouth – no trousers.
You are right
But you are really are failing to believe, Mike, that business will be queuing up to do that now Labour is in power.
That’s how it is going to work, isn’t it?
Is there nothing about benefits, disability, pensions, child allowance, student loans, nurse bursaries, business rates, household rates, ofwat, ofcom, ofgem, windrush or any of the multitude of other things that need increased funding?
That’s a quick list off the top of my head I’m sure other readers will think of more.
This is tinkering around the edges of a broken economy.
We can only hope there is a strong enough opposition to hold Labour to account.
You can look in vain…
Only ‘wealth creators’ will find anything to like in this nonsense…
The 1% uplift in stamp duty for non-residents jumped out. Allowing foreigners to buy domestic property as investment opportunities or money stores should be stopped entirely for anyone not provably using the property as a permanent home.
HI Richard
Given that most parties like little 3 word slogans, how about this for Labour:
“Change F*** All”
I think that about covers it.
Regards
People seem content to accept Labour’s offer.
Polling would suggest people are just as sceptical of their claim that they will turn round the NHS without committing the resources necessary to do it – as Richard and others on here point out.
This suggests Labour has won the PR contest – despite it being a smoke and mirrors job – which amounts to lying.
In their own terms this strategy seems to have been a resounding success – if it wins the election.
But to achieve that without giving themselves the scope to spirit up the investment needed to make ‘change’ even in the form of promising some kind of review or commission once in governemnt seems remarkably stupid.
They are so scared to engage their own minds in the possiblity of looking at the economy in a different way they would much rather ( as even the BBC commentators say) ‘box themselves in’ once in government.
Its going to be an almighty crisis. Richard is ‘despairing of whats coming our way’. It is indeed going to be scary – which promise will they break?
Lets hope it’s creating investment money – what they call ‘borrowing’ is the one – to create a sort of Biden fund, so as to get GP’s into work, doctors and teachers stop leaving etc etc .
.
Just looking at the proposed £250m for CT and MRI scanners in the NHS. Not a word about the additional consultants and radiographers etc needed to operate them. Perhaps there’s a PPE-style deal for self-interpreting scanners in the offing…..
I do not know of any physical or social infrastructure supposedly capital developments which do not then have revenue consequences.
However, this bleedin’ obvious requirement is often ignored..
Catalytic investment!!
Bollox.!
I don’t know why Labour doesn’t just go the whole hog and strip private schools of charitable status at the same time? Is it because they want to leave something hanging over the heads of private schools to continue to threaten them with?
To be honest if I was running a private school I would be happy to see the back of charitable status if I was already paying business rates and VAT. I could then get on with the day job of actually running a school and cease to be a political football at every election.
There are numerous savings to be had by getting rid of all those things that need to be done simply so the school can argue about being charitable, things like lending staff to local state schools to cover obscure subjects like latin, letting local primary schools use your facilities for nothing, inviting local sports clubs in at zero or low cost, offering bursaries to children whose parents can’t afford it.
Getting rid of charitable activities would make private schools even more exclusive and less involved in their local areas, but why not if it is the clear message being sent by the electorate and government?
Schools would lose its corporation tax exemption, but are these schools actually making a profit to the point where they care? They would also lose the ability to collect gift aid on donations, but if donations are an issue they can probably have a separate arms length educational charity that is definitely charitable, accepts donations and does things without being directly involved in the running of the school.
Until charitable status goes it is just going to be the next thing on the agenda.
There is already a fair number of private schools that do not have charitable status and get VAT exemption on their fees as an “eligible body” because they are
registered as a school under the Education Act 1996.
Everybody thinks of Eton and Winchester but the population of private schools is pretty varied.
Some stats here. https://www.isc.co.uk/media/uukn4r3i/isc_census_2024_15may24.pdf
The ISC members are 1,400 private schools with 550,000 pupils. That is the bulk of the UK’s private education sector. Around 1,000 of them are charities and 400 are not.
About half are primary schools. The majority are co-educational, and day schools. Concentrated around London, but also other large cities. The median size is about 300 pupils. Half are under 150 pupils. Many have an explicit religious affiliation – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
A bit more than a tenth of the pupils – 63,000 – are not British, half with parents living in the UK and half overseas.
Around 40% of pupils are from ethnic minorities. Which I think equates to around 1/6 of children from ethnic minorities (rather than around 18% of the general population, from which around 7% go to private schools).
Fees vary widely. Some are under £2,000 per term. Typically they are around £5,000 to £6,000 per term for day pupils. Sometimes much more particularly for boarding. So perhaps £15,000 to £20,000 per pupil per year. Paid from post tax income, that it a fair chunk of median post- tax earnings, but these schools are not really catering to people earning £35,000pa. It is about two to three times the funding per pupil of a typical state school.
(To switch tack – I understand there are private US universities that are charging fees of approaching $100,000 per student per year.)
Andrew, I think I am with you on this topic, independent schools vary a great deal, they aren’t all like Eton & Winchester.
Some of the most expensive independent schools in the country offer services for special educational needs and have pupils that are paid for by the local educational authority.
It is interesting that so many independent schools no longer bother with charitable status and I hadn’t realised that so many don’t.
It will be interesting to see how the change to VAT status is implemented. Will free places supported by bursaries attract some level of VAT? If nobody is paying it appears they won’t, but if the place is paid for via another charity then will that charity have to pay the VAT? Similarly will it mean your LEA ends up paying more for places at expensive SEN schools? What is the plan for the military’s continuity of education grants? Will it be a time for some of these schools to do big building programs and to reclaim the VAT that way because some of them will be planning to do building work already?
Definitely interesting times, but I remember Labour saying they wanted to add VAT to school fees in 1992 so it is hardly a new concept.
Actually I support (or at least do not oppose) adding VAT to private schools fees. I don’t have a problem with people spending money on children as they wish, after the parents have paid the right amount of tax on their income etc, but I also don’t see why there should in effect be a state subsidy for it.
(Typo correction: should have said a quarter of private schools are under 150 pupils – the median is around 300 so that is the half way point.)
I expect the new government will amend the definition of an “eligible body” for the VAT exemption (and similarly tweak the exemption from business rates, although the whole of business rates and council tax needs radical reform.)
Your point about private schools catering to children with special needs is well made and I hope something can be done to protect them. Perhaps brining them into the state sector.
Thanks
Labour are indeed small-minded, totally unambitious and intellectually bankrupt; and it seems the electorate know it. I was inspecting the Sky News ‘tracker polls’ (which are awkward to scan, and slightly odd); but if we take Sunak becoming PM as ‘ground zero’, it seems Labour was then on 5i%. At 13th June, the tracker has it at 42%. Labour only looks respectable because the Conservative Party (22% and clearly falling), has virtually collapsed.
the election is a rebuke to Parliament itself, and the Party political system. FPTP requires to go.
Richard
Do you think they even read your work?
If I were you I would be very angry indeed.
No one has to read my work