Election
Why is Labour wrapping itself up in the Union flag?
I did another Twitter poll yesterday, because the Guardian highlighted concerns that members of the Labour Party have expressed about campaign materials produced by its headquarters for local party use. These feature prominent images of the Union flag whilst removing from view traditional Labour graphics, such as its red rose logo.
There have been reports that these materials are unpopular with its members, some of whom are refusing to deliver materials emblazoned in this way.
My poll was as follows:
I have to make clear, I am not suggesting that this result is statistically valid. There are obvious selection biases in running a Twitter poll that guarantee that this is not the case. However, given that my Twitter following is likely to be biased towards Labour supporters, and I am excluding from my analysis those who say they are not, I am not sure that I need to get overly worried about that risk of bias: this data is likely to reflect the opinion of at least some parts of Labour’s membership or support.
Taking out of consideration those who say they are not interested in Labour, and those who say that they do not have an opinion, and therefore taking into account only those who are directly concerned about Labour Party campaigning, it is very apparent that most of those voting really do not wish to see Labour wrapping up its campaign inside the Union flag. Eighteen per cent think Labour is right to feature the flag. Eighty two per cent do not. That difference of view, which remained very stable after a couple of hundred votes were cast, appears significant to me.
I can also wholeheartedly understand that opinion. That is , no doubt, in part because I am not a unionist. I accept that fact creates bias.
There are, however, broader reasons. Most of us a certain age are all too familiar with the history of the use of this flag as a campaigning tool by the far right. The memory of that is still too strong to want to see it used again.
In addition, many people think of this flag as a symbol of colonial oppression, for very good reason. That association is deeply uncomfortable for them. I also count myself in that number.
Others, not unreasonably, think that this use of the flag represents Labour moving into Tory party space, for absolutely no good reason. I do.
I think all those holding any (or all) of these opinions will feel alienated by Labour doing something that is so deeply insensitive to those who might naturally support it. They will rightly wonder why it wants to cause such offence.
I have not sought to hide my concerns about Labour over the last couple of years. That concern has arisen for many reasons. Its willingness to go down the same jingoistic path that the Tories have trodden is yet another concern to add to my list because it seems to me to lead to another of those characteristics of fascism that are becoming all too well known.
Perhaps, though, most of all I am, baffled as to why Labour is doing this. When someone as dispassionate as Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University thinks that there is a 99% probability that they will now win the next general election why does the Labour leadership still doubt that, as they must do by going down this route? Do they somehow think that they still have to win the far-right vote from the Tories and Reform, when the rump that support those parties are never going to be persuaded? And do they really think that their own supporters will put up with any sort of abuse so that those people might be recruited, whatever the cost?
Or is it, worst of all, that this Labour leadership really does wish hark back to an era when this flag did, without doubt, represent attitudes of colonial superiority? Do they, in other words, actually share the sentiments of those on the far-right of British politics, based on division as they so obviously are?
I am not sure of Labour’s motives, but whatever they might be they appear to be a profound betrayal of all that is ethical, just and inclusive and that is profoundly unattractive in a party set to rule this country.
Can we really claim to be a democracy when the government very clearly does not care if people can vote?
This report was published last Thursday, but I missed it then and it is no less relevant this morning:
As many as eight million people face being disenfranchised at the next election due to an electoral registration system which is neither effective nor efficient, says the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in a report published today.
As they noted:
The report finds that the current state of the electoral registration system, which governs local elections in England and UK general elections, needs urgent review.
The report finds that there have been notable issues with the practical implementation of recent electoral registration reforms, including voter ID which left individuals without the right ID being prevented from voting and only a limited number of forms of ID being permitted. The report disagrees with the Government’s view on the adequacy of the list of accepted photo ID and believes it should be widened to include other forms, such as emergency services passes and non-London travel passes.
The report recognises that certain groups, such as young people, renters, ethnic minorities, and those in lower socio-economic groups are significantly less likely to be registered to vote. The Committee were also told that some disabled people do not feel supported to register to vote, particularly struggling with the lack of variety in communication channels.
The report recommends a series of steps to help tackle under-registration. … The report also calls for the Government to move towards an opt in automated voter registration system to help ensure that voters are not disenfranchised.
They add:
The report references the Electoral Commission's 2023 report, "Electoral registers in the UK”, which found that completeness of the registers in the UK is at 86%. ‘Accuracy’ looks at the number of false entries on the electoral registers and is currently at 88%. This means that potentially as many as eight million people were not correctly registered at their current address and people may be registered twice inadvertently. The completeness of the electoral registers in Great Britain is 86%. The Commission explained that " if a UK general election was called now, around 14% of the eligible population would not be able to vote."
That is approximately seven million people who are disenfranchised in the UK as a result of government indifference.and as the committee notes, this is not necessary. In a very similar situation to the UK, Canada had very much higher levels of voter registration.
Can we really claim to be a democracy when the government very clearly does not care if people can vote?
Peter Who? Answers Tas Liberals When Asked Where Peter Dutton’s Been This Election Campaign
On the penultimate day of polling before Saturday’s election, a Liberal candidate, whom we cannot name or show due to the risk of being censored by the Tasmanian electoral commission, has answered Peter who? When asked where the Federal Opposition leader Peter Dutton has been during the election campaign.
”Look, Peter’s very busy with his plans to go nuclear,” said a Spokesperson for the Opposition leader. ”Also, he’s got to work out the finer points of his energy plan.”
”Namely, which Labor electorate will host the reactors, Grayndler’s looking good right now.”
When asked why the Opposition leader hadn’t been hitting the campaign trail in Tasmania, his Spokesperson said: ”Peter will definitely get there before the next election, I promise he will.”
”Besides, they don’t really need him down there, that Jeremy bloke seems to be doing alright.”
”Maybe Peter could go down and open the new stadium when it’s ready, that would be a good look.”
Mark Williamson
@MWChatShow
You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.
We’re also on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunoz
The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:
What is the point of power if it is not to help the most vulnerable and least well off, which there is no sign that Labour will do?
As the Observer noted yesterday:
Schools are finding beds, providing showers for pupils and washing uniforms as child poverty spirals out of control, headteachers from across England have told the Observer.
School leaders said that as well as hunger they were now trying to mitigate exhaustion, with increasing numbers of children living in homes without enough beds or unable to sleep because they were cold. They warned that “desperate” poverty was driving problems with behaviour, persistent absence and mental health.
They added a headteacher reporting that
The school had many children living in “desperate neglect”. “Kids are sleeping on sofas, in homes with smashed windows, no curtains, or mice,” he said. “I come out of some of these properties and get really upset.”
The details come from:
report published on Friday by the Child of the North campaign, led by eight leading northern universities, and the Centre for Young Lives thinktank, warned that after decades of cuts to public services, schools were now the “frontline of the battle against child poverty”, and at risk of being “overwhelmed”. It called on the government to increase funding to help schools support the more than 4 million children now living in poverty in the UK.
There is no point now thinking that we have a Conservative government. They are in such disarray that they no longer function.
Instead we have to ask what Labour might do about this, and the answer we are told, time and again, is that they will say there is no money left.
That is because they will not tax capital gains fairly, as if they are income, which is exactly what they are.
And it is because they still want to massively subsidise the savings of the wealthy by providing excessive tax relief on the pension contributions of the wealthiest in our society.
It is also because they refuse to tax income from wealth at the rates paid by those with income from work.
And it is because they still think that those on high earnings should pay much less, proportionately, in national insurance than those on low earnings should.
Just put those right and you have round £50 billion (or more) to tackle this issue.
If Labour will not do that let’s be quite clear about what it will be doing: it will be choosing to perpetuate poverty. So far, that seems to be its plan.
Nothing will ever make Labour acceptable to me until they say they they are going to really tackle the issues arising from poverty, and to root out its causes. Why should I tolerate them when they could do that, and so far say that they will not?
What is the point of power if it is not to help the most vulnerable and least well off?
The Tories have gone nuclear
I liked this from Adam Payne at Politics Home this morning:
Many Conservative MPs will remember this "bleak" week as the moment when they truly gave up any hope of avoiding defeat to Labour at the next general election.
“Something has changed for me this week," said one veteran Conservative MP.
They added:
“We have done absolutely everything possible to lose the next election," they said. "We've gone nuclear.”
That seems about right.
Gove, Hester, Sunak, and total humiliation on all fronts. Their game is over.
We really do need a general election,
It seems that we live in unprecedented times
I suspect that many readers here might have already seen this polling result, published yesterday:
Every time I think the Tories can do no worse, they do. But then, that only reflects what actually happened this week.
If (and that is a maybe ‘if’) this was reflected on a polling day Labour would get well over 500 seats. The Tories would have 24, behind the LibDems and maybe the SNP. The former would be the official Opposition with 48 seats.
I sincerely hope that this does not happen. Such a Labour majority, dedicated to austerity, would be as disastrous for this country now as a National government was in the 1930s.
However looked at though, it seems that we live in unprecedented times.
We have a tax time bomb waiting to explode in the UK. Is Labour going to let it go off?
I have spent much of this afternoon, a) talking to journalists and b) trying to work out how the Budget adds up.
The first task was relatively easy. The second was less so.
In part, the great cost saving in the Budget is on interest: it has been assumed that the cost of government borrowing will fall quite quickly to 3% rather than the 4% assumed last November. That finds £10 billion.
But, that was not enough, so I went on a hunt for the rest that explained how Hunt was going to give tax away. I finally got to Table A5 of the Annex to the Office for Budget Responsibility's Economic and Fiscal Outlook publication that supports the Budget data, and there I smelt a rat.
I prepared the following chart by noting n0minal GDP from table A3 of that annex for 2022-23 to 2028-29 and then noting data from table A5 on income tax, national insurance, VAT and corporation tax over the same years.
Then I calculated GDP and tax receipts for each year as a ratio of the 2022-23 figure to show growth in them, and then plotted this to get this chart:
The two blue lines in the centre that almost match each other are GAP growth and VAT, which unsurprisingly match each other almost exactly.
National insurance declines markedly: Hunt is pretending that he really will get rid of this tax.
But then note what happens with both income tax and corporation tax: both rise at rates well over anything that can be justified by the growth in GDP.
Corporation tax is a small tax; silly forecasts can be made for it, and this one is absurd: profitability is not going to grow at that rate.
But, income tax is what really matters. The forecast increase is utterly disproportionate. The growth in tax owing each year is at a rate almost double the rate in the growth of GDP.
To put this in context, income tax shown to be due in 2028/29 is £48 billion more than it would be if it grew at the rate of GDP growth.
In other words, the actual rates of income tax increase we will all actually be suffering because of fiscal drag over the next few years are going to be very high indeed - and that is how Hunt is supposedly balancing its books.
In that case, the real question to ask is, what is Labour going to do about this? We have a tax time bomb waiting to explode in the UK. Are they going to let it go off?
The Budget: first reactions
I am writing this, minutes after hearing the Budget, having read little of the reaction of others to it, and having just come out of a BBC Radio 2 studio where I offered my comments.
My immediate reaction is (and there will be more later on when I have read some more of the documentation) that this was a Budget in need of an election to give it any meaning.
There were no big ideas.
There were no big announcements not already trailed.
The claim that the 2p cut in national insurance is part of some bigger plan is, very politely, absurd when not long ago the Tories pushed it much higher. It is just a pre-election bung.
So, too, were the giveaways on capital gains tax on property sales and the grant of yet another tax subsidised ISA savings scheme for the wealthy (because they alone can use them to their limits).
The reform on child benefits was wrong. What was needed was the removal of the two child cap, not the lifting of the number who can claim the income at higher levels of income.
And as for the public sector productivity reforms: as I said on air, this means that 10 minute GP appointments will now last 7 minutes and school classes that lasted 40 minutes will now be 33 minutes long.
The claims for public sector investment were crass. Not only did they disguise the failure to provide any new real money for these essential services, but to suggest that a drone might be the first responder at a crime has to be one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard. You can really see that working.
As for growth, in reality there was nothing to make it happen and all the claims for higher than expected growth simply reflect the inevitable statistical reaction to returning to anaemic levels of actual growth after we unexpectedly (as far as the government was concerned) slipped into recession.
And throughout all this the delivery was lacklustre, and the jokes unusually bad. Hunt seemed like a Chancellor who knew his time was up. No wonder he had invited his eldest daughter to come to the Commons to watch. This will be the last chance she ever has to see him do something like this. That was the only small mercy I could find in all this, even when he cancelled the non-dom rule. Given that I know all the rules to do this were discussed in the Treasury in 2011, the only thing that can be said about that now is that it was tawdry electioneering by a Party that knows its time is up.
It really is time for them to go, and everything about this Budget suggests that a May election is very likely.
No government can spend itself out of a recession
The Tories have always tried to deny that a government can spend itself out of a recession, but Jeremy Hunt has a much more bizarre plan.
Hunt is doing a sponsored Londo0n Marathon in late April and last Friday posted this on Twitter:
What Hunt does in his free time is, of course, up to him. But doing a 17-mile run on a workday does seem odd.
More bizarrely, he is doing this run to raise funds for the NHS. Think about that for a moment. This is the man who was in charge of the NHS for many years, from 2012. And this is the man who can now give it any additional money he likes. But instead of that, he thinks he has to run a marathon to raise charitable funds for it instead.
Really? Is that how bereft he is of ideas on how to fund our public services? As a metaphor for the state of the Conservative Party and its thinking, that seems pretty grim to me.
No problem this country faces will be solved by Jeremy Hunt running around a park. Has anyone told him that?
Jeremy Hunt’s Budget already looks to be failing
I will be headed to the BBC’s Broadcasting House in London during the course of this morning. As has been the case for well over a decade now, I will be listening to the budget whilst there (and tweeting about it almost continually, for those who use that platform) before going on air at about 1:30 pm to discuss what Jeremy Hunt has had to say with Jeremy Vine.
There will be one change to the regular format of this Radio 2 programme on this occasion. Mark Littlewood, formally the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the architect of much of Liz Truss’s economics, is no longer my sparring partner. The unfortunate news is that the BBC are replacing him with Julian Jessup, formally of the Institute of Economic Affairs. I suspect that I will treat any nonsense that he has to say with the same disdain that I showed to Mark over the years that we commented together.
If reports are to be believed, and the Treasury appears to have become ever more leaky in this respect over the years, two of the biggest announcements that might be made in this budget are already known.
The first is that fuel duties are to be frozen, yet again, at a cost of more than £5 billion a year. Given that this has been frozen for so long, no one should be particularly surprised about this, but the implications are large. The only way in which the Office for Budget Responsibility could make last November’s forecasts for the next five years meet the requirements of Jeremy Hunt’s so-called fiscal rule was by assuming that this charge would be reinstated. If that is not to be the case, then how he will supposedly balance his books, using that false criteria of appraisal with which he is much enamoured, is not known. Unfortunately, I see none of the detailed figures before going on air, so I doubt that I will be able to provide elucidation during that commentary.
The second decision that he is being reported as having made is that national insurance is to be cut again. 2% was cut off the employee’s rate last November. It is claimed the another 2% will be cut off this rate in the Budget to be announced today. Clearly we do not know if this is true as yet, but if it is then the cost will be between £9 billion and £10 billion per year, with a supposed average saving of a little over £400 a year for the mythical average earner.
Presuming that this leak is based on well informed Treasury sources, then this move makes almost no sense.
Politically the Conservatives got no discernible political gain from the last cut that they announced, even though they rushed through legislation so that the impact was seen in pay from January 2024 onwards. As a result, it is very obvious that this cut answered no question that any reasonable person might have asked about the government’s intentions with regard to the supply of sound economic policy, and nor will another one.
This is unsurprising. At least three quarters of people in the UK would rather have any government action in this Budget focused upon improvements in the supply of government services, from the NHS onwards. No one is going to thank Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak, or any other Tory MP, for getting this judgement wrong, again.
Then there is one other issue to consider, which is that this policy change fails to have any impact at all on the one group in society where the Tories are hoping to retain support, which is amongst pensioners. Many pensioners are now being forced to work because of increasing pensioner poverty, but since no one over the age of 66 pays national insurance, this will have precisely no impact on their well-being. As targeted measures go, this one completely fails.
There will, of course, be some other announcement that Jeremy Hunt will make to provide a headline if these two have been so heavily trailed, but however looked at these measures, that promote pollution in one case and deny the public the services that they need in the other case whilst collectively failing to deliver for the Tory voter base, really are disastrous. If these are the best that Jeremy Hunt can come up with, I think we can already fairly suggest that this Budget will not deliver for him or his party any of the gains that they so desperately seek. Jeremy Hunt might have been better advised to spend the £100,000 of his own money that he has invested in his own re-election campaign elsewhere in that case.