A Budget for working people ?
Many of
you will have heard reactions like these: “I was relieved - it
wasn’t as bad as I was expecting”, “It’s a good start”, “It’s a move in the
right direction”, “It felt different from the Tory budgets that we’ve been
used to”.
When Rishi
Sunak, the richest man in Parliament, is shaking with anger, it’s hard to
avoid thinking that there must be something good about the Budget.
There were positive things in the budget. As we shall
see, not all of these are as positive as may at first appear; and on all
the big tests the Budget fails. It makes
no serious attempt to mend broken Britain, make real progress in tackling
poverty and inequality, fix the crises facing the NHS and the public
sector, push forward on the green agenda, or rebuild our economy. They’ve
bought Reeves and Starmer a little bit of time; but barring a radical
change in government policy the chances are high that the government will
be dragged into deep crisis long before the next General Election.
The public sector and the unions
Even
before Budget Day, Unison General Secretary Christine McAnea was telling members that “We now have a government that recognises the value of
public services”. The TUC and Labour-affiliated unions
have been strongly supportive of the budget,
saying that it marks an end to 14 years of Tory misrule and sets
us on a path to national renewal.
It doesn’t
take a genius to see what’s going on here. Union leaders are falling over
one another to show support for the government because they’re desperate to
see the Employment Rights Bill get on the statute book without any watering down of manifesto
commitments. While the Bill is being fought over, union disaffiliation from
Labour is effectively off the agenda.
The
reality that faces our public services is rather
different. The IFS point out that “after 2025-26 we
have day-to-day public service spending rising by a miserable 1.3 per cent
a year. That may not even be enough to avoid cuts to some departmental
budgets.” Could this change ? Unlikely: ministers have boxed themselves
into a corner by ruling out raising taxes on the rich.
The NHS is
supposedly the big winner. But Siva Anandaciva, Chief Analyst
at The King’s Fund, commented
“The Chancellor has said that ‘change must be felt’, but the health
spending announced today is unlikely to be enough for patients to see a
real improvement in the care they receive,” stressing the need for more
funding to be provided in next year’s Comprehensive Spending review. RCN general secretary Nicola Ranger said
that “The crisis in nursing remains unresolved after today’s budget.”
Some
cherries were given to local government, including
a £1.3bn finance settlement, and £500m for potholes. At the same time,
councils are losing funding. Council chiefs are pleading with the government
to be exempted from the rise in National Insurance contributions. The
overall picture is one of a government tinkering at the edges, while
councils up and down the country are in crisis with some in danger of going
under.
Labour MPs have been banging on for years about the
scale of the crisis affecting our public services. And yet, after 14 years
of opposition, Labour have failed to come up with a plan that even begins
to resolve the crisis.
| Public services have been squeezed for fourteen years by Tory governments determined to reduce the size of the state - but in a developed and complex society such as ours this will result in people suffering. We need to tax the excess wealth of a tiny few so the rest of us can live decent lives freed from poverty. There is enough wealth to go round if only it is redistributed. |
Welfare benefits
The
increase in the National Living Wage to
£12.21 in line with the Low Pay Commission recommendation was the least
that the government could do. A government that was serious about helping
the poorest families would also have abolished the two
child benefit cap and ditched cuts to winter
fuel payments, but we saw none of that from the Chancellor.
The cap on
Universal Credit deductions is reduced from 25% to
15%. This has been welcomed as a progressive measure, but to be clear: if
you have debts, you’ll still have to repay them in full, and for as long as
you’re doing so, you’ll still have to live on lower than benefit levels.
Changes to
the Carers Allowance mean that the threshold of what
carers are allowed to earn before losing their entitlement to the benefit
has increased. It’s better than nothing, but the Allowance needs to be
fundamentally reformed. Until this happens, carers will still be stuck with
ridiculous eligibility criteria.
Meanwhile,
it appears that the Government is pushing ahead with plans to reform Work
Capability Assessment to achieve billions of savings. They
haven’t yet set out how they’re going to achieve this, but people with
disabilities fear that it could cost them as much as £400 a month in
benefits while doing little to help them into employment.
Poverty and inequality
This was not a redistributive budget. A government
that was serious about doing something about decades of rising inequality
would have increased taxes on the highest income earners. Instead, the
Chancellor increased taxes on employers through National Insurance - a
measure that she herself has admitted will drive down wages.
Despite
the furore over the impact on low-earning farmers, the main issue with the
changes to Capital Gains Tax is their lack of ambition. Reeves boasted that
the UK will still have “the lowest capital gains tax rate of any European
G7 economy.”
With few exceptions, people don’t feel any richer. The rising bus fares are symbolic of a more general failure
to address cost of living issues. Rising costs of energy, water and
essential services are one of the biggest reasons why socialists argue for
nationalisation of utilities - a policy to which Starmer is fundamentally
opposed.
The Child
Poverty Action Group tweeted that “The Chancellor brought good news on
breakfast clubs and universal credit deductions but this was not a Budget
of bold action on child poverty… The spending review next spring will have
to deliver much more to make a significant difference for children in
poverty.”
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation revealed that under its modelling based on
Budget figures, both poverty and inequality are set to increase. “The analysis shows families
with children will see the biggest hit to their disposable incomes, with
100,000 more children set to be in poverty by October 2029 compared to
today along with 300,000 more working-age adults. The average family will
be £770 worse off in real terms. Alongside this inequality is set to rise.
The poorest third of households will see their real disposable incomes fall
by 3.3% between today and October 2029, while the highest income third see
a fall of 1.7%.”
None of
this should come as a surprise. Labour’s election manifesto, while decrying food banks as “a moral scar on our society”,
contained no plans for eradicating poverty and the need for food banks.
| Just a reminder of the causes and consequences of the existential crisis that any government worth its salt would be prioritizsing. |
Climate crisis
Transform
member Hugh Barnes writes: “In opposition - and during this summer’s
election campaign - Rachel Reeves boasted that she would be the green
chancellor. Her first budget was our first opportunity to put Labour’s spin
to the test. And once again it showed that the party leadership has been
taken hostage by a false narrative about climate change and the kind of
green policies needed to tackle it.
In
addition to the failure to redistribute wealth by taxing the rich
appropriately, Reeves’s decision to freeze petrolhead fuel duty and keep
the 5p cut made by the Conservatives in 2022 is utterly dispiriting because
that tax relief has raised UK greenhouse gas emissions by 10% since 2010.
In other words, Labour is doing completely the wrong thing for the climate,
at the same time as raising the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 and rail fares
by 4.6%, as if subsidised - indeed free - public transport was not a no-brainer
climate-wise.
If you care about climate change, then this is totally
the wrong way to address the problem because we need to be moving in the
opposite direction towards a system that makes the greenest ways of getting
around the cheapest and most convenient.
On the
related topic of Labour’s green investment plan, that is just another
policy cul-de-sac. Labour’s fetish about growth (as opposed to
redistribution) of wealth is a category error as far as green economics
goes. We need to stop thinking about growth as the summum bonum of
politics. We need to start thinking in a positive new way
about the possibilities of eco-socialist degrowth, reducing production and
consumption in industrialised countries in order to achieve environmental
sustainability, social justice wellbeing, bringing us back into balance
with the living world while distributing income and resources more fairly.
Rachel Reeves’s budget had nothing to say to that.”
What do Transform say ?
Nothing less than a fundamental transformation of our
economy is needed to make it function in the interests of working class
people. This would mean changes to
the tax and benefits systems, and nationalisation of key parts of the
economy.
Transform
is also committed to working with others who share our values to fight for
what can be won in the here and now. We applaud the joint statement on the Budget by Independent, Green and Plaid Cymru MPs and nearly 100
progressive politicians.
|
I agree with almost all of this but I do actually think the winter fuel payments had to go. Yes, the threshold is a bit low - and perhaps there should be a bit more for the very elderly, and those who aren't active and mobile. But many of us are very fortunately placed compared to hard-working youngsters, having had shedloads of financial advantage all our lives, and we already have the triple lock. Nobody else gets a triple lock as far as I know
ReplyDeleteI'm very grateful you left a comment - not many people do! As for the winter fuel payments, I came across these words in the Morning Star on Wednesday from Disabled People Against Cuts co-founder Linda Burnip: '...added to which the policies of the new Labour government so far have only led to increasing levels of despair that nothing will change for the better for anyone on low income of any kind. None of these things make people's health better...'. Universal benefits, I read, are more cost-effective - if a couple of million people are going to be facing increased hardship because this winter benefit is being taken away, that's two million too many. It seems to me posturing by Starmer and Reeves: 'Take a look, you markets and businesses, we know how to be tough!' But there are other ways to raise the money, not least wealth taxes.
Delete