
A Wealth Tax Would Signal Britain Is Closed for Business
Crosland's speech, written by my former Times colleague David Lipsey who passed away last weekend, detonated like a bomb. Many Labour party officials, however, responded by sticking their fingers in their ears — the left opposed fiscal restraint even when Britain had to turn to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. Margaret Thatcher, the newly elected Conservative opposition leader, however, took Crosland's words to heart and waited for her moment.
This week, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a statement on the UK's fiscal risks that could have been lifted straight from Crosland: Britain is living beyond its means and must face up to reality. Publication of the OBR report has come 12 months too late to do Crosland's Labour successors much good. Had Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves detailed an honest analysis of the country's predicament from the outset — and blamed her Tory predecessors for it — she would have more political buy-in for spending restraint. That moment has now passed; and, as in the 1970s, many Labour Members of Parliament are refusing to acknowledge the dire reality of the economy.
The watchdog of the public finances usually wags a friendly tail at chancellors, but this time the OBR bared its teeth, saying the government 'cannot afford the array of promises it has made to the public.' Nothing new here: The country's public finances have been left in a 'relatively vulnerable position' by successive governments. But instead of making the 'hard choices' called for by the OBR, Keir Starmer's government has abandoned a number of public spending cuts after backbench rebellions.
The party's well and truly over and now the hangover begins. The UK has the sixth-highest debt, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs among 36 advanced economies. Worse, the UK has failed to reduce public debt after it soared during the pandemic and energy crisis, leaving the country increasingly vulnerable to external shocks.
Wiser heads in Cabinet are trying to knock sense into their colleagues. Pat McFadden, the cabinet office minister who still bears the scars of Tony Blair's attempts to impose public-service reform on an unwilling Labour party, says with quiet menace that 'you can't spend money twice.' The government may have to delay scrapping the hated two-child benefit limit imposed by the Tories. The measure would cost £3.5 billion ($4.7 billion), but the rebels have forced ministers to drop £5 billion worth of disability entitlement savings. Having tasted blood, Labour's left-wing has also set its sights on reforms to the rules that allow hundreds of thousands of children to be designated with costly 'special needs,' the annual bill to local councils for which is £12 billion and rising.
This bodes ill for the chancellor. As it is, Reeves is barely meeting her fiscal rules. Money is so tight that a government headed by a former human rights lawyer is seriously considering limiting the ancient right to trial by jury just to save cash. And where Labour leads, the trade unions follow. Some 53,000 doctors represented by the British Medical Association (BMA) have voted on a low turnout for six months of strike action to back up their demands for a wholly unrealistic 29% pay rise. Last year, the doctors were awarded a whopping 22% pay deal without any corresponding changes to their working practices. The government's logic was pragmatic — voters thought medics had a reasonable case in making up arrears in lost pay, and ministers were anxious to buy off a prolonged strike which had led to the cancellation of 1.5 million medical appointments.
This time, opinion polls suggest voters are unpersuaded by the strikers. The reform-minded Health Secretary Wes Streeting's response has therefore been robust. 'The public will not forgive strike action in these circumstances, and nor will I,' he told the Times. Fighting talk — but these days, who can be certain that a wobbly government won't cave? Other public-sector unions are watching closely.
The chancellor's naivety is coming back to haunt her. In her first budget, Reeves made a rash promise: 'I'm not coming back with more borrowing and more taxes' — and then spent all the money she'd raised from business on the health service and generous public sector wage settlements. Reeves must now look to higher taxes in the autumn to balance her books.
That doesn't seem to bother Labour MPs, who've set their hearts on soaking the rich — yet taxes on wealthy foreigners have already driven away thousands to Milan, Dubai and other tax-friendlier regimes. A wealth tax, floated by former Labour leader Neil Kinnock last weekend, would truly bring us back to the 1970s, when eye-wateringly high levies drove entrepreneurs, artists and pop stars into exile. If she travels down this road, Reeves will send out a message to the world that Britain is closed for business.
More from Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Amazon Interfered in Canadian Union Efforts, Labor Board Rules
(Bloomberg) -- Inc. mounted a 'lengthy and pervasive anti-union campaign' at a warehouse in western Canada and hired an excessive number of workers to dilute support for a union, according to a Canadian labor board. The British Columbia Labour Relations Board found that Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services ULC violated provincial labor laws by interfering in organization efforts at a facility in Delta, south of Vancouver. The board green-lit the union on Friday through remedial certification — a move reserved for situations where an employer's actions make a fair vote unlikely. 'There is little doubt that Amazon was trying to control the messaging within its facility and it did so in a manner that was coercive and intimidating,' the board's decision said. Amazon's conduct made it 'impossible for the board to determine the true wishes of the employees.' Amazon 'bombarded' employees with messages that were generally anti-union, the labor body said, though the company said it was 'simply providing facts.' In one series of Slack messages reviewed by the board, an Amazon manager noted that excessive hiring was taking place at 'the site that is going thru vote,' adding, 'generally we do not hire at such sites.' Another manager responded: 'This coming from two levels above chuck,' referring to Chuck Cummings, an Amazon executive. 'While Amazon says the hiring from January to May 2024 was consistent with its labor planning, the union's witnesses testified that there was a lack of work,' the labor relations board said. 'This decision is wrong on the facts and the law — it goes against what our employees have said they want, and deprives them of their right to make an informed decision,' Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said in a statement. The company plans to appeal the decision. 'Workers at Amazon organized against very difficult odds, but they've slayed the giant,' Lana Payne, national president of the union known as Unifor, said in a statement. Amazon has previously faced legal challenges over how it handles worker unionization efforts. In May, the US National Labor Relations Board ruled the company had committed several unfair labor practices after employees unionized at a Staten Island warehouse. One violation involved suspending a worker for 10 weeks with pay because of his position as a union leader. And in January, Amazon announced it would close a series of warehouses in the province of Quebec — a decision that came less than a year after workers at one of those facilities unionized. The Canadian government condemned the move and threatened to review its contracts with Amazon. More stories like this are available on


Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump warned he could lose House over Epstein files row; pins blame on Obama and Biden
President Donald Trump's former White House aide Steve Bannon on Friday claimed that the Republicans could lose as many as 40 House seats in the 2026 midterms over his administration's handling of the infamous Jeffrey Epstein files. Bannon's statement came hours before the president, without any evidence, pinned the blame on Former Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. The three have not responded to his Truth Social post yet. US President Donald Trump speaks on the Truman balcony during a signing ceremony for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Bloomberg) Bannon, speaking on his 'War Room' podcast, said Trump is losing MAGA support amid rumors about infighting in the White House. Reports state that the FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Chief Kash Patel are furious with the Pam Bondi-led DOJ over their claims about Jeffrey Epstein. Read More: Donald Trump calls reporter 'evil' when asked about lack of warnings before Texas floods 'You're going to lose 10 percent of the MAGA movement. If we lose 10 percent of the MAGA movement right now, we ain't gonna … we're gonna lose 40 seats in '26. We're gonna lose the president," Bannon said. The Republicans hold a slim majority in the House with 220 seats against the Democrats' 212. Three seats are vacant as of now. However, several MAGA influencers have become critical of the Trump administration over the Epstein row. 'They don't even have to steal it, which they're gonna try to do in '28, because they're gonna sit there and they go … they've disheartened the hardest core populist nation that's always been who governs us,' Bannon added. Read More: Donald Trump says he's considering revoking Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship; experts push back Trump pins blame on Obama, Biden and Clinton Meanwhile, President Trump issued a statement on Saturday, defending AG Bondi. He further alleged that the Biden, Obama administrations, and Clinton 'created' the Epstein files. 'Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 'Intelligence' Agents, 'THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,' and more? They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands,' Trump added.


Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump weighs in on Pam Bondi vs Dan Bongino; calls out his ‘boys and gals' amid Epstein row
President Donald Trump addressed the ongoing alleged clash between Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino over the Jeffrey Epstein files in a fiery Truth Social post on Saturday. The 79-year-old defended his AG and called on his 'boys and gals' for internal discord amid the Epstein files row. Pam Bondi, US attorney general, right, and US President Donald Trump during a news conference(Bloomberg) In his Truth Social post, Trump expressed exasperation with the focus on the Epstein case, defending Pam Bondi as doing a 'FANTASTIC JOB' and urging unity within his 'PERFECT Administration.' He further stated that the Kash Patel-led FBI should be looking at voter fraud, 2020 election claims and other issues rather than focusing on Epstein. Read More: Kash Patel breaks silence on resignation rumors amid Dan Bongino vs Pam Bondi row 'What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?' They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein,' Trump posted. Bondi-Bongino Clash The dispute reportedly stemmed from a DOJ and FBI memo concluding that Epstein died by suicide in 2019 and had no 'client list,' contradicting earlier promises by Bondi, Bongino, and Patel of significant disclosures. Earlier this week, Bongino reportedly confronted Bondi and also had a yelling match with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Several pro-Trump influencers, including Laura Loomer and Liz Wheeler, slammed Pam Bondi, demanding her resignation. Read More: Dan Bongino vs Susie Wiles: New White House clash emerges amid Pam Bondi speculations According to reports, Bongino was also considering resigning from his post. 'The Left is imploding! Kash Patel, and the FBI, must be focused on investigating Voter Fraud, Political Corruption, ActBlue, The Rigged and Stolen Election of 2020, and arresting Thugs and Criminals, instead of spending month after month looking at nothing but the same old, Radical Left inspired Documents on Jeffrey Epstein. LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE'S GREAT!' Trump added.