'Kemi Badenoch may hate the 1970s but Starmer should look to them'
At PMQs, Kemi Badenoch praised Norman Tebbit for rescuing this country from the Labour-run "chaos of the 1970s" before arguing that Keir Starmer wants to return us to that chaotic decade by flirting with a wealth tax.
Well, seeing as you weren't alive in those bell-bottom days Kemi, let me give you some facts. Life was far from perfect in the 70s. Racism, sexism and homophobia were given free passes, the global oil crisis and shrinking post-Empire markets caused a run on the Pound, police corruption was off the scale and thanks to weak management, chronic underinvestment and powerful trade unions, industrial relations resembled a warzone.
But it was, in many respects, a glorious time to be alive. There was a strong sense of community, belief in public services, free higher education, council houses aplenty, workers grafted for fewer hours in more secure jobs, The Clash and Sex Pistols ushered a new era of music, watching football was as cheap as chips and Thatcher had yet to turn Britain into a selfish, divided bearpit where only the strong survived.
Plus, 1976 was officially the year when incomes in this country were at their most equal. Indeed, the only European country where the gap between rich and poor was narrower was Sweden.
But Thatcher came to power at the end of the 70s and decreed this equality nonsense had gone too far. So she let the free markets rip and slashed higher rates of tax, helping the rich gorge on the nation's wealth and leaving the poor, the weak and the old industrial heartlands to rot.
The gap between the top and the bottom in the UK has only carried on widening, which is why today we are the second most unequal G7 economy after America and the second most unequal nation in Europe after Bulgaria.
The richest 70,000 people now take home 67 times more than the average worker, with CEOs like Tesco's Ken Murphy picking up £10 million last year, 431 times more than his company's mean wage.
Recent research from The Equality Trust showed the UK's richest 50 families have more wealth than half the population and the billionaire count has soared from 15 in 1990 to 165 last year.
We live in times of peak inequality making us an impoverished, unhealthy country where public services have stagnated, the economy has flatlined and a third of children live below the poverty line.
Which is why the likes of Neil Kinnock is calling on Starmer to bring in a wealth tax on assets worth more than £10million and why this generation of Tories hate the idea almost as much as they hate the 1970s. Because equality is anathema to them.
Whether it's Kinnock's tax on assets, a mansion tax, increasing capital gains tax, a new tax band for the super-wealthy or slashing relief on pensions for the richest, the government has to act.
It's no longer a question of whether Labour's reputation can afford a wealth tax, it's whether, in the face of staggering debt and limited options, it can afford not to address the terminal dysfunction caused by a vampiric economy in which most of the wealth gets sucked up by the few at the top.
It's about our country Stayin' Alive, as we used to sing in bell-bottom days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next hit to independent schools could be far more insidious
Is Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson about to launch her latest onslaught on independent schools? Over the last year Labour has already imposed 20pc VAT on school fees and scrapped mandatory business rate relief for schools with charitable status, vindictively treating them differently from all other charities. Those two measures were unambiguous, public attacks on private education. What might now follow is rather more subtle, but all the more insidious. Phillipson has announced the Government is considering scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) for children with special educational needs (SEN), and planning to replace them with a less onerous and cheaper system. This may sound like good news to anyone who rightly thinks that public spending is out of control. Nearly 483,000 children, or 5.3pc of the school population, had an EHCP in the 2024-25 school year, according to government figures – an increase of 11pc on the previous year and a doubling since 2016. The numbers are clearly unsustainable. But might Phillipson's conversion to sound public finances be motivated by another factor? EHCPs are an essential part of why the state pays, either in whole or in part, for some children to go to independent schools. Local authorities are obliged to provide schooling to children living within its boundaries. But what if it is unable to provide adequate education to a given child due to their specific needs? This may be due to the fact that the child would not be able to cope with larger class sizes, or it might be because their dyslexia is at such a level that the local school is not set up to deal with it. More often than not, the local authority will do all in its power to avoid paying up for the independent school which can provide an adequate education suitable for that child. In 2024, less than half of EHCPs were issued by local authorities within the 20-week time limit required by law, according to the Department for Education. Many parents have to appeal the initial decision to the national SEN tribunal to try and achieve a satisfactory outcome. But some parents do eventually succeed in getting their local authority to pay for private provision. This school year there were 7,200 children with an EHCP attending mainstream independent schools, with more than 20,000 at specialist independent schools. When the Government imposed VAT on school fees the only category that remained exempted were local authorities paying fees for children with an EHCP. If these plans no longer exist, how will it be decided whether a local authority is obliged to pay for private provision? And what mechanism of appeal will there be? Will local authorities continue to pay for the education of children with existing EHCPs? These are questions that may be worrying many parents this weekend. It is also of concern to the schools themselves. For the independent mainstream schools, local authority-funded places for children with an EHCP will only be a very modest proportion of their total intake. But for specialist schools it is a different story. At one school in London, which is a world leader for children with dyslexia, around 60pc of pupils have their school fees paid for by their local authority. Paying for independent schooling is undoubtedly a heavy burden, but it is not the fault of parents that a local authority is unable to provide an adequate education for their child within its own schools. A move from Phillipson could turn out to be akin to what Michael Gove did as education secretary, when he increased the required employer contributions for teachers' pensions. Historically, most independent schools have been part of the state's pay-as-you-go, unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. In 2012, the employer contribution to the pension scheme was 14.1pc; this year it has reached double that at 28.68pc. Those who support sound public finances and are appalled by unaffordable public sector pensions may have been tempted to applaud that move. But in truth the measure has amounted to a levy on independent schools. Those in the state sector have had their funding increase commensurately – and in any case employer pension contributions for public sector employees in a pay-as-you-go scheme are only a matter of churning government funds. Gove's move is a major part of the reason for that fees at independent schools soared even before Labour imposed VAT, as the increased pension costs have been passed on to parents. As a result, middle-class parents have increasingly found themselves priced out of them. Whether the extra funding for the pension scheme is a saving to the state at all is debatable, if it pushed parents out of choosing an independent education. We do not have the details of what Phillipson may be planning to replace EHCPs with. But whatever Labour introduces, it is unlikely to be favourable to the private sector. As well as being a world leader in private education generally, some of the UK's specialist independent schools are also at the very pinnacle of what can be done for children with special needs. EHCP reform must not imperil these centres of excellence and damage the future prospects of thousands of children.
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Why is everyone so 'unserious'?
Photo by The House of Commons Are you or anyone you know 'unserious'? Probably, I'm afraid. This is the put-down du jour in Britain today. If you come across someone whose opinions you don't respect, or who you feel is making a flimsy argument, you may now consider them not just trivial or thick – but unserious. Its use has spiked in the UK over the last three years: it's highly likely by now that if you're not using it, you're the unserious one. No one is more serious about unseriousness than Sir Serious himself, Keir Starmer. Over various bouts of PMQs and Commons debates since he became Prime Minister, he has called Kemi Badenoch 'unserious' 12 times, by my count. His henchmen also love using it. A No 10 aide accused Labour welfare rebels of 'deeply unserious stuff from deeply unserious people'. During that row, another Starmer ally declared 'our political class is so deeply unserious'. This year alone, it's been used in the chamber more than in the previous three years put together. 'I love you, but you are not serious people,' Logan Roy growled at his children in the final season of Succession. It seems this last gasp of a monstrous patriarch sounded pretty good to a bunch of our politicians – never too burdened by a linguistic hinterland – who have embraced the rhetoric of seriousness ever since. This is also the language of 'grown-ups in the room', of 'credibility' and 'competence', and 'steady hands' and 'cool heads'. It's a way of saying: I deem you unserious, because I'm the opposite. And it's so po-faced. What a bland word. That Newspeakish 'un'. That weak streak of sibilance. That anticlimactic Latinate ebb of stress. And so dull! Of all the fun insults you can chuck at a person, you choose this. What happened to 'silly'? Or 'trifling'? It is a sad day for the English when they have forgotten their trifles. More serious readers than I will point out how unBard of me it is to poo-poo the prefix Shakespeare famously popularised. But these guys aren't Shakespeare. They just can't think of any other adjectives. Historic uses of the term, kindly supplied to me by the English word expert and author Mark Forsyth aka The Inky Fool, show more flare deployed alongside it: 'Frothy, vain, and unserious persons' (J. Flavell, Saint Indeed 199, 1668); 'What a plaything, a trifle, an unserious affair' (N. Hawthorne, English Notebooks vol. II. 460, 1860). Make British debate frothy again, and drop the 'unserious'. Seriously. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Lords doesn't have to accept the Assisted Dying Bill
In an effort to hasten the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill on to the statute books, Esther Rantzen and Lord Falconer have offered a novel interpretation of the role of the House of Lords. Falconer suggested that the Lords must 'uphold' what 'the Commons have decided to go ahead with'. Meanwhile, Rantzen said of Parliament's upper chamber: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.' Someone like Rantzen may be forgiven for playing so loose with conventions, but a former Lord Chancellor may not. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying The reality is that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords play an equal role in the passing of legislation, except when it comes to matters of financial privilege. For legislation to become law, it must be approved by both Houses; where there is disagreement on the detail, there is negotiation through 'ping pong' until agreement is reached or the Bill falls. This encourages both Houses to compromise and find a way through. Both adopt the same legislative stages, requiring MPs and Peers to approve the Bill as a whole, as well as the detail. If the Lords were not entitled to take a position on any Bill, then second and third reading would simply not exist. The second major convention of the Lords is the Salisbury-Addison Convention, which holds that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading a government bill which implements a manifesto commitment. That convention is founded, as Viscount Cranborne spelt out in the 1940s, on the principle that 'it would be constitutionally wrong, to oppose proposals which have been put before the electorate'. In the case of the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill, these conditions are not met. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying. Nor is this a Government Bill, despite the Prime Minister's personal support for the legislation. At every stage of the Bill's passage through the Commons, ministers told MPs that the Government is neutral on the Bill and the Bill represents the policy intent of the sponsor and not ministers. The Noble Lords are also entitled to feel frustrated that Lord Falconer expects the more diligent of the two Houses to cut short scrutiny. On legislation of any significance the Lords will typically take twice the time that the Commons does. The Commons took 15 days in Committee, two days for Report stage, and a day for Third Reading. The brevity of report stage was achieved only by curtailing debate, and the procedural controls that exist in the Commons. As such, while more than 90 concerns were identified by MPs at report stage, 80 were not even selected for a decision, eight were rejected, and just two that were not in Kim Leadbeater's name were accepted. If the sponsors of the Bill had been serious about securing the quick passage of the Bill through the Lords, more work should have been done in the Commons to ease the responsibility of the second House. The Lords should also be comforted that the end of the session is penciled in for May 2026. This means that they can take the time to look at the detail of the legislation. The thirteen sitting Fridays set aside in the Commons for the consideration of private members bills will have already run their course before second reading, which is due to take place on 12 September. The Lords is therefore under no pressure to return the Bill to meet a specific date, and it is the Government that will need to makeshift – should it chose to do so – to provide more time when the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. Nor is there any impact on the Government programme as the Bill can be dealt with on sitting Fridays, while Government legislation steadily progresses on other days. Finally, we turn to the risk that the Lords are not done with the Bill by the time the session ends. This is plausible: there might be simply too many problems to patch, particularly in the absence of any consultative work to guide deliberations. Here all sides should take comfort in the existence of the Parliament Acts and the specific provisions. The Royal Commission on Lords Reform concluded that the Parliament Acts – which enable the Commons to 'achieve almost any result it desired' – provided 'another reason for the existence of a second chamber sufficiently confident and authoritative to require the House of Commons, at the very least, to think again'. Should the Bill flounder in the Lords with too many unanswered questions, it would be perfectly permissible for the Government to take responsibility for setting up a Commission or Committee similar to the Warnock Commission or Peel Committee for IVF and Abortion to test the validity of the provisions and the policy approach taken in the Bill. If it was established that the Bill was safe, MPs could return with the same Bill. If the Bill was established as inadequate, a revised version could be developed. In the former scenario, Peers need not worry that amendments made the first-time round would be lost if the Parliament Acts were used. The Acts and Erskine May are clear that if the Bill were to be reintroduced a second time, it can include amendments 'made by the House of Lords in the former bill in the preceding session'; and if the Commons wished to propose further amendments recognising the debates in the Lords and indicating that the Commons is prepared to compromise, the Commons could also suggest these for insertion into the Bill. On three occasions, bills have been introduced in a second successive parliamentary session to potentially allow the Parliament Acts to be used – only for the Lords to agree to the bills, with the passage of time helping to establish a way forward. There are more than adequate mechanisms for the Commons to prevail should it wish to do so, but the Lords must not be bludgeoned into signing off a Bill of such complexity and significance. To do so is to abdicate responsibility and risks sacrificing some people, particularly the vulnerable, to secure the choice for others.
