Budget 2024
Summer break is over, as is the honeymoon period for the new government. On 30 October 2024, Rachel Reeves delivered her first Budget as Chancellor, which was momentously the first ever Budget delivered by a woman. Aside from that there was worry in advance that the Budget would achieve very little, and simultaneously cries from the media of the untold levels of destruction that would be caused by Labour unnecessarily raising taxes on hard working British workers. Both turned out to be true, at least in some respects. In some ways this Budget started the journey of addressing the many problems we have with our economy that weren’t fixed by the free market as we were promised repeatedly by the Conservatives. In others, the changes made didn’t go far enough to properly redress the gross inequality that we as a country have developed. I am going to be focusing my thoughts in this blog from a political perspective. If you would like to read my thoughts on what this means from a financial planning perspective, my professional blog is available here. What We Welcomed There was a lot to welcome in this Budget, not least of which was the fact that it was the first ever delivered by a female Chancellor. Beyond that, it took steps towards repairing our broken economy, with increases to Capital Gains Tax, restrictions on Inheritance Tax and confirmation that the Non-Domiciled Status would be abolished. Capital Gains Tax, the tax on realised gains from assets bought and sold, was increased from 10% to 18% at the basic rate and from 20% to 24% at the higher rate. This is still not a return to the heady days when Capital Gains Tax was 40%, but 24% is actually the rate that would have been paid on the longest-term capital gains once the maximum effects of Taper Relief were applied (Taper Relief was an effort to accommodate inflation so that people weren’t paying the full rate of tax just due to rising costs). As such, this is a reversion to an old rate of Capital Gains Tax, at least for the higher-rate taxpayers, and it is fair to say that during that time there were still calls for major reform to that particular tax for equality purposes. In particular, it is quite disappointing at first glance to see an increase of 8% for basic-rate taxpayers and 4% for higher-rate taxpayers, but it is important to remember that there will be very few basic rate taxpayers actually affected by this given it is a tax paid predominantly by the very wealthy. The combination of cumulative ISA allowances of £20,000 per person per year and the fact that basic-rate taxpayers would need to be earning under £50,000 a year means they are unlikely to pay Capital Gains Tax at all. Inheritance Tax tightening is welcome, in particular the anomaly that is the unlimited relief from inheritance tax for “unquoted” shares (which perversely includes companies quoted on the Alternative Investments Market, or AIM, which includes several companies worth over £1 billion) after a holding period of 2 years. This was essentially a huge gift to those wealthy enough to make large investments into fairly high risk ventures without worrying about their financial future. It was also available for “working farmland”, which would have included some very large hereditary estates used for things like grouse shooting. These reliefs have been curtailed, with the full relief only available on £1 million of assets, with the excess limited to 50% relief. This might have an enormous long-term effect on the strategies used to sidestep inheritance tax for larger estates, but is very unlikely to stop the process altogether because there are many other workable strategies, including simply gifting large swathes of the estate and surviving for 7 years. Inheritance Tax is largely already considered “optional” once an estate gets sufficiently large, and while it is nice to partially redress some of the oddities in the tax, this is far too little to expect any meaningful results. The abolition of the Non-Domiciled Status is welcome. Essentially this was an option for wealthy individuals from overseas to come and live in the UK but not pay tax on their worldwide assets in the way that a resident born here would have to. This essentially came from the idea that wealth would trickle down, i.e. if we managed to attract wealthy people to the UK through low tax, they would benefit the country by spending their money here. In reality it led to a large industry of overseas trusts and careful management of family finances to pay as little tax as possible whilst enjoying the status of being full UK taxpayers. The overall combination of these changes is expected to be a significant increase in tax take, and from that the Chancellor announced increased budgets for the NHS, justice and education systems, all of which are welcome. Whether these increases are sufficient to fix the various problems within each of these remains to be seen. Also announced were official redress schemed for those affected most by several scandals over the years, including the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal. Frankly these are long overdue, and it is genuinely awful that it took a change in government to get these properly funded. What Was Missing Unfortunately there was a lot missing in the Budget. You would have to have been hiding under a rock not to have heard the calls for a wealth tax, whether as a one-time payment or as an ongoing annual tax, but this was conspicuous by its absence. An effective wealth tax is the only means to address wealth inequality, and whilst Inheritance Tax is a form of wealth tax, as mentioned above it is far from effective. Given this, the changes to taxes in this Budget feel like wallpapering over major structural defects in the UK tax system. Increased Capital Gains Tax might feel like it goes some
Here Comes the New Boss…
Same As the Old Boss… I mentioned before the election that Labour really weren’t the party of change that they were claiming to be. I said on a number of occasions that they were basically the continuity party and that their policies were functionally almost identical to the Tories they were seeking to replace, but with more competent personnel. Yesterday a vote in the Commons demonstrated that this was indeed a correct analysis and that Labour is much more interested in party politics than the good of the country. What Happened? Yesterday MPs had the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the House’s response to the King’s Speech, which sets out the aims of the government now that Parliament has been reopened. The standard unamended response was: That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. Address to be presented to His Majesty by Members of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of His Majesty’s Household. Hansard This is a fairly standard response to a King’s Speech, and is entirely non-contentious to simply pass without further comment. However, it is also an opportunity for minority parties to point out to the government that they have missed some key issues that really ought to have been included. In the case of the amendment proposed by Christine Jardine MP (Liberal Democrat, I might add), these issues were: The right to see a GP within seven days A guarantee for cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral Free personal care in England Better support for carers, and a cross-party commission on social care An end to the scandal of sewage dumping against which the previous Government failed to take action, including by replacing Ofwat with a new regulator Support families with the cost of living Tackle poverty, including by introducing a national food strategy, extending free school meals to all children in poverty, and by scrapping the two-child benefit cap Ensure that rural communities and farmers receive adequate support Reform the system for parliamentary elections by replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation, so that every vote counts The new Labour government voted this down. Not only that, they withdrew the Whip from seven MPs that voted to amend the King’s Speech response (NB, they actually voted for an amendment from the SNP which only focused on the child benefit cap – they didn’t even go so far as to vote for this amendment with its various additional benefits for the country), including the former Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. Frankly there is nothing in this amendment that should warrant this type of action from Starmer. His party supports all of these, including proportional representation, so he does not have a mandate from his own party to ignore these requests, let alone the fact that almost every other party in Westminster voted for this amendment (Tories notwithstanding, given they are responsible for most of the mess this would have addressed). Danny’s Debut This year I lost the Uxbridge & South Ruislip election to Danny Beales. At the time I was not hugely disappointed with this because during the hustings Danny set himself out to be progressive in the true sense of the word. Nevertheless, he joined the Labour masses in voting against this amendment. Shame on you, Danny. Every single one of these proposals was in line with what a true progressive would have wanted, and you used one of your very first appearances in our Parliament to vote to retain Tory policies that have harmed our country and our constituency. You should have joined John McDonnell in voting for this amendment if you wanted to be taken seriously as a progressive, but it seems that you have chosen to simply fall in line with what Starmer demands even when it contradicts your own personal morality. A fine example of putting party before country, something you were very keen to accuse Steve Tuckwell of doing. Frankly, if you want to be a progressive, you are clearly in the wrong party. Labour is not a progressive party, as demonstrated by suspending several prominent MPs who dared to vote for some actual progressiveness.
Swearing in Parliament
This week we have seen a load of MPs swearing in Parliament, and one in particular seems to have landed in hot water as a result. I am of course referring to the official “swearing in” ceremony for Parliament, and the MP that has gotten in trouble is Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, who essentially took the oath under protest and was forced to re-swear because the wording wasn’t quite right the first time around. So what is this swearing in Parliament all about, and why is Clive Lewis generating controversy? The Oath Swearing in is a perfectly reasonable starting point for Parliament. In many situations we require an oath, most obviously when giving evidence in Court, but also when signing up to one of the branches of the military. In the case of the Court, the oath is to tell the truth, while with the military it is an oath to obey the chain of command right up to the monarch. In reality, all military decisions are made by Parliament or lower down the chain of command, so the reality of this is that the oath of allegiance is to Parliament wielding the power of the sovereign. Members may choose to take a religious oath or make an affirmation, but the overall wording is very similar. The official wording for the affirmation is as follows: I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. UK Parliament Lewis’ Lapse As already mentioned, Clive Lewis has been forced to re-swear the oath under threat of losing his seat if he doesn’t comply and potentially being subject to a financial fine. In addition, he would be unable to participate in the debates and votes that his constituents have elected him to Parliament to represent them in. One might be forgiven for assuming that there was some major failing in how Lewis acted up to this point to make that threat against an elected official justifiable. Clive Lewis is a republican. He believes that the country would be better off without a monarchy, and on that point I agree based on the axiomatic principle of equality of opportunity. As such, he swore his oath with a preamble basically stating that he was a republican, hoped that he and his fellow MPs would be able to swear an oath to their country in future, but then proceeded to make the affirmation required of him. Except that he missed the words “his heirs and successors”. Evidently someone in Parliament considered this enough of a lapse to make him repeat the oath with the correct wording under threat of not being allowed to represent his constituents otherwise. There was then uproar from the monarchists in society, that he should not be allowed to be an MP at all because he clearly didn’t believe in the oath. This is an absurdity on so many levels. Republican Representation In the UK, the group of people who want to see the monarchy abolished are known as republicans. This is somewhat confusing when considering the people who normally come to mind when using the word “republicans”, but this is UK politics, not the US. At the moment, depending on how the questions are posed, upwards of 35% of the UK population are republicans, in that they either actively want to to see the monarchy abolished or they don’t see any reason why the monarchy should have an active role in UK politics any more. Philosophically, it is fairly easy to see why such people exist. If we start with the principle that all people should be born with equality of opportunity, the idea of a hereditary position that cannot possibly pass to anyone else regardless of their merit is antithetical to the very concept of fairness. The flip side is that someone who doesn’t have to earn their position can have a more impartial impact on politics, in that they don’t have to consider whether people will approve of the necessary actions they have to take. This might have at least some merit if our monarch genuinely had an active role in everyday politics, but they don’t. The monarch has not actually wielded power over Parliament contrary to Parliament’s will in centuries, so in essences the role of monarch is that of a figurehead in practice. A Problematic Practice The problem is that this is not what the current oath does. In essence, the oath is a throwback to when Parliament really did serve solely at the whim of the monarch, and that monarch could directly intervene in Parliament and remove “traitors”. Now, Parliament is itself sovereign, the highest legislative body in the land, and we as citizens have a right to expect that our MPs – if they promise to do something – will either do it or make a real effort to do it. This oath essentially says that they believe the monarch to be a higher authority than them, that they will obey commands from the monarch even when it contradicts the interests of the country or their constituents. There are plenty of people who say “it’s fine, they don’t really mean it” but that to me is incredibly dangerous. It is requiring that the first course of action for our MPs, those people that we trust to make rules in accordance with what they have promised to do when campaigning, make a promise that they fully intend to either ignore or break. The contempt this shows for the basic principle of honesty in our leadership should worry everyone, whether monarchist or republican. A Wider Issue Parliament has made some significant strides towards modernisation in recent years (though it still has a very long way to go), but this oath is one example of something that badly needs to be updated and yet has no means of doing so. After all, in order
About Last Night…
Last night we had the main Uxbridge and South Ruislip hustings, organised once again by the Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce. It was a relatively sparse event, with maybe 80 people in the audience, something of a shame given the size of the constituency but a reflect of how disillusioned people are with politics. I wanted to talk a little bit about last night and what some performances indicated. I don’t intend to spend much time at all on my own performance largely because much of what I said has fled my memory, but the time I got to listen to the other candidates is still fairly clear. So here’s some of what I remember of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip hustings. Steve Tuckwell Those who have read my page before will know that I do not hold Steve Tuckwell in particularly high regard, and yesterday’s performance from him did nothing to change my opinion. He interrupted repeatedly, often completely pointlessly. For example when I said that inflation was 24% over the past 5 years he interrupted to say that it was 2% now – this added absolutely nothing to my point, nor did it contradict anything that I was saying, it’s clearly just a talking point that he has been blindly told to repeat without context. I have a chart demonstrating this (see across). The recent figure of 2% only takes into account the last 12 months, but focusing only on that ignores the huge impact that the years of extreme inflation have caused, and this is a price that all working families will be paying for decades. In short, the figure of 2% might be technically true, but it is highly misleading to try to distract people from the fact that prices have in fact risen by nearly 25% in 5 years. Tuckwell also repeated his claim that Hillingdon Hospital is fully funded. This is a falsehood – whether it is a lie or him failing to understand what most people define “fully funded” to be, I genuinely don’t know. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just clueless, but the weight of evidence about just how much he has spread falsehoods on behalf of the Conservatives make me believe that he knows precisely what he is doing. For the avoidance of doubt, the hospital is not fully funded. It has the funding it needs to carry out the establishing works – site clearance, installation of utilities, etc, but the actual build costs have been deferred to the next Parliament or beyond. This means they are not fully funded, because the likelihood is that there will be no Conservative government to hold to account for such promises, so in essence the commitment has been handed to the next government, likely Labour. This is not full funding a projects. This is deferring the problem until someone else fixes it for you. I can predict exactly what this is going to look like, though. Tuckwell is hedging his bets, working on the assumption that he is going to be voted out, and he is starting to lay the groundwork for claims that “the hospital was fully funded when I left, why is it not fully funded now?” The answer is that it is not fully funded. It has never been fully funded. The fully funded status of this hospital is identical to the 40 that were promised by Boris Johnson in 2019, none of which have ever seen the light of day. This is not “fully funded” by any rational definition, because “fully funded” means that the money is in place, and that the works will happen regardless of changes in government. People will eventually start remembering the lies, and I am fairly certain we are near that point in Uxbridge – enough is enough. Interestingly, although he repeatedly commented about being a hard working MP who has put the constituency first, Tuckwell was very reluctant to highlight any of his voting record in Parliament. This was perhaps not too surprising give one audience member had to remind him that he had in fact voted against calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Aside from that, Tuckwell has also voted to suppress the school safety report that would allow parents to be aware of whether their children’s schools were built using RAAC, a substance now known to be crumbling far faster than anticipated. Definitely not an action in the interests of local people, and something I sincerely hope he is ashamed of. At the Uxbridge and South Ruislip hustings last year, Tuckwell claimed not to be Boris Johnson. I ask you, is this an improvement? Danny Beales Beales once again made it very difficult to say anything negative about him, because he remained calm, answered points rationally and generally came across as very statesmanlike. I will say this, however. An audience member asked him what his views on Proportional Representation are, and he said that he supported them. I pointed out that in that case he was in the wrong party, because Labour’s 1997 manifesto included a commitment to Proportional Representation, which they reneged on, and their 2010 manifesto included a commitment to Alternative Voting (not Proportional Representation, but a step in the right direction). We Liberal Democrats fought hard as a party and secured a national referendum on electoral reform with Labour’s preferred system as the one that would replace the archaic First Past The Post system we currently have, and half of their MPs at the time campaigned with the Tories against the system, meaning the referendum ultimately failed. Labour are absolutely not the party of electoral reform, to the extend that they have kept any promises to reform our broken voting system out of this manifesto, which is arguable the best opportunity we have ever had as a country to push for real, lasting change to our politics. This is a truly sad state of affairs for Labour because
My Campaign Leaflet
As you probably know by now, my campaign is not a particularly well-funded one. We don’t have the backing of wealthy donors with extremely deep pockets, nor are we gifted large amounts of cash by trade unions. So we have to be very frugal with the money we spend on campaigns. To that end, I designed my own campaign leaflet and had planned to make use of the free Royal Mail delivery available to all candidates. I had the artwork signed off by my agent and then Royal Mail, and I was ready to deal with the 47,000 copies that I had ordered. Unfortunately the printer contacted me yesterday to say that they would not be completing my order, so Uxbridge & South Ruislip will not be getting my leaflet. To say I am disappointed is a huge understatement. But I thought that even in the absence of a physical copy, I can at least share the final design with you as a reader of my website. So here you are, in all its glory:
Even More Economic Ineptitude
This would be a much less wasteful thing to do with money than what Reform UK have in mind. Reform UK are on the move, but unfortunately it’s just another example of them wanting to play at politics without any real understanding of what they are doing. I am referring to this “manifesto” which has surfaced in recent days on Twitter. This particular image was shares by a self-declared stand-up comedian, but most of his recent political posts seem to be serious (or at least that looks like it was the intention). The image in question is this one: Let’s go through claim by claim to see what makes sense, what doesn’t (most of it) and what is just so wrong it isn’t even in the right ballpark. Authenticity First of all, this is not an authentic manifesto. During an election campaign, all materials published by a party are required to have an imprint on to show who has been responsible for making the claims. This document lacks any such imprint, meaning it has the same impact as parody. Nevertheless, several Reform UK candidates seem to be treating this as though it is real, so I will do the same. Importantly, though, if this is official party policy, they have messed up by not including an imprint. Notwithstanding this crucial omission, I suspect that this is actually a sanctioned document by Reform UK. I assume the missing imprint is deliberate to allow them plausible deniability if they actually get success, essentially giving them a “Get Out Of Promises Free” card. So if you are reading this document and thinking “I like that a political party is promising these things” remember that they aren’t. They are taking you for a fool, and they deserve your contempt for that and numerous other offences. Increased Personal Allowance Nothing wrong with this headline figure as a concept except to say why £20,000 is their chosen figure (minor gripe) and how they intend to pay for it (major problem, as this would cost a huge amount of tax revenue). My back of envelope calculations suggest this on its own could cost upwards of £200 billion a year, on its own dwarfing the total cost of the whole manifesto stated as £141 billion. Scrap VAT on Fuel Bills and Lower Fuel Duty This seems like a reasonable solution until you realise that the reason why fuel bills are so high is because the free market allows energy companies to charge a high price for their product. Scrapping VAT on energy bills would have a short term benefit, but market forces would react to the reduction in price by nudging prices higher. In a few short years we would likely be back to the same issue again, but this time we would all be paying high energy prices and there would be no tax revenue to compensate us. Worst of both worlds. The right solution is to either price regulate, nationalise the energy companies or introduce a competing publicly-owned supplier that can directly affect the prices offered by the remaining private sector companies. Reduce Corporation Tax to 20% No indication why reducing corporation tax would be a good idea, though it is of course interesting to note that Reform UK Ltd – a corporation – would directly benefit from such a tax reduction. In reality, small companies rarely pay anywhere close to the 25% rate due to the number of allowances and reliefs they have available, and any income they generate which is paid out as salary is already an allowable expense. Corporations do not need a lower rate of tax except to directly benefit their shareholders, not their employees. Freeze Non-Essential Immigration This is another costly measure that will likely cause us more problems than it solves, but even if successful, the question has to be raised of “who decides what is non-essential?” At the moment, it would wholly be Nigel Farage, as he seems to be the sole decision-maker for Reform UK, and frankly I wouldn’t want him making any such decisions on behalf of the country. Immediate Deportation for Foreign Criminals This might as well be renamed “Catch and Release”. If we arrest someone in the UK and sentence them to a jail term, then deporting them back to their parent country is just setting them free instead of jailing them because they have not been sentenced to jail in that jurisdiction. People would be free to come to the UK to commit whatever crimes they wanted, safe in the knowledge that if caught they would just be sent home again. I can’t even begin to state what a terrible idea this would be for justice. This is one of those policies designed to sound like it would save money, but in reality all it would do is create a two-tier justice system where ironically the foreign criminals would have far better treatment than native British criminals. New Housing Again, no issue with this in principle as we need more housing. But again, it’s a good idea, but with no costings or even quantified goals. Life Skills in Schools and Scrap Student Loan Interest Sensible policies, but again no indication of who would get to pick the life skills being taught. As such, the default is Nigel Farage getting to decide on curriculum content, which frankly should terrify anyone even if they actually like him – one man absolutely should not have that much power. In terms of scrapping student loan interest, it’s a start, I suppose. But the lost interest has to be paid for from somewhere, and there’s no indication of where this will come from. Farming There’s talk here about increasing the farming budget, but not what would be done with it, increasing our food production without any sort of acknowledgement that we don’t grow all our own food because we actually like the food that we import, and subsidised agricultural apprenticeships. Nothing wrong with this last one necessarily, but
Danny Beales – Labour
Returning to Uxbridge & South Ruislip once more and again hoping to be your next MP is Danny Beales. Beales stood in the by-election last year, which I have already said was one of the biggest open goals for Labour in history, given the previous MP had resigned in disgrace, the Conservative candidate – Steve Tuckwell – was monumentally unsuited to the role and lying repeatedly about what he would do as MP, and the Conservatives were at a historically low level of support. Nevertheless, he contrived to lose the ballot marginally. I would argue that skipping most of the hustings events probably didn’t do him any favours, as that showed a contempt for the electorate that really didn’t sit well with people. Nor did starting out pro-ULEZ in full support of Sadiq Khan then changing to anti-ULEZ when Tuckwell weaponised ULEZ as a campaigning tool. Generally I thought he was a very good speaker and would have been a good statesman, but his political stances were clearly poorly thought out and he simply wasn’t committed to the electoral process. Will definitely be interesting to see whether this changes in the General Election campaign. It is worth mentioning that Beales has been very unfairly lambasted by the Tories as “not local” (as have I, incidentally, which is absurd as I live about 3 minutes from the constituency border). To my mind this is not a fair criticism. Beales was born and raised in Hillingdon, and his work has taken him across London to Camden, but he is clearly still a local to the area. This is clearly a desperate ploy by the Tories to denigrate other candidates in the area purely based on their post code rather than a) whether they know and love Hillingdon and b) whether they would do a good job for the area. It is also worth remembering that their former MP, Boris Johnson, famously spent almost no time in Uxbridge to the point where it was joked that he didn’t even know where Uxbridge was. Labour’s Policies It is worth remembering that Beales is a Labour candidate. That means that he is inextricably linked to the Labour leadership. That means that a vote for him is a vote to: Keep most things exactly as they are. Labour has been very clear that they are not offering any radical changes to anything and will keep most of what the Tories have brought in, including the restrictions on the rights to protest and strike, both of which are fundamental to a society which values the people who make up the country. Retain the existing First Past The Post election system which guarantees that most votes are wasted and does not allow true representation in Parliament. Continue demonising the people who most need the benefits system, e.g. disabled individuals. Leave the tax system largely unchanged, allowing the ultra wealthy to continue paying a tiny fraction of what the average family pays as a marginal rate. Allow continued exploitation of the UK’s oil and gas reserves despite very clear evidence that renewable energy is cheaper. There are plenty of other complaints about the Labour Party, but my summary of them is that they have very deliberately set themselves up as a caretaker government while the Tories are out of power. They are not bringing anything radical or even necessary to the table, but instead are fishing for right-wing votes that would normally go to the Conservatives. Frankly if you want change, Labour is not the party for you. If you look at the chaos and suffering of the last 14 years and think “more of that, please” then maybe, though honestly I would argue that you are probably better suited to the Conservatives or even Reform if that’s the case. In short, Labour are not what the UK needs. We will almost certainly get a Labour government next if we look at the polls, but if you want to vote for the good of the country and not just vote for the winning party, you will need to look elsewhere. Such as:
What Uxbridge and the UK Needs
Hopefully this image says it all. Uxbridge and the UK as a whole needs me, or at the very least people like me. People who care, people with integrity and people who want to make the country better for all of us. Let’s have a look at some of the things that I want to achieve. Fairer Elections Right now, elections are essentially designed to be unfair. I wrote a blog post recently explaining how the current system almost guarantees that at least half of votes are wasted, and usually considerably more than that. In an ideal world, every vote should matter. After all, we have 650 seats in the Commons, which means that each MP should represent around 0.15% of the current population. That’s a lot of potential for nuance, but right now such nuance is not just discourages but outright impossible. In fact, this inability to allow nuance is precisely why the Conservative party has become so dominated by a radical right-wing element that very few people in the country actually support. The Liberal Democrats are the largest party in England that supports Proportional Representation. This is a fundamental change to our electoral system to make your votes count and to introduce nuance into our political system that currently cannot get in. Fairer Taxes Right now the tax take for the UK is the highest is has ever been, but many ultra wealthy individuals have managed to get away with paying very little tax, often across multiple generations. This comes from a very long-standing tradition for the political right that wealth trickles down, so looking after the wealthy indirectly looks after everyone else. Trickle down economics has never worked anywhere except to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. For society to improve, we need to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and that the burden for paying tax doesn’t hit the poorest in society the most. Fairer Healthcare At the moment, if you can get a GP appointment via the NHS, you are very lucky. If you can get an appointment with an NHS dentist, you are beyond lucky. When the NHS was founded, the stated intention was to provide healthcare from the cradle to the grave without any up front costs. Nothing about that indicated having to wait weeks just to see a doctor, months to see a specialist or years to get life-improving but technically non-urgent treatment. But that’s the reality we now face. Our healthcare service has been persistently decimated in terms of staff and required funding, and frankly we all deserve better. In particular, we in Hillingdon deserve a world-class hospital rather than one that is falling apart. Our current hospital has plans to renovate which have been approved, but approval absolutely is not enough, especially since the country was promised 40 new hospitals and has so far received none. Fairer Environment Regardless of our socio-economic status, we all use the environment one away or another. We all breath the air and drink the water, so it is horrible to see the forces of unchecked capitalism taking a stand against environmental protection. It has become normal for water companies to simply dump raw sewage into our waterways almost whenever they feel like it, and they have a track record of awarding their directors huge bonuses and their shareholders huge dividends whilst doing so. At the other end of the spectrum, these same forces have turned large parts of the legislature against things like clean power generation, despite the fact that right now renewable energy is by far the cheapest form of electricity generation available and we live in one of the most reliably windy places on Earth. We all deserve laws that are designed to protect the precious environment and preserve it for our children and successive generations. Instead we are embarking on a huge expansion of fossil fuel extractions which is both needlessly expensive and highly polluting. And of course we are allowing water companies to pump sewage into our rivers. Fairer Everything You’ll see that there’s a theme for what Uxbbridge and the UK needs, and that’s a fairer deal. I could go on at length about what we need, but I honestly can’t do much better than suggesting that you read the Liberal Democrat position. We stand “For A Fair Deal” for a really good reason – it’s what the whole country is crying out for. We aren’t looking at improving things only in the short term until the Conservatives get back into power. Instead we want to make meaningful long-lasting changes that make the UK a fairer, kinder, better society for everyone. So what does Uxbridge and the UK need? People like me in Parliament. So I reiterate, on 4 July, cast your vote for me:
More Tory Lies
We are only a few short hours into the General Election campaign and the Conservatives are already lying to you. Their central campaign team has produced a flyer which is rife with misrepresentations and outright lies. Here’s my take on it, complete with my marking for each of the claims: Tackled inflation, cut workers’ taxes and increased the state pension The idea that the government has tackled inflation in any meanningful sense is an egregious lie. All they have done is wait for the highs of 2022 to fall out of the current inflation figure, which looks at the change between now and a year ago. If you look at the cumulative impact of inflation over the last 5 years you see a rather different story: This shows that an average bundle of goods as represented by CPI is close to 25% more expensive now than it was 5 years ago. Frankly this is an absurdly high level of inflation, so being proud that they have slowed it down to “only” going up by 2.3% now shows just how little they have to be proud of. The workers’ tax claim refers to the National Insurance cuts announced this year and last. For someone earning £35,000, the cuts this year amounted to around £450, or less than £10 per week. Certainly not enough to offset the mammoth increase in costs due to inflation. The state pension has been “triple locked” for decades, meaning it grows at the highest of price inflation, average earnings inflation or 2.5%. The Conservatives have maintained that triple lock, but claiming credit for this is essentially claiming credit for not doing away with a long-standing guarantee – hardly worthy of inclusion at the top of their supposed achievements. Reduced taxes on investments This is simple not true unless you are a landlord, where the capital gains tax rate has been reduced by 4 percentage points. For anyone investing normally in anything other than property, the rates are unchanged. Record amounts of funding into our NHS This one is misleading rather than an outright lie. In pounds and pence terms, more money has been paid into the NHS, but this includes things like the PPE contracts that wasted huge amounts of taxpayer money, and ignores the fact that the NHS is still critically underfunded for what we need it to do as a country. It is also worth remembering that the Conservatives promised 40 new hospitals, none of which has materialised. Reformed education Genuinely not sure what reforms they are boasting about here. Most of these recent “reforms” have been to ban certain forms of sex education, but that largely seems to have been to appease the anti-trans movement more than anything. Aside from that, there have been a few changes in labelling, but no major reforms to education as a whole. Prioritised energy security and family finances in our approach to Net Zero Considering their “approach to Net Zero” has largely been to pretend that there’s no need for Net Zero, this is an utterly laughable claim. Coupled with the fact that renewable energy is currently cheaper than fossil fuels to produce, the idea that they have prioritised energy security and family finances would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious a problem. Full funded increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP Questions must be raised as to why such spending was below 2.5% to begin with. The answer is that the Tories lowered the amount of defence spending, so this return to 2.5% is nothing to boast about, just undoing the cuts they imposed for years. Invested more in local transport There may be isolated exampled where this is true, but there is not a single additional bus route near where I live or work that could be attributed to this supposed investment. I wonder where you would have to go to actually find one. Set out a comprehensive plan to reform our welfare system This is nonsense. They have demonised disabled people and reformed the system such that non-doctors would have the power to make decisions as to whether someone is fit to work or not, but this is not positive reform, it is just a barbaric attack on those who already struggle in society. Immigration Immigration might be coming down in a very specific short-term measure, but in reality there are more immigrants than ever before and still a huge number of Channel crossings, many of which end inn loss of life because our government has been too callous to open up asylum application centres in France. Ensured the next generation grows up smoke-free I’ve marked this one as questionable, because the policy likely won’t achieve that result. People too young to buy cigarettes legally will likely do so illegally rather than stopping smoking, so this ban on purchases is very unlikely to create a smoke-free UK. In addition, this says nothing about people living in a house where someone is legally able to continue buying cigarettes. In such a case, that individual can still be subjected to a large quantity of second-hand smoke even if they do not partake themselves. This policy is oddly restrictive of personal liberties for the Conservatives, but it is clear that it will not achieve the stated aim of ensuring that the next generation grows up smoke free. If they wanted to do that, they would need to ban smoking altogether and find a way to enforce the ban, which would itself require a vast investment into the police and justice services that they have assiduously avoided.
It’s On (Part 2)
General Election scheduled for 4 July 2024