At this week's PMQs, the Prime Minister called the Conservative Opposition "economic vandals and fantasists" who wanted the benefits of the Budget without saying how they would pay for them. He contrasted their approach with his – making difficult cuts, raising taxes, investing in health, public services and housing with "an iron-clad commitment to our fiscal rules".
We shall see how long that iron bears the weight of reality thundering across the bridge. Starmer mocked Liz Truss for "crashing the economy", but some of the trusses underpinning his own grand construction are buckling already.
That is because key parts are not welded to each other.
Are those homes needed? The ONS has predicted an increase in our population of 6.6 million between 2021 and 2036, 92% of which will be down to net immigration. Without that, we would see a decline – and perhaps we should.
Besides, our housing is not overcrowded. The average number of occupants per household has dropped over 20+ years, and 8.4 million people are living alone.
What we could do with is a programme of retrofitting over 3 million interwar houses to make them more energy-efficient, and perhaps dividing many of them into smaller self-contained units. No need to concrete over the green belt and our vital farmland.
But yes, if we play it right, we could be entering a golden age for the skilled manual worker – and about time too.
Scottish Labour's Kirsteen Sullivan raised the issue of access to NHS dentists north of the border. While sympathising and promising to work with the Scottish Government, Sir Keir could not resist once again attacking the SNP, who he said "should be ashamed".
We need to connect this with his grand plan for UK devolution, which will quango-ise the country with mayors and regional councils, robbing power from Parliament but also from the troublesome people – goodbye, district councils. There will be opportunities for corruption as our demos fragments and groups co-ordinate to take control of these new layers of government. It will all end in 'tiers'.
Starmer reverted to his familiar strategy: a counter-attack on the Tories, which served as a distraction from some more of his stubbornness. He has previously assured David Lammy of his job until the next General Election and, as Rachel Reeves came under fire, he has promised her the same. Goodness forbid he should change his mind.
Similarly, Reeves' disaster on the WFA and NIC could be fixed, but won't be. What possessed Labour in taxing the employed as though they were an unhealthy luxury?
A better solution would be to tax wealthy retirees more, never mind what the manifesto said – 'events, dear boy'. If the 40 per cent income tax threshold was dropped by £1,500 then prosperous retirees – Well-Off Older Persons ('Woopies') – would in effect be repaying the £300 WFA that everybody should have. It could be taken further: in Scotland, there is an intermediate 21% tax band for those with an income above £25,281; their higher rate band starts at £43,663 (not £52,271, as in the rest of the UK) – and is 42%, not 40% as in England. Their top rate is also two points higher than in England.
Unlike younger, struggling workers, WOOPIES don't pay NIC or pension contributions, often no longer pay rent or a mortgage or have to feed, clothe and entertain children. If my paying more would help the nation out of a jam, I'd be for it, as long as it didn't get spaffed away with incompetent management.
Perhaps we will not see radical, beneficial change without a great disaster. The Starmernaut will rumble on until it hits a major national pothole.
Reposted from Wolves of Westminster
