Peter Kenyon

Time to lash up the loose can(n)ons in the Lords

No sooner had I relished my barber's embracing a 50% tax band for those on over £150K a year, than the Thunderer reports:

50p tax on rich may be temporary, Labour ministers hint

And who might the source be? None other than the unelected, reverse transfer from the capital of unaccountability, m'Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy. Let's have a national debate about Labour taxation policy before the next election and offer the country a clear choice. This is not about a return to Denis Healey's taxing the rich until the pips squeak, it is about fairness.

Never has it been simpler to make the case for a living income for the low-paid (they tend to spend, big plus in times of recession) and question the claims of senior executives to mega-salaries (it's the risks, except when they miscalculate, then they expect the rest of us mere low-paid mortals to pick up the bill via government).

Time to lash up the loose can(n)ons in the Lords and bring on an elected second chamber.

Wacky barber backs 50p tax hike

Just back from a cheerful chat with my local barber who knows about my political proclivities. So yesterday's budget was a natural for discussion.  Imagine my surprise at the welcome reception the 50p tax rate announcement got.

He was a bit puzzled about all the money to bail out the bankers. So I asked if he'd thought about what might have happened if our Labour government hadn't propped up the City. In a trice, he was after the 'parasites'. If they don't want to pay up "good riddance". Meanwhile, the salon filled up at £23-50p a head.

So, Alistair, that's at least one voter who's got the message.

How to cut the Tories campaign funds - Click early, click often

According to the Guardian the Tories have bought up Google adwords to direct traffic to their much sought after views on Alistair Darling's 2009 budget.

So Google: Budget

Or click here

Then enjoy costing the Tories everytime you click on their ad in the right hand column. Let's see if they have set a Google Ad budget limit.

Budget illustrates growing Labour/Tory divide

Alistair Darling's 2009 budget helped offer voters a clearer choice between Labour and Conservative. The country goes to the polls in less than two months to choose its representatives in the European Parliament. This is usually an opportunity for the electorate to kick the government of the day. On 4 June a more serious electoral challenge looms. Should we the people indulge ourselves and put a smile on the face of the anti-Labour, xenophobic, anti-European media? Or on reflection, is this the time to take a more considered view and give the  Labour the thumbs up?

For all their bluster just what would the Tories have done? Who cares that borrowing is the highest since World War II? What matters is whether there would be even more people out of work as a result of the reckless behaviour of some bankers, if our Labour government had not stepped in. More journalists should be demanding answers of the cynical Conservatives.

Labour's Darling grants my Budget wish

Tory Party leader David Cameron is on his feet predicably trying to rubbish Alistair Darling's 2009 Budget for the UK. Meanwhile the markets appear to have taken news of raising debt and increased taxes stoically - the FTSE 100 index is little changed, and the currency is stable. This is a Labour Budget. The New Labour election manifesto commitment not to increase income tax has been abandoned, with an increase in the top rate to 50% from April next year - i.e. before the next election.

On a personal note, I was asked last night on Sky TV what my budget wish was. Mine was more to ensure Labour sticks with its commitment to reduce child poverty, paid for by removing tax concessions for top rate tax payers pension contributions. Wish granted.

Darling, the 2009 Budget had better be appealing

The latest opinion poll is not flattering for the Labour Party in the wake of Smeargate revelations, according to UK Polling Report. As a firm believer in government's losing elections, rather than opposition parties winning them, what is left in the locker? There were two national Labour Party Conferences today Local Government in London and Young Labour in Gillingham. Neither seems to have made the national media schedules. Instead, the BBC and others started the day with the cancellation of the PPC selection in Erith and Thamesmead - a 'safe' Labour seat following the 'discovery' of a broken ballot box seal at Head Office. The day ended with reports of further Smeargate allegations in the News of the World concerning the Labour Party's General Secretary Ray Collins. I have no insi information about either saga. All I know is that at today's Young Labour Conference Sam Tarry was elected chair - unopposed. And at the Labour Local Government Conference an overwhelming majority of representatives voted in favour of increased COUNCIL house building to address local needs. These are both very encouraging developments for those of us who have decided to keep paying our membership subs and fight for what we believe in inside the Labour Party. Pity about Alice Mahon. I was appoached by BBC Radio 5 Live to 'appear' on its 11pm show (Sat night), but not called. I am not particularly sympathetic to Alice, havinf decided to stay inside the Party and fight for what I believe in. BBC 5 Live asked John McDonnell MP instead.

That's why Darling, the 2009 Budget due to be announced on Wednesday 22 April had better be appealing. By that I mean it has to address the need of the many, not the few bonus rich bankers and others motivated by greed. If Brown and his Chancellor get the economy on a better footing than anyone dared imagine six months ago, my hunch is that we still have everything to fight for electorally.

We have just got to get more savvy about the messages, and the medium - the next election is still to b won by Labour by addressing local needs via a global consnsus aout ow to deal with bankers adnd their balance sheet.

Tories guilty of treason for debasing currency?

I'm grateful to a dinner guest on Saturday who is not a member of the Labour Party for raising this issue. We were discussing the cost of the economy of Conservative opposition to the government's plans to rescue the banking system and try and ensure the recession is as shallow and short as possible. By carping on about debt levels, the Tories are both increasing the risk of higher import prices and hence domestic price levels by talking the currency down, and adding to the debt by increasing the level of interest rates and risk premia to be paid to lenders.

Let's be clear, as the reluctance of private investors to finance increased capitalisation of the banks is illustrating - no government knows with certainty how much money will have to be borrowed to ensure the viability of the banking system. CHX Alistair Darling set out how prudence can be sustained in his Pre Budget Report a week ago. Faced with the very real threat of a collapse of the banks, what on earth was a Labour government going to do, other than what was necessary?

Any politician that continues to whinge about debt levels is debasing the currency. Rather than focussing on Conservative shadow home affairs spokesman Damian Green and the hamfisted way in which the police handled their investigation into a possible serial leaker of government documents, I'm much more concerned to see Conservatives in the dock charged with treason for undermining sterling.

Wikipedia helpfully states:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.... A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Quite so. It is about time all those media outlets that claim to be so concerned about the pound in our pocket named and shamed the Conservative leadership as such. Public money is allocated to support Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, if any one can think of a better way of bring the Tories to their senses, I'm all ears.

Dreams can come true for Labour Party members

On 27 April 2008, I posted ahead of the May elections and in anticipation of the latest round of Labour Party policy making due to start on 2 May after the polls closed. I suggested:

On tax, we in the Labour Party have got some very serious work to do to restore a sense of fairness to our policy. At what level of gross income should anyone pay tax? I'd open the bidding at the level of the living wage. And you?

Then we need to be work out how fair taxes can be achieved. I'd open the bidding for a higher rate of tax for those earning silly money and shut down the scope for avoidance. But what's silly money?

So, I'm pleased to see that the ruling Labour Party has made some modest progress in that direction. The problem with detailed changes is the main message can and does get lost on the electorate. That's why we need to watch what the Tory think tanks are saying. Even the Adam Smith Institute recognises the merits of taking anyone on the minimum wage out of taxation. (Hat-tip Bob Piper.) That would be a start. I don't agree with its analysis about how to fund such tax cuts. But I am aware that HMG is light years behind getting a grip on its IT spend having failed to understand the scope for cost savings from open source software, plus the ongoing doubts with big price tags about ID cards, Trident and other non-essentials.

The trouble for the Labour Party and its members is that the powers that be banned discussion about tax-policy at its National Policy Forum in July, just when we needed a national debate about tax fairness. However, it was reassuring to see that President-elect Obama wants to clamdown on tax havens as reported shortly after his elections and that the CHX Alistair Darling in his PBR yesterday fired a warning shot across the bows of some of the UK's notorious tax havens in an opening, albeit belated, bid to reduce the scope for tax avoidance.

Who said members should be fleeced of their subs and not heard?

Labour Party redistribution stakes: Darling v. Cruddas

Sifting through the remarkable pre-budget report from Britain's ruling Labour Party, I couldn't help noticing that among the redistributive measures announced by the CHX Alistair Darling was a lower threshold for a higher tax band of 45% (£150K) than that proposed by leading backbencher Jon Cruddas on 20 September 2008 here of £175K.

What can it mean?

In praise of checks and balances - boom and bust

Briefly, political debate between the ruling Labour Party and Britain's opposition parties about the wisdom/folly of ending boom and bust seems to have been mangled by the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle. When Gordon Brown as CHX set out to end role of government in creating conditions of boom and bust, it seemed to me his error was presuming that the checks and balances in regulation, and sound banking practice were sufficient to sustain the integrity of the banking system. That is what has been found wanting in the extreme, not the need for prudent government borrowing/spending, which is now being used as a rod for his back as PM. What are the messages coming from the National Economic Council and its regional offshoots? I think we should be told. I can't believe they are urging Labour not to borrow more to help ease recession and get the economy moving again. The golden rules were relevant when the banks were banks, and not casinos risking everyone's savings. When the Tories say they want an Office of Budget Responsibility, perhaps what they should be asking for is an Office for the Prevention of Reckless Banking Practices - that's the real cause of the current crisis not Brown's management of the British economy.