AFTER months in which Labour argued that such is the dire state of the economy that Tory spending limits must be maintained, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now says that further cuts in public expenditure are needed.
…
The question raised by any talk about varying the structure of taxation is where taxes fall. The richest 10 per cent of families hold 43 per cent of all wealth. The bottom 50 per cent — and be sure that this includes the greater proportion of people who see themselves as working class — possess less than 10 per cent of wealth.
…
When the overwhelming majority of voters, including Tory voters, see public ownership of rail, mail, water and energy as desirable this is not simply a yearning for the more efficient delivery of these services and utilities than private ownership is able to provide. More, it is an expression of a clear understanding that revenues from these myriad transactions should not be privately appropriated but applied to the common good.
The present Labour administration has, with rare exceptions, ruled out the recovery into public ownership of privatised sectors and, less performatively than Gordon Brown in his day but no less systematically, has assured the corporate world that not only are the foundations of private ownership safe but that Labour, even more than its Tory predecessors, holds appeasing the bond markets a central part of its economic strategy. Hence the cuts announced today.
Reeves’s dilemma is highlighted by the necessity to find £1 billion to fund the juniors doctors’ pay increase; something similar for the teachers and a backlog of other public-sector pay claims.
Under this system spending is always about priorities. But there is money about. She is already committed by Starmer’s diktat to find £57.1bn in defence spending in 2024-25 which is a 4.5 per cent increase in real terms. No cuts there!
A bigger source of revenue would result from taxing wealth at the same level as income by raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to the level at which workers pay on their wages.
An even bigger windfall would result from a socialist economy in which all rents, interest and profits arising from human economic activity were held in common rather than being privately acquired.
Union leaders condemn the Prime Minister’s ‘disgraceful’ decision
SIR KEIR STARMER has been condemned by union leaders for suspending seven Labour MPs for voting to scrap the two-child benefit cap, as independents including Jeremy Corbyn vowed to work with them to offer a “real alternative.”
Leaders of fire, education, civil service, bakeries and mail unions hit out at the Prime Minister’s “disgraceful” and “completely wrong” decision as they joined thousands backing a grassroots petition calling for their reinstatement.
Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, ex-shadow business secretary Rebecca Long Bailey, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Zarah Sultana and Imran Hussain were kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party for six months for backing an SNP amendment calling for the cap to be scrapped on Tuesday night.
Ms Sultana, MP for Coventry South, suggested she was the victim of a “macho virility test” today.
“This isn’t a game … this is about people’s lives,” she added.
“I slept well knowing that I took a stand against child poverty that is affecting 4.3 million people in this country and it is the right thing to do and I am glad I did it.”
MP for Poplar and Limehouse Ms Begum said: “Labour’s own 11 affiliated unions support the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap; there’s popular support among the Labour Party membership to see the cap lifted.”
Labour will say this is just a matter of party discipline, but it is a clear demonstration of the government’s priorities
The Labour leadership has told you who it is, over and over again: it is time to believe it. Keir Starmer has suspended seven Labour MPs because they voted to overturn a Tory policy which imposes poverty on children. Sure, another tale will be spun: that by voting for the Scottish National party’s amendment to abolish the two-child benefit cap, the seven undermined the unity of the parliamentary Labour party and were duly disciplined. But that is nonsense.
Such parliamentary rebellions are scattered through our democratic history, and are accepted almost as a convention of government. Boris Johnson suspended multiple Brexit rebels in 2019 and it was rightly seen as an aberration. He did not, for example, exact the same punishment when five Tory MPs backed a Labour motion extending free school meals in 2020. When it comes to Labour history, even Tony Blair never resorted to such petty authoritarianism. Forty-seven Labour MPs rebelled over a cut to the lone parent benefit in 1997 – none had the whip removed.
This episode tells us many things. Firstly, it completely undermines Starmer’s slogan of choice: “country before party”. Starmer knows a policy devised by George Osborne to prevent parents from claiming benefits for a third or fourth child is cruel and fails on its own terms. When Starmer stood for leader, he promised to scrap the limit. After all, it imposes poverty on 300,000 kids, and drives another 700,000 further into hardship. Fifty-nine per cent of families affected have at least one parent in work – like the care workers, supermarket workers and cleaners applauded by politicians on porches and balconies during the pandemic. Research has found that it does not increase employment levels, and may actually make it harder to find work, while having no impact on family size. Charities have identified it as one of the single biggest generators of poverty in Britain.
It is hard to imagine Starmer is unaware of the fact that Osborne devised the policy to stoke public hostility towards and create a Victorian caricature of the undeserving, overbreeding poor. No decent society punishes children for choices they have not made and parents should not be punished for having more children. In Britain in 2024, kids turn up to schools with bowed legs and heart murmurs because of malnourishment, but a vast cost is also imposed on society as the scarring effect of poverty produces lasting lower productivity and employment levels.
Starmer knew this when he told the BBC almost exactly a year ago that he would retain this wicked Tory policy. He made the commitment to sound tough. Contrast with how he genuflects before powerful interests such as the Murdoch empire. By endorsing the two-child benefit cap, Starmer decided to gain partisan advantage, rather than fix an injustice afflicting his country. Party first, country second. Or rather, to be specific: playing politics with the lives of our most vulnerable children.
There isn’t the money available, we are told. The price tag is £1.7bn, a pittance given annual government expenditure is £1.2tr. According to the Sunday Times rich list, the 350 wealthiest British households have a combined fortune of £795bn: is leaving their taxes at the same level more important than parents skipping hot meals to feed their little ones? When Starmer told Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the UK would give Ukraine £3bn a year “for as long as it takes”, he acknowledged there is money available for what the government considers a priority. This Labour government simply does not regard child poverty as a priority.
Seven Labour MPs have had the whip suspended for six months after voting against the government on an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
Ex-shadow chancellor John McDonnell was among the Labour MPs who voted for an SNP motion calling for an end to the policy, which prevents almost all parents from claiming Universal Credit or child tax credit for more than two children.
Mr McDonnell backed the SNP motion alongside Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum and Zarah Sultana.
MPs rejected the SNP amendment by 363 votes to 103, in the first major test of the new Labour government’s authority.
Losing the whip means the MPs are suspended from the parliamentary party and will now sit as independent MPs.
Nearly all of the rebels were allies of the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now sits as an independent MP and put his name to the SNP motion.
In a statement on social media, Ms Sultana said she would “always stand up for the most vulnerable in our society”, adding that scrapping the cap would “lift 33,000 children out of poverty”.
The new Labour government has promised an ‘ambitious plan’ to end child poverty, but it is yet to commit to ending the two-child limit
The new Labour government has launched a taskforce to work towards ending child poverty, but charities have warned that “good intentions are not enough” as they ramp up calls for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped.
Keir Starmer’s party has promised an “ambitious” plan for ending child poverty, but it has so far refused to commit to removing the two-child limit, which is also referred to as the two-child benefit cap and has been described as “one of the cruellest welfare policies of the past decade”.
It means that families who have a third child or subsequent children born after April 2017 are denied up to £3,500 a year compared with those whose children were born sooner.
…
Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: “The taskforce is a welcome first step towards fulfilling the government’s pledge to bring in an ambitious child poverty strategy.
“But with a record number of kids in poverty now, scrapping the two-child limit on benefits has to happen in the government’s first budget. The two-child limit is driving up child poverty more than any other policy, children need it to be removed as a priority.”
Ursula Von der Leyen announces increased funding for EU armament and border control as she is confirmed for a second term as President of the European Commission
On July 17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published a ruling holding the European Commission (EC), led by President Ursula von der Leyen, responsible for concealing segments of COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts from the European Parliament. Less than 24 hours later, von der Leyen was confirmed for a second term during a parliamentary session in Strasbourg.
During her re-election campaign, von der Leyen worked diligently to secure support beyond her home European People’s Party (EPP) group. To ensure the required majority, she needed at least 173 additional votes, on top of the 188 guaranteed by the EPP. By July 18, members of the Socialists & Democrats, the liberal Renew group, and the Greens—who had initially filed the complaint to the ECJ—announced their support, describing von der Leyen as a stabilizing figure in uncertain times for Europe.
In her initial address to the parliamentarians, von der Leyen promised “prosperity and competitiveness” for the European Union over the next five years. She emphasized the European Green Deal, pledging further efforts towards renewable energy and environmental protection. However, several members of parliament called her out for what they described as greenwashing and failure to take concrete steps in this area. The Left parliamentarian Rudi Kennes criticized the vague character of von der Leyen’s commitment to just green policies, citing her inaction on preserving jobs in sectors that could prove crucial for the EU’s green transition. He pointed to the potential closure of an Audi factory in Brussels as an example.
Von der Leyen also prioritized security, defense, and border control in her speech, announcing the creation of a European Defense Union, new commissioner posts for defense and the Mediterranean, approximately tripling the number of Frontex guards, and just about doubling Europol staff. The aim of these measures, according to the EC President, is to “rebuild, replenish, and transform national armed forces” rather than breaking away from NATO. One of the first steps towards this better-armed EU will be incentivizing private defense investment with support from the European Investment Bank.
What the defense and international policy agenda will certainly not mean, judging from the guidelines presented on Thursday, is taking a strong stance on the genocide Israel is committing in the Gaza Strip. A side note in von der Leyen’s speech, the brutal attacks on Palestinians were reduced to an unfortunate bloodspill, with no guarantees given that the EC would act to stop it. Instead, von der Leyen stated she would work towards a two-state solution.
In her speech, Von der Leyen merely brushed upon the social and economic issues affecting millions in the EU. Her approach remained market-oriented, with only minor concessions on housing and living costs. Among others, Marc Botenga of the Workers’ Party of Belgium criticized her for inaction on tax justice and strengthening public services.
“Millions of Europeans are living in poverty or are at risk of falling into poverty. Did Ursula von der Leyen seek funds from multimillionaires [to address this]? No. Did she impose taxes on the excess profits of European multinationals? No. On the contrary, she provided support to these multinationals,” Botenga said.
There is little indication that von der Leyen’s policies will change in her new term. With expected austerity measures and increased defense spending, more Europeans will be deprived of basic social rights. Some parliamentarians have already pledged to oppose this direction actively.
“Your Europe is not our Europe, Mrs. von der Leyen. Against your Europe of austerity and the market, you can count on us defending the Europe of humanity and solidarity,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left, announcing the bloc’s vote against von der Leyen’s presidency
