A perceptive journalist (Matthew Lynn, Telegraph) compared the instigator of the current petition asking for a general election (2,644,897 signatures and counting) to the small boy who points out that the emperor has no clothes on; naive and simplistic, maybe, but getting straight to the point and hitting a chord with the public.
Reflecting on the events which have brought us to this, it starts to become clear that, as well as dispensing with the necessary prior research or consultation, this government has set about introducing measures which are not only of doubtful benefit but which, in extent and timing, are calculated to inflict a maximum of pain and hardship, stripping bare its destructive and malicious intentions for all to see.
For example, Starmer could have kept the Winter Fuel Allowance for all but higher-rate taxpayers (or for those paying over a certain amount of income tax), which would have spared a great deal of anxiety and financial difficulty for the two million or so pensioners who have no other income than the basic state pension.
Likewise, a threshold for VAT on school fees - perhaps at the equivalent of the sum the state would have spent on the child - would have reduced the impact on the least well-off fee-paying parents, people in ‘ordinary’ jobs who are investing their scant disposable income in their child’s education at the less expensive end of the market, often because the state system does not meet their needs, while taxing the more affluent.
Thirdly, the farmers; remember the gag from ‘Austin Powers’ where a criminal mastermind, reanimated after spending 30 years frozen in space, announces dramatically that he will acquire a nuclear warhead and hold the world to ransom for ‘…one million dollars!’? There’s a similar incongruity to the new inheritance tax threshold for the land and ‘agricultural assets’ of a working farm, apparently decided upon in complete ignorance of the costs associated with generating even a modest income from food production; in any case, it would surely have been possible to exempt round-the-clock, hands-on farming families while achieving the stated aim of targeting tax-dodging outside investors.
Even before considering the timing, all three of these policies give a distinct impression of being fuelled by malevolence towards the elderly, private school pupils and farmers (one key Labour adviser even advocates state ownership of farmland; presumably they hope to acquire it via seizures in lieu of unpaid tax); it’s no coincidence that all three groups have been repeatedly portrayed by Left-wing media and campaign groups as undeservedly wealthy, which makes you wonder why they set the thresholds so low. When you also look at the timescale within which the policies are being implemented, there is no room for doubt at all.
For instance, the WFA cut could have been deferred until next year, giving those affected time to plan ahead, instead of being sprung on them when the nights were already drawing in. A cold winter was being predicted by then (La Niña) and Labour themselves had previously announced that linking the WFA to Pension Credit would lead to thousands of extra deaths; even allowing for opposition hyperbole, to press on with the policy this year suggests either shameless mendacity or spectacular callousness.
With school fees, it is wilfully irresponsible to implement any reform mid-year in the knowledge that most public exams require two full years of teaching (many including interim modules), and an added refinement of cruelty to give such short notice, ensuring that any child forced out will have little chance of getting into a highly-rated or sought-after school - bad news for poorer pupils who moved to independent schools to escape bullying or because of the state’s inadequate support for their special needs.
Meanwhile, the government suggests that farmers should plan ahead and take advantage of the seven-year rule but, leaving aside the fact that farming is one of the most unpredictable and dangerous jobs around, that isn’t much help if age or illness make the present incumbent unlikely to last another seven years - hence the distressing talk of a ‘suicide window’ for elderly farmers in poor health to ensure that their estates are settled before the changes come into force in April 2026.
It’s hard to imagine the sort of person who would propose or wholeheartedly support all of this knowing the potential for harm - unless, that is, one considers the mind of a child. Children below the age of responsibility, as our law takes into account, are generally self-centred and don’t have the ability to evaluate the long-term consequences of their actions or fully appreciate how they will affect other people; they simply lash out and hurt or spoil things.
Whatever their legal and financial qualifications and experience (or lack of it, Ms Reeves?) it is becoming clear that we are being governed by a Cabinet of selfish and vindictive children, eager for designer goodies and treats, happy to reward their friends - £135m to the train drivers this year - and looking for ways to hurt anyone they don’t like.