The Politics of the Nursery

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 pointed out that the emperor had no clothes on; naive and simplistic, maybe, but getting straight to the point and hitting the right note with the public.

Reflecting on the events which have brought us to this point, 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 of doubtful benefit but which, in extent and timing, are calculated to inflict a maximum of pain and hardship, stripping bare its destructive 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 hardship for the two million or so pensioners who have no other income than the basic state pension.

Likewise, a threshold set for VAT on school fees - perhaps at the equivalent of the sum the state spends per child - would have lessened the impact on the least well-off parents, people in ‘ordinary’ jobs who are investing their scant disposable income in their child’s education, 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 being frozen for 30 years, announces dramatically that he will acquire a nuclear warhead and hold the world to ransom for ‘…one million dollars!’? The government seems to be operating with a similar grasp of financial reality when it comes to assessing the ‘agricultural assets’ of a working farm, apparently completely unaware of the massive level of investment needed to produce even a modest income from food production; in any case, surely it would have been possible to identify and exempt genuine hands-on farmers while achieving their stated aim of targeting outside investors using land-owning as a tax dodge.

Even before considering the timing, all three of these policies, which are likely to bring in far less than the trumpeted headline figures, give a distinct impression of being fuelled by vindictiveness against the elderly, private school pupils and farmers (one key Labour adviser 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 campaign groups as undeservedly and unfairly wealthy, which makes you wonder why they set the thresholds so low. When you also look at how and when 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 the affected time to plan ahead and save up in anticipation instead of being announced and introduced when the nights were already drawing in. La Niña means a cold winter is likely and Labour themselves calculated that linking the WFA to Pension Credit would lead to extra deaths - 3850 of them, by their reckoning; even allowing for opposition hyperbole, to press on with the policy this winter suggests spectacular callousness or indifference.

With school fees, it is irresponsible at best to implement the reform mid-year in the knowledge that public exams mostly require two years of teaching (and often include coursework modules at intervals) and an added refinement of cruelty to give so little notice, ensuring that any child forced out will be at the bottom of the waiting list with 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 the present incumbent is unlikely to have seven years left  - hence the distressing talk of a ‘suicide window’ to ensure the estate is settled before the changes come in 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 an angry young child with a grievance. 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 want to lash out and hurt.

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 children, eager to reward their friends and to settle scores and score points against anyone they don’t like.