Connect with us

Published

on

Before we get on to any of the numbers – from Rishi Sunak’s claim about Labour raising taxes by £2,000 to the more outlandish numbers going around today – here’s the most important thing you have to know right now.

The parties fighting this election have yet to publish their manifestos. They might come as soon as next week, but until those documents, with their shopping lists of confirmed policies, actually land, we are in a kind of policy no man’s land where each side is guessing (and sometimes plain making up stuff) about what the other side actually wants to implement if they win the election.

Election latest:
Starmer wins another TV debate poll

And since all parties like to talk a lot about exciting new things they’d spend money on and not half as much about the taxes they’d raise to pay for all that stuff, it doesn’t take a mathematical whizz to realise that if you take them all quite literally then you can impute some pretty big “black holes” in their plans.

Those “black holes” matter because both Labour and Conservatives have signed up to fiscal rules preventing them from splurging without limit. So if there is a hole, the assumption is it would have to be filled by raising taxes.

However, in the absence of either manifestos or detailed costing plans, the best we can do about all this for the time being is to speculate.

Tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

Does Sunak’s claim about Labour taxes stand up?

That brings us back to the claim Rishi Sunak made in last night’s debate, that Labour will raise everyone’s taxes by £2,000. This is a direct consequence of this information vacuum.

It comes from a “dossier” published by the Tories last month, back before the election was called, which purported to calculate all Labour’s proposed tax and spending plans.

The headline finding from that paper was that over the course of the next four years Labour had roughly £59bn of spending plans (at least as far as the Tories claimed) but only £20bn of revenue raising plans. That leaves a £39bn hole. Divide that £39bn by the number of households in the country (18.4m) and you get a figure of just over £2,000. Voila: £2,000 of unaccounted tax rises or spending cuts which, said Rishi Sunak last night, would inevitably be filled with extra taxes.

Now, there are all sorts of objections to the way the Conservatives have carried out this exercise. For one thing, they deployed a weapon Labour don’t have: because they’re the party of government they were able to ask Treasury civil servants to cost some of the Labour policies (or rather, the policies they think Labour will implement – remember, those manifestos haven’t yet been published!).

Today there has been a backlash – including from the Treasury’s permanent secretary himself – about the way the Tories have portrayed these sums.

Ed Conway election campaign check data

What the Tories have already cost households

The £2,000 figure isn’t really a Treasury calculation or for that matter an “independent” one, as Mr Sunak called it last night. It’s a Conservative figure – but it was put together in part with figures commissioned from civil servants.

There were other objections: Labour say many of the policies in that Tory dossier won’t cost half as much as the Conservatives claim.

But actually, surprising as it might sound, what’s most striking about this “bombshell” is how small it really is. Less of a bombshell; more of a hand grenade.

While £2,000 sounds like a big number, it’s actually a cumulative total from four years. A far more representative figure to take from the dossier is £500 – the annual figure.

And while that’s not to be sniffed at (if you believe it – which you probably shouldn’t) it’s far, far smaller than the tax rises we’ve all experienced under this Conservative government since 2019. They amount, all told, to an average of around £3,000 a year per household or, if we grit our teeth and tot it up as the Tories did in their dossier, over £13,000 over the course of the parliament. Which rather dwarfs that £2,000 figure.

Ed Conway election campaign check data

Labour attack dossier is even more outlandish

So anyway, you’re probably hoping now we’ve explained the £2,000 from last night that we could leave things there. But sorry, no.

Because, this being the murky pre-manifesto period, Labour have gone one further and produced their own dossier, purporting to show Conservative fiscal plans for the coming years. But while the initial Tory document was somewhat conservative (with a small c) about its numbers, the Labour version is far more outlandish.

It assumes, for instance, that the Conservatives are planning to abolish National Insurance and inheritance tax overnight if they are elected. These are mammoth tax changes which the Conservatives have never committed to (they have made some vague noises about intending to abolish NICs but not in the next parliament).

Anyway, the Labour document takes these and other policies and works out that that would imply a black hole of roughly £70bn a year or a whopping £270bn when you tot up the first four years of the parliament (they actually provide five years of numbers but for the sake of comparability I’m looking solely at the first four years, as the Tories’ dossier did).

Divide that by the number of households (as the Tory document did) and you end up with a grand total over those four years not of £2,000 but of a staggering £14,000 per household.

Ed Conway election campaign check data

Parties trading blows in the realms of fiscal fantasy

At this stage, now we’ve completely departed from realistic policy, you’re probably wondering when this silly saga will be over. Sadly the answer is: not yet.

Because having seen the Labour response, the Conservatives produced a second dossier, essentially saying: “Well, if you’re going to make all sorts of outlandish assumptions about the stuff we’ve vaguely talked about then can we have a go too?”

This final dossier includes all sorts of policies no one seriously expects Labour to implement this parliament: cutting corporation tax to 12.5%, scrapping business rates altogether, introducing French-style union laws. Add this all up and you end up with a grand total of £211bn a year or – if you multiply that by four years across a parliament, £844bn. So the best part of a trillion pounds.

We are of course in the realms of fiscal fantasy at this stage, but if you take that cumulative total and divide that by the number of households in the country you end up with an utterly ridiculous figure of £46,000.

Ed Conway election campaign check data

Whether either party thinks these dossiers will change anyone’s mind in this election remains to be seen.

Right now they mostly look like an attempt to send economics correspondents completely crazy.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Both major parties are committed to tax rises

But the overarching point is as follows: both the major parties are committed to tax rises in the coming years. We know as much because the official Office for Budget Responsibility plans will see the tax burden increase sizeably, in large part because the main tax-free allowances are being frozen, ensuring everyone ends up paying more tax, once you adjust for inflation and rising wages.

These tax rises – the long-term consequences of the pandemic and the energy price guarantee – are quite likely to dwarf any measures we hear about in the coming manifestos.

But until we get those manifestos, the rest is, yes, speculation.

Continue Reading

UK

UK on ‘slippery slope’ to ‘death on demand’, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

Published

on

By

UK on 'slippery slope' to 'death on demand', Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

The UK is on a “slippery slope towards death on demand”, according to the justice secretary ahead of a historic Commons vote on assisted dying.

In a letter to her constituents, Shabana Mahmood said she was “profoundly concerned” about the legislation.

“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign,” she wrote.

“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away.

“The state should never offer death as a service.”

Analysis: Justice secretary’s intervention is potentially embarrassing for the PM

On 29 November, MPs will be asked to consider whether to legalise assisted dying, through Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Details of the legislation were published last week, including confirmation the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Minister ‘leans’ to assisted dying bill

Ms Mahmood, however, said “predictions about life expectancy are often inaccurate”.

“Doctors can only predict a date of death, with any real certainty, in the final days of life,” she said. “The judgment as to who can and cannot be considered for assisted suicide will therefore be subjective and imprecise.”

Read more: Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised

Under the Labour MP’s proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Details of end of life bill released

Read more: Where does the cabinet stand on assisted dying?

However, Ms Mahmood said she was concerned the legislation could “pressure” some into ending their lives.

“It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald,” she wrote.

“In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.”

Kim Leadbeater waits to present the Assisted Dying Bill. File pic: House of Commons/Reuters
Image:
Kim Leadbeater waits to present the Assisted Dying Bill. File pic: House of Commons/Reuters

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who put forward the bill, said some of the points Ms Mahmood raised have been answered “in the the thorough drafting and presentation of the bill”.

“The strict eligibility criteria make it very clear that we are only talking about people who are already dying,” she said.

“That is why the bill is called the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’; its scope cannot be changed and clearly does not include any other group of people.

“The bill would give dying people the autonomy, dignity and choice to shorten their death if they wish.”

In response to concerns Ms Mahmood raised about patients being coerced into choosing assisted death, Ms Leadbeater said she has consulted widely with doctors and judges.

“Those I have spoken to tell me that they are well equipped to ask the right questions to detect coercion and to ascertain a person’s genuine wishes. It is an integral part of their work,” she said.

In an increasingly fractious debate around the topic, multiple Labour MPs have voiced their concerns.

In a letter to ministers on 3 October, the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed “the prime minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “therefore remain neutral on the passage of the bill and on the matter of assisted dying”.

Continue Reading

UK

Justice secretary’s assisted dying intervention is explosive – and potentially embarrassing for PM

Published

on

By

Justice secretary's assisted dying intervention is explosive - and potentially embarrassing for PM

With six days to go before Friday’s historic Commons showdown on assisted dying, it’s the opponents who are turning up the heat.

The explosive attack on the bill by Shabana Mahmood follows the poignant and personal plea from Gordon Brown to MPs to reject the bill.

We knew the justice secretary is opposed to the bill. She has already made that clear. But her attack on it, in a letter to constituents, is brutal.

Read more: UK on ‘slippery slope’ to ‘death on demand’, warns justice secretary

She talks about a “slippery slope towards death on demand”. Savage. The state should “never offer death as a service”, she says. Chilling.

So much for Sir Keir Starmer attempting to cool the temperature in the row by urging cabinet ministers, whatever their view, to stop inflaming or attempting to influence the debate.

Ms Mahmood talks, as other opponents have, about pressure on the elderly, sick or disabled who feel they have “become too much of a burden to their family”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Details of end of life bill released

She hits out at a “lack of legal safeguards” in the bill and pressure on someone into ending their life “by those acting with malign intent”.

Malign intent? Hey! That’s quite an assertion from a secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor who’s been urged by the PM to tone down her language.

It’s claimed that Sir Keir ticked off Wes Streeting, the health secretary, after he publicly opposed the bill and launched an analysis of the costs of implementing it.

Read more: Where does the cabinet stand on assisted dying?

Will the justice secretary now receive a reprimand from the boss? It’s a bit late for that. Critics will also claim Sir Keir’s dithering over the bill is to blame for cabinet ministers freelancing.

Shabana Mahmood is the first elected Muslim woman to hold a cabinet post. Elected to the Commons in 2010, she was also one of the first Muslim women MPs.

She told her constituents in her letter that it’s not only for religious reasons that she’s “profoundly concerned” about the legislation, but also because of what it would mean for the role of the state.

But of course, she’s not the only senior politician with religious convictions to speak out strongly against Kim Leadbeater’s bill this weekend.

Gordon Brown. File pic: PA
Image:
Gordon Brown. File pic: PA

Gordon Brown, son of the manse, who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, wrote about his opposition in a highly emotional article in The Guardian.

He spoke about the pain of losing his 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely and weighing just 2lb 4oz, in January 2002, after she suffered a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.

Read more: Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised

Mr Brown said that tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying. His powerful voice will strongly influence many Labour MPs.

And what of Kim Leadbeater? It’s looking increasingly as though she’s now being hung out to dry by the government, after initially being urged by the government to choose assisted dying after topping the private members bill ballot.

All of which will encourage Sir Keir’s critics to claim he looks weak. It is, or course, a private members bill and a free vote, which makes the outcome on Friday unpredictable.

But the dramatic interventions of the current lord chancellor and the former Labour prime minister are hugely significant, potentially decisive – and potentially embarrassing for a prime minister who appears to be losing control of the assisted dying debate.

Continue Reading

UK

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Published

on

By

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Red Bull driver Max Verstappen has won the Formula One world title for a fourth straight year.

His victory was confirmed after finishing fifth at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Mercedes’ George Russell won the race.

Max Verstappen celebrates his win. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pic: Reuters

The 27-year-old Dutchman becomes just the sixth driver in Formula One history to win four titles or more, after outscoring Lando Norris who took the chequered flag in only sixth.

Verstappen is now guaranteed the world crown with two races still remaining, with his domination cementing his name among Formula One’s greats.

“Oh my God man,” said an emotional Verstappen after securing the world title. “What a season. Four times. It was a little bit more difficult than last year.”

Lewis Hamilton raced back from 10th to second place to complete an impressive one-two finish for Mercedes. Carlos Sainz finished third for Ferrari, one place ahead of his team-mate Charles Leclerc.

Russell’s third victory was the most dominant of his career so far, crossing the line 7.3 seconds clear of Hamilton.

More on Formula 1

Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton have each won a record seven, with 1950s Argentine legend Juan-Manuel Fangio on five ahead of Alain Prost, Sebastian Vettel and now Verstappen on four.

Having won every Drivers’ Championship since claiming his first in the controversial end to the 2021 season when he beat Hamilton in deeply contentious circumstances, Verstappen now joins Hamilton, Fangio and Vettel in winning four titles consecutively.

Only Schumacher has achieved a run of five.

Red Bull's principal sponsor Christian Horner on the Las Vegas Strip Circuit. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Red Bull’s principal sponsor Christian Horner on the Las Vegas Strip Circuit. Pic: Reuters

The team were hit by controversy earlier this season, with Red Bull’s principal sponsor, Christian Horner, facing allegations of controlling behaviour by a female staff member. Horner, who denied the accusations, was cleared, and a subsequent appeal was thrown out.

Horner congratulated Verstappen on the radio, telling him: “Max Verstappen you are a four-time world champion. That is a phenomenal, phenomenal achievement. You can be incredibly proud of yourself.”

Red Bull is on course to finish third in the constructors’ championship this year. This century only Hamilton in 2008 with McLaren, and Verstappen in 2021, have won the drivers’ title when their team did not win the constructors’ championship.

Continue Reading

Trending