He won't even allow tax debate
NEWSPAPERS and most politicians united in an angry howl of rage last week. They were outraged by the suggestion that company directors presently grasping £500,000 a year might have to get by on £25,000 or even £50,000 less. A newspaper owner grabbing £2 million a year might lose £150,000! How would he survive! Last week in the corporate hospitality rooms at Royal Ascot the parasites from the City and big business quaffed £500 bottles of champagne and stuffed themselves with £300 lobster lunches.
Some spent more on their day out than a hospital cleaner earns in three months. The Mail denounced the mild suggestions from Commons leader Peter Hain for small tax changes as 'the rancorous old socialist policy of tax rises to soak the rich'. The Telegraph rejoiced that Hain's 'macho grunt to Labour left sensibilities' was quickly 'swatted down' by Blair and Brown.
In fact what Hain had planned to say was pathetically weak - small increases for the very richest in order to cut the tax bills for people who get between £35,000 and £50,000. New Labour would rather leave the money with obscenely wealthy people than use it for public services.
As Socialist Worker shows, the most modest tax increases could raise more than £20 billion a year extra. That would provide the money for better public services and pay. It would also provide more cash to give dignity to pensioners, and improve the NHS and education.
Why Labour should tax rich - see here