When a government debates the measures needed to solve a 'problem' exacerbated by its own possibilities, my ears prick up. The 'problem' that Labour bangs the drum on is social inequality, though this was never promoted when they were in “kiss the rich” mode. They have switched to “eat the rich” by debating radical reforms of the tax system that they distorted for their political benefit.
The debate around social justice and tacking inequality is taken at face value in the Grauniad article. Yet the answers given pile an oppressive burden on Labour's poll ratings: more council tax, capital gains tax on houses, a wealth tax. This is electoral suicide, raising taxes at a time of economic depression and penalising the swing voters on which your small chance of recovery rests.
The article hints that the measures undertaken are designed to outflank the Tories by depending upon the 'politics of envy'. This will require some high thresholds on the measures given. Otherwise, the middle class will be affected. This has been a staple of Labour's strategy over the last year.
Another has been catching up with the populist measures of Osborne. Now that he has stated no salaries above the Prime Minister's will be allowed without Treasury approval (his contribution to the localist agenda), Harman is considering more transparency and control. The policies may differ but both Conservatives and Labour are tying down high public sector salaries.
As
this government peters out, the withdrawal of Cameron from his
radical agenda is highlighting some convergence in both parties as
they seek to draw support from disaffected former voters. Why do they deserve a vote?
