BRITAIN’S winter of discontent has arrived early with an almighty thump: a recession; an accumulating number of strikes and the grim prospect of most of us getting poorer through 2023 and beyond.
Post the Autumn Statement number-crunching, those pointy heads at the IFS warned Middle England – and, undoubtedly, Middle Scotland too – was “set for a shock” as it pointed out the so-called “squeezed middle” won’t get the targeted support those on means-tested benefits will do yet will still see their wages falling and their taxes and food prices rising.
The think-tank came up with what some will regard as the deeply unappetising prospect that Hunt’s higher taxes - as well as a bigger state - could be here for “several decades”.
Right-wing Tories will be choking on their evening Beaujolais as the image of a smiling Gordon Brown pops into their heads.
Paul Johnson, the IFS chief number-cruncher, said the Conservative Government had inflicted own-goals on the country such as a hard Brexit and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and noted the post-election spending plans were “really pretty austere”.
Combined with higher taxes and borrowing, he concluded: “That’s a pretty nasty place to be.” Indeed it is.
For the lost souls of the Conservative Party, a deal of inner turmoil is now gurgling away as taxes, already high, rise even higher - in the midst of a recession no less - with some asking themselves in midnight’s stillness: is Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt’s grand strategy the “end of the Tory Party”.
Not surprisingly, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former pin-striped Business Secretary, was quick to respond to what some believe is the “unConservative” nature of the Chancellor’s Budget. Brandishing his rapier, he criticised Hunt, saying: “We need to look at the efficiency of government to make sure money is well spent before reaching for the easy option of putting up taxes.
“What we actually need to be doing is having a strategy for growth and looking to lower taxes.”
The Moggster, who previously suggested the disastrous response to Liz Truss’s Growth Plan was more to do with the Bank of England’s ineptitude in failing to up its base rate than with the catastrophic mini-Budget, insisted he supported his leader. But he is no fan, once branding Sunak a “socialist” Chancellor for hiking taxes.
Fellow Brexiteer David Jones, the ex-Welsh Secretary, was equally dismissive, telling The Times: “What we had was a high tax, Social Democrat-style Budget, which could just as easily have been delivered by Rachel Reeves. The worry is voters will look at the two parties and say: ‘Where’s the choice?’”
Tory colleague Esther McVey, who had warned she couldn’t support tax rises if the UK Government continued to press ahead with the HS2 rail link, hinted she might vote against the Finance Bill, saying: “I can’t be supporting these rises.”
The ex-minister asked, possibly rhetorically, if this was the “end of the Tory Party” and “is this going to be the nail in the coffin for the next general election?”
The Chancellor defended himself. Describing his Budget as a “very Conservative package to make sure we sort out the economy,” he told his Tory critics: “Sound money matters more than low taxes. There is nothing Conservative about spending money that you haven’t got…about not tackling inflation…about ducking difficult decisions that put the economy on track.”
The effects of Sunak’s masochism strategy is to push back over the horizon any concrete benefits envisaged by the happy, clappy worshippers of Brexit – low taxes, less red tape, higher growth and a plethora of beneficial trade deals.
Yesterday, a poll suggested Britons were beginning to have serious second thoughts about the UK’s economic independence with 53% saying we should rejoin the EU, up five on a snapshot two weeks ago, 34% believing we should stay out, down three, and 13%, who didn’t know.
The level of Tory turmoil is likely to increase as the Finance Bill goes through a fractious Parliament amid an intensifying backdrop of voter pain and industrial strife.
The country is awash with strikes or the prospect of them from train drivers and nurses to school teachers, civil servants, firefighters and even coffin-makers.
Public sector indignation looks set to only get worse as independent analysts argue Hunt’s promised £30bn of spending cuts will mean a prolonged squeeze on public sector pay despite a growing clamour in many services for real-terms increases after years of austerity.
Of course, in terms of indignation, few rival the Scottish Nationalists with the SNP decrying Hunt’s fiscal strategy as heralding Austerity 2.0.
John Swinney, the acting Finance Secretary, responded to the extra £1.5bn the Scottish Government would receive as a result of extra spending in England by pointing out how the 4.1% cash increase to Edinburgh’s budget had to be set against an 11.1% rate of inflation.
With a deal of understatement Nicola Sturgeon suggested Scotland’s budget for next year would be a “difficult balancing act”.
Of course, Wednesday’s decision by the UK Supreme Court on Indyref2 could open up a whole new cross-border front if the judges side with the Nationalist argument. But I doubt they will.
The Conservative discontent at Westminster could reach such a pitch to raise the prospect of a return to the political frontline by the ghost of Brexit past, Nigel Farage, intent on resurrecting a “real Conservative Party,” representing true Tory values.
However, such an injudicious move would be an electoral gift to Labour and the Liberal Democrats in England.
Some Tories could even be thinking it would be better to lose the 2024 election and hand Labour a poisoned chalice of deep cuts and higher taxes, regroup in opposition amid Keir Starmer’s own turmoil for one parliamentary term, and then return to power in 2029 with a fresh prospectus.
Sunak might consider his biggest enemy in Parliament is the Labour Party but, as ever, while the Opposition sits facing Government ministers in the Commons chamber, often the real enemy turns out to be some of those sitting uneasily behind them.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel