T.R.O.Y. wrote:Less ‘large’ donations and a a drop in membership too, so I’m sure there are issues that need addressing. I think it’s pretty obviously a strategy from Starmer’s team to be non committal though - I also don’t see the connection you’re making between a reduction in funding and who runs the Labour Party.
So pretend your Boris for the day, presumably you would choose to target NI too?
Never heard the saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'?
Are you really trying to tell me that Trade Unions donations don't influence policy?
They even have a say in who the leader is ffs!
And IF I was Boris for the day I would have resigned first rather break my word - so I couldn't be him even in a pretend world.
But to answer your question if I was an advisor to Boris (as I was somewhat of an 'advisor' to elected politicians in my job that I held), I would point out firstly that the Labour Party had already set a precedence under Blair in raising NI to fund the NHS - so that would put them in a difficult spot to argue against Boris doing it.
How could they come out a claim it is a tax on the poor, when they've already done exactly the same thing themselves not that long ago?
I would point out that the funding required has to come from some form of taxation and the most obvious alternative is either some sort of a windfall tax on companies such as Amazon and Google, a purchase tax such as a rise in VAT, or some sort of a 'super tax' on the rich.
The former is fraught with all sorts of international difficulties - but some progress is being made following the recent G7 meeting -https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57368247
...however that is not in place yet and 'jumping the gun' so to speak to obtain the money now would not be welcomed by our partner nations to this agreement.
A rise in purchase Tax (equivalent to 6% apparently) would be highly detrimental to the economy which isn't bouncing back as quickly as was predicted since lockdown ended.
That really only leaves a tax on the rich and the rich these days now include many people with large assets (they own a house in London or the south east for example inherited from their parents) but are revenue poor.
My ex's father bought his council house and has just had to go into a care home. The house was sold for just over £600k. He was a bus driver, the ex is a shop worker - in theory the sale of the asset would mean that he would be deemed to have assets that would fall into the potential high taxation bracket - if he died and the ex inherited - she would instead.
If he lives for not many years longer (6 or 7 iirc) the £600k would all be gone (apart from 24k I think it is?) on care home fees.
In the care home are residents who don't pay a penny and in at least one case the tenancy of one old Asian lady's council house has been assigned to her daughter who doesn't work and receives Housing Benefit/Universal Credit.
I wouldn't therefore recommend to Boris that he imposed a wealth tax and in fact would welcome Labour proposing such a thing as it would make them unelectable in large swathes of the country and certainly not capable of turning over a 78 seat majority.
The raising of NI leaves the Labour Party in an extremely weak position to argue against something they have done themselves before and leaves no obvious political (windfall tax on multinationals), economical (increase in purchase tax eg VAT) or electoral (taxation of the rich) alternative for the Labour Party to respond with.
Probably why Labour has been embarrassingly quite on the matter.
Does that answer your hypothetical question?