As the article acknowledges, it’s left wing economically while being quite right wing on social issues. Blue Labour, essentially.
The economist has ever been part of the machinery of the ratchet effect.
Yeah the article is quite clear but the headline isn’t. I struggle to consider “left-wing” a party that is clearly right-wing on many social issues.
Specific example from this very budget: increasing taxes on electric cars might be economically more taxing on more affluent people, but the implied message is “buy a petrol car instead” which isn’t a left-wing idea at all. Why are petrol cars not taxed per mile (but more aggressively)? Why are cars not taxed relative to cost - how is a 2.5 ton Hybrid Range Rover cheaper to tax than an electric Renault 5 (for say, 10000 miles a year), and how is that left wing???
Petrol cars pay fuel duty, which is finally going to be unfrozen, so they do effectively get taxed more if they’re driven more. Agree Range Rovers should be taxed more, though!
@frankPodmore @Jrockwar cars should be taxed according to size and weight, imo, if you’re bringing road maintenance & wear and tear into it. Then beyond that fuel source can be taxed according to pollution levels, as it currently kind of is (especially if they actually *do* unfreeze fuel duty).
I’d also tax people more for having more cars. Like, the more cars you have registered to an address or an individual, the more tax you pay.
It’s the economist, The United Corporation of Great Tesco and Northern Wetherspoons would be a tad socialist for them.
Because petrol cars are taxed per litre. This measure is to replace the 2% of tax revenue gained from fuel duty for when EVs become more prevalent.
A Hybrid owner is already paying fuel duty, so they’re being charged the excess for their electric mileage rather than being double-taxed.
Er… bullshit. If they were left wing, they’d put back in a wealth tax and increase CGT at the VERY least.
The point is that they’re redistributing wealth: taxing the rich to spend on the poor. Just because they’re not doing it in one of the two ways you’ve cited (they are taxing wealth, through a mansion tax) doesn’t mean they’re not doing it.
Sure, but they’re redistributing from the middle, not the top. It’s not nothing, but the ultra rich will remain ultra rich, leeching from the country as they do so
[Edit - it wasn’t me who downvoted you, FWIW]
But they’re not! The IfS, for example, says:
The package was skewed towards raising more from those with high incomes.
Thanks for not downvoting me, but I don’t really mind! I always think that if people downvote rather than argue, that means they have nothing to say.
Must be some other Britain.
Sir Keir is a soft-leftist at heart, rather than a hippy-punching hardman. Principles were hidden in the name of political expediency.
This is a weird thing to say after pointing out the govt is quite right-wing on social issues (bar abortion). Then again, it’s hard to have any consistent opinion on this government, who might be the most politically incompetent in my lifetime. They only ever seem to try to do comms when they’re doing stuff their voters hate and are dead silent when doing actually good stuff (where was the press event for the carbon budget?).
Do they try to evidence that, or is it just “I want him to be left wing, so pretend it’s hidden?”
He’s moved away from trade unions to funding by business. He’s drank the coolaid on AI, and appointed right wingers to prominent positions. His cabinet is basically the Progress Alumni.
Firstly, paywalled. So only read the intro.
Secondly, as Hamartia said, The Economist only serves to shift the Overton window rightward. It’s about as reputable as The Telegraph, in that it mixes huge ladels of propaganda with the odd bit of real journalism to pretend to be of good standing. That picture being a prime example of the propaganda.
Thirdly, as Jrockwar said, how can you be left if you’re socially right? It’s as much of an oxymoron as those who say “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative” thinking it means they’ve chosen the “correct” side of both paths.
Left-wing politics or leftism is the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy either as a whole,[1][2][3][4] or to certain social hierarchies.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
If you’re opposed to equality, either fiscally or socially, you’re opposed to equality. Therefore, not left.
Picking and choosing which parts of equality you’re willing to grant isn’t equality and isn’t leftist.
They’re not Blue Labour, because they’re not Labour. They support capital first and foremost. They’re Red Tories.
The Economist is a mixed bag. Their actual journalism is of a high standard. But their editorial policy is very closely aligned with whatever the Conservatives are up to at a given time.
Firstly, paywalled. So only read the intro.
Ta!
