Angela Rayner just set out her plan for power – leaves us totally screwed | Personal Finance | Finance
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would normally say 11 or 12. But this still understates the extent of the threat. There are no reasonable numbers for this. Ultimately it will reach billions or trillions. I’m talking about the pound, of course. Because that’s the kind of money we’ll lose if she and her boyfriend can get over the threshold of Number 10. This nightmare scenario could play out within weeks as Labor leadership candidates battle to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
At the moment the race is between Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, Ed Miliband, Red Ange and Starmer himself. As Prime Minister, Sir Keir is a household name. Namely: it is known that he is hopeless. But others are not so good. Burnham doesn’t even understand how the bond market works, even though we rely on it to stay afloat. Miliband doesn’t understand basic physics. He thinks that when we burn imported fossil fuels, they do not count as carbon emissions. However, those in England are like that. Yet Rayner remains the scariest of them all.
He may have escaped punishment for deviating from stamp duty, but the public did not forget it. There are many reasons why he is unfit for high office. This includes breaking down the Parliament door while drunk last week. Now he’s given us three more.
The Labor leadership race will turn into a bidding war to please the hard left with promises the country cannot deliver. Streeting seems to be the most economically savvy, which probably puts him out of action immediately. I don’t think much of Burnham’s chances, given that she would need to win a by-election against Reformation first. I really can’t stand the idea of Miliband reaching number 10. My head would explode and shortly afterwards England’s finances would explode.
So far, the candidates have avoided revealing too many policies, but Rayner dropped three huge hints this week. First came further nationalization. Train companies, water companies, energy companies, whatever.
He did not disclose where the money would come from. It is also unclear why Britain should add more liabilities to its national balance sheet, which is already groaning under mountains of debt. Either way, we have much more pressing priorities than reheating the failed Marxist economics of the 1970s. His other ideas seem equally dangerous.
Second, Rayner wants another increase in the minimum wage. It sounds good in theory. I also want workers to earn more.
But Rachel Reeves has already raised the minimum wage twice in two years by inflation-busting amounts. Add in the disastrous business tax, and businesses can’t afford to hire. Youth unemployment is rising rapidly and economists expect another 160,000 job losses this year.
Push wage bases even higher and more employers will stop hiring or go out of business. Others will replace staff with AI faster than they planned. Finally, Rayner wants higher taxes on the rich. Did he realize that Reeves had piled nearly £70 billion in tax increases into the economy and still failed to balance the books?
The top 1% already shoulders nearly 30% of income taxes. Squeeze them too much and more of them will leave Britain altogether, taking their money and tax revenue with them. Managing a modern economy requires serious judgment and basic financial literacy. Instead, Labor risks handing over power to someone who can’t even sort out his own tax affairs without a row with lawyers and HMRC.
If bond markets finally lose confidence in the UK, lawyers won’t be able to save us. They will just cut the country’s credit limit. Then we will be completely ruined.
