Anyone who has the fortune to see the Labour “battle bus” in their town this week will be hard pressed to avoid the party’s “change” slogan. Keir Starmer’s team have not exactly been subtle with their messaging: the word is emblazoned across the bus’s rose red backdrop … and then rewritten over and over and over again. In the coming weeks, expect the same phrase to be repeated ad nauseam in every interview with the Labour leader.
You can see why. After 14 years of Conservative government – albeit with a revolving door of prime ministers – the one thing that can resonate with British voters across the board is the desire for something different.
And yet the simplicity of Labour’s slogan also points to the campaign’s biggest weakness. A promise for “change” is not necessarily a promise for anything. Delivering it does not require a commitment for more resources for hollowed-out public services, or a significant shift in material conditions for the millions of people struggling to pay their bills. Indeed, it provides no clear outline of what the change will be – just the vague implication that things will be different to how they are now, and perhaps (slightly) better.
This is partly because any disciplined election campaign knows not to overcommit or rock the boat, not least when the past decade has been defined by chaos. It is also, though, a consequence of the economic box Starmer’s Labour has trapped itself in. Conscious of being labelled irresponsible with the public purse and eager to appear pro-business, the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has opted to set strict fiscal rules for the party while simultaneously ruling out taxing higher earners, outside introducing VAT on private school fees and changes to the status of non-doms.
Last week, Reeves emphasised again that the upcoming manifesto would include no increases to income tax, national insurance, corporation tax or any form of wealth tax, despite shadow cabinet members reportedly pressing her to change capital gains tax. The result is a Labour party that has voluntarily put a stranglehold on policies that would provide the transformation the country needs. Or to put it another way: real “change” costs money, and Labour seemingly has little interest in raising it if it involves asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.
This is a sign of the wider fantasy at the heart of the election: both major parties are promising they can fix broken public services while insisting they can do it without raising taxes (and in the case of the Conservatives, saying they can cut them for pensioners). A new report by the Institute for Government sets out the scale of the crisis any new prime minister will face: from hospital waiting lists at a record level to prisons on the brink of collapse, all while growth has stagnated and taxes are at a historic high.
But it is also a problem that is specific to a Labour government. The electorate expect (and accept) a certain level of inequality under the Tories but – fairly or not – generally hold Labour to a higher standard. At a time when public services are on their knees and living standards have plummeted, all while the ultra-rich’s wealth has soared, it is understandably of particular concern that Britain’s centre-left party is squeamish about the redistribution of wealth.
At the start of the campaign, Starmer named “wealth creation” as his number one priority if elected. But there was notably no mention of how that wealth would “trickle down” to the families currently queueing in their local food bank.
From the two-child benefit limit and green investment to tuition fees, the party’s default setting is that – as much as it would like to spend money – it can’t afford it. All the while feigning ignorance that there could possibly be other ways to raise funds than the much-touted “growth”.
You see this each time Starmer responds to questions about overturning Conservative policies by stressing Labour will not make spending pledges it can’t deliver on – as if the choice is always a simple binary between uncosted investment and costed inaction. Such language attempts to frame improving ordinary people’s lives as frivolous and wasteful, while perpetuating the myth that Labour’s hands are tied from using power to achieve it. It buys into the idea that taxing wealth is not a legitimate tool for funding services the majority of society rely on, even as grandparents die on the floor waiting for an ambulance.
This becomes worse still when you consider that the party has effectively signed up to a period of austerity in the next parliament unless it finds new revenue, with a report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank this week warning that on current forecasts, the next government will have to make £19bn of annual cuts to unprotected departments by 2028-29.
So, let’s acknowledge some truths. First, after more than a decade of starved resources and growing need, there is barely a single crisis facing this country – from NHS waiting lists and bankrupt councils, to child poverty – that can be solved without a significant injection of cash. Second, if the growth Reeves is banking on does not emerge and the coffers remain low, there is only really one viable way to rebuild the public realm: tax the super-rich.
A small wealth tax of 1-2% on those with assets of more than £10m – that’s just 0.04% of the population – would raise £22bn annually. That’s enough to pay three-quarters of the entire social care bill for a year. Go one step further and – as recommended by the Wealth Commission in 2020 – introduce a one-off wealth tax for five years and you’d raise a colossal £260bn.
You don’t have to be especially left wing to see the merits of this. A key New Labour adviser, Prof Patrick Diamond, and his academic colleague Colm Murphy, told the Observer there was an “overwhelming economic and ethical case” for Starmer to introduce wealth taxes if elected.
Far from losing the party votes, this would be a widely popular policy: polling from YouGov found that 78% of the electorate support an annual wealth tax on the super-wealthy, including 77% of Tory voters and 86% of Labour voters.
In a country where Conservative rule is the norm, the triumph of Labour entering Downing Street in July should not be underplayed. But winning is only the beginning. As the scale of the task of Britain’s regeneration becomes clear and with goodwill thin on the ground, a Labour government will find itself in need of a base it has alienated and the backing of a public restless for the change they were promised.
To avoid such a state of affairs, the party would be wise to make the case now for a redistribution of resources. That the latest polling predicts a landslide bigger than Tony Blair’s suggests there has never been a better time for Labour to take a stand. Starmer is keen to describe himself as “ruthless”, but perhaps it is time to be brave. There are numerous ways to finance the change the country needs – all that is required is the nerve to take them.
Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist
