Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 2)
Releasing prisoners; winter fuel allowance; the 'Black Hole'
Releasing prisoners
As soon as they got into government, Labour started saying there was a crisis in the prisons, and they were in danger of being overcrowded. The Conservative government had previously released 10,083 prisoners between October 2023 and the General Election. At first prisoners were released 18 days early. This was expanded to 35 days then 70 days in 2024. Labour's shadow justice minister, Shabana Mahmood, condemned this, remarking it would cause “shockwaves and deep concern across our country”. The manifesto states “prisoners are getting released early”, and it doesn’t mean that in a good way. Labour also released prisoners 18 days early between 2007 and 2010 - those released totalling 80,000.
There was also a plan drawn up by the Tories to release non-violent offenders after 40% of their sentence had been served. No final decision was made on this, and the election interrupted matters. Seeing the situation in the prisons, Labour decided to go forward with the plan. It wasn't in the manifesto of course, but who cares? 1,700 of these miscreants have now been let out of jail - while their friends literally popped champagne corks. One of them, a drug dealer, said he was now a "lifelong Labour voter".
Starmtroopers maintain Labour had to do this because of the mess the Tories left. Let's be under no illusions - the prisons are in a state. They are not invested in properly, with not enough staff trained up, and contracts given to rather unaccountable private companies. Both parties are to blame for all this, in particular the one last in power. However, it does seem there is some ideology behind Labour's move. Starmer's much-celebrated choice for prisons minister, Lord James Timpson, said before the election that two thirds of prisoners should not be incarcerated and should have community sentences. "We can't afford as a country to build £4-6 billion worth of prisons to house more people," he pontificated. "It just doesn't make sense".
The cobbler and key-cutting magnate, who has employed ex-offenders in his business as part of a rehabilitation programme, does not believe in large scale imprisonment as a punishment or deterrent. The PM and many within Labour must agree to some extent, otherwise he would not be the minister. It is convenient then, that the situation has arisen where there is an excuse to let out prisoners.
There is an alternative to doing this - namely fast tracking prison improvements and new builds, and using temporary facilities in the meantime. You could either construct temporary structures from scratch (like the Nightingale Hospital during Covid) or adapt existing buildings such as disused NHS or military sites. Anne Widdecombe suggested this during the Reform conference, recalling that when she was in charge of prisons under Major, a former holiday camp was considered.
Yes making temporary holding facilities would be highly expensive, but we are talking about the security of the British public. Law and order is a necessity, and any government serious about the problem would spend the money, shelving other spending priorities to do so. Starmer dismisses such notions, flippantly saying: ''[I hear] the prisons are overcrowded on Thursday at 10 o'clock but somehow I've magicked up a new prison on Friday morning - that isn't going to happen". Letting these convicts out is a choice, to save cash and to satisfy progressive inclinations. The concept of security is not in the driving seat.
Indeed, you don't get to play the role of the 'responsible grown ups' by copying the irresponsible policies of your predecessor. We were promised a different approach, one of investment, public service and wisdom. This isn't it. Defenders of Labour will say these are only non-violent and non-sexual criminals. Well then, why was Labour so concerned when the Tories were releasing the same type of convict? And non-violent or not, that doesn't mean some of those released will not commit violence. MOs change, especially after prison. It seems inevitable that at least a few incidents of physical harm will befall the public as a result of this move. God forbid it happens, but it would only take one for the brown stuff to hit the fan and an electoral backlash to rock Starmer.
Winter Fuel Allowance and Two Child Cap
The opening act of Labour's austerity 2.0 has been to cut the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners. This is a flat yearly payment made to a household containing someone born before a certain date. It was the case that if they were born before September 23rd in 1944 (80 years old now) the household would get £300. If they were born before September 22nd in 1958 (66 years old) they would get £200. The intention is for the household to spend this on energy bills, as older people require more warmth. Now, however, they can only get the payment if they are receiving benefits aside of the state pension. The vote to do this went through on September 10th. The optics of the move could not be worse.
Some disapproved of the blanket allowance. Others disapprove of any fuel allowance at all. However, we can put that to one side, and look purely at the politics of the matter. Labour professes to be the compassionate party, and this just looks mean and petty. When the Tories were planning the same thing in 2017, Labour of course attacked it. Now they're in government it's another 'tough decision' for the 'adults' to make. One suspects it isn't actually all that tough for them, it's dumping the ordinary people to make way for Starmer's loftier priorities. He's pledging an awful lot of money to Ukraine, for his new GB Energy project and for overseas climate aid. When it comes to building prisons and keeping pensioners warm, though, he's not interested.
Hilariously, the Labour minister Lucy Powell claimed if the fuel payment had not been removed, there would have been a "run on the pound" and "the economy crashing". Both the BBC and the Centre for Economics and Business Research say there is no evidence for this.
In 2023/24 the cost of winter fuel payments was about £2.4 billion (according to Statista, and my own rough calculations support this). When you take away the pensioners who will still get the benefit, it will be even lower. £3 billion will be given to Ukraine every year until Russia is somehow defeated (£12.7 billion has already been spent since 2022). Miliband has pledged £11.6 billion in overseas climate aid. GB Energy will be set up using £8.3 billion raised from windfall taxes on energy firms, and will cost much more in the long run. The winter fuel allowance is peanuts when compared to these sums, but to a pensioner £200 or £300 can be a lot of money. Ironically, Labour's climate and energy policies are pushing up energy bills, because green energy is so heavily subsidised by the consumer. Thus pensioners will be getting shafted twice by Mr Starmer.
Consider also the left of the party and Red Wall voters. Labour have alienated many of these people over the affair, as well as the issue of the two child cap on child benefits. In the September 10th vote, 53 Labour MPs abstained and one (John Trickett) opposed the government. Labour claimed most of the abstainers, including eight ministers, had permission (sure, Jan). Joining Trickett were the five former Labour MPs who lost the whip when they voted against keeping the two child cap, including John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana. If cutting fuel payments is the top of the iceberg, then there is much more internal tension to come within Labour, and a lot more loss of enthusiasm from its base.
The two child cap is something I personally agree with. It is needed to encourage people to make responsible choices in terms of procreating. We don't want to allow people without the financial means for raising multiple kids to rely on state hand-outs. Many however oppose it from a libertarian point of view, or from the position of needing to raise the birth-rate. Others, like the five Labour rebels, are against it for socialist reasons. Whatever your view, it is clearly a weakness in Labour's camp. Considering the fuss they made about various Tory cuts - such as curbing universal free school meals - it is something of a contradiction. The floating voters or conservatives they are trying to woo might agree with keeping the cap, but a lot of their base will be put off. I would sympathise with a left-winger in the party being perturbed by it. The winter fuel payment move is perhaps more egregious because Labour are not simply retaining the status quo - they have actively made a cut.
The 'Black Hole'
A major excuse for Labour not spending or cutting things is the classic '14 years of Tory mismanagement' (what does that say about Labour who couldn't win for all that time?). This will also be the pretext for increasing taxes, as next month's budget is likely to do. Since the election another excuse has been the supposed discovery by the Treasury of a £22 billion 'black hole'. Labour has accused the Conservatives of concealing it before the election, and the Conservatives have accused Labour of making it up or exaggerating. The independent OBR said they were not aware of the figure, and has announced an internal review into why they might have missed it.
The 'black hole' is the result of a Treasury audit into projected government spending for 2024/25, published on July 29th. The audit apparently found that more money was required for the spending projects than anticipated - to the tune of £21.9 billion (rounded up by Labour). A black hole implies the Tories lost the cash and it is part of the deficit, when in fact it hasn't all been spent yet. Indeed, the areas affected are the very ones Labour is keen to spend on: public sector wages, assistance to Ukraine and supporting the asylum sector. They could always decide not to spend on them, and thus save the £22 billion, but they won't. The same goes for all of their arbitrary policies. If it's such a dire situation, how can we afford those?
The government had previously published a 'Main Estimates' spending plan on July 17th, signed off by all relevant government departments and civil servants. It more or less replicated the previous government's plan, and no shortfall was mentioned. Yet twelve days later, Rachel Reeves announced a shortfall had been discovered. Jeremy Hunt queried this in a letter to the head of the Civil Service, Simon Case. He asked, if the £22 billion figure was true, how all the government departments had missed it and signed off on the plan. Either they had been wrong, or Reeves was now wrong.
Case responded in a letter which was later 'leaked' (we've all seen Yes Minister). He did not say if the figure was correct or not, but suggested it could have been missed because there was not enough time for the government to do a thorough audit. Nor he claimed was there time, owing to the General Election having compressed the Parliamentary timetable, for Parliament to properly scrutinise the spending plan. He also criticised the last government's failure to hold a spending review in its last years in office, implying the Conservatives were to blame for any discrepancy. To nobody's surprise he appeared to support Labour's position.
Whatever the truth of the figure, £22 billion is hardly anything in the grand scheme of things. Total government spending for next year is projected to be £1,226 billion (£1.2 trillion). The 'black hole' comprises 1.8% of that. Thus, all Labour's scrimping - as with the winter fuel allowance - simply looks petty and mean. All of its unpleasant and unpopular policies cannot be justified by the supposed budgetary shortfall. But then Labour does seem to think we are all stupid.