When a British politician discusses “tough choices”, they invariably reveal whose side they are really on. A tough choice tends to involve emptying the pockets of those with little, or slashing a service ordinary citizens depend on. When Labour committed to retain the Tories’ two-child benefit cap – which drives hundreds of thousands of children into poverty – this was styled as a tough decision. Note, however, that raising taxes on the thriving rich is never described as such, even though such a commitment inevitably triggers coordinated hysteria from Tory politicians, rightwing media outlets and wealthy interests. Refusing to do so is the easy way out: it is the very opposite of a tough decision.
When Labour’s shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, rules out a wealth tax – or indeed other means of asking the well-to-do to contribute more – she underlines the political cowardice of the opposition. The party has been courting the support of big business in a so-called “smoked salmon and scrambled eggs” offensive, and is determined not to offend them. It’s not just any vestige of Corbynism that Labour’s masters wish to expunge: its leading thinkers believe that the party lost under Ed Miliband in 2015 because it was insufficiently deferential to corporate Britain. This is belied by the actual evidence: polling back then revealed that 42% of voters had considered the party to be too soft on big business, with just 22% believing it too tough. But Labour’s desire to genuflect before the powerful trumps all other considerations.
