What Miliband's Sweden trip told us about Labour's tax policy

The Labour leader's commitment to "fairer", rather than "higher" taxes, suggests the party will not seek to significantly increase the overall tax burden.

While David Cameron visited India, Ed Miliband used the recess to make a pilgrimage to social democratic Europe. Accompanied by shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander and his chief consigliere Stewart Wood, Miliband held meetings with Denmark's Social Democrat prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (who is married to Neil Kinnock's son, Stephen) and the leaders of Labour's Dutch and Swedish sister parties. 

Having stated that greater income equality should be an "explicit goal" of a Labour government, Miliband believes that the UK has much to learn from Sweden and Denmark, the most equal countries in the developed world. He has expressed particular admiration for Sweden's system of universal childcare, the policy credited with enabling its impressive levels of female employment. More than 80 per cent of Swedish mothers work, compared with just 67 per cent in the UK. In a nod to this achievement, Miliband tweeted during his visit: "Just arriving at Swedish Parliament building, passing two Swedish fathers with pushchairs. Scandinavian scene."

But one thing the Labour leader doesn't think we should import from the Nordic countries are their tax rates. In an interview with Bloomberg (which is worth reading in full), he said: 

There are some lessons you can learn, and some things that are different. They’ve always had a tradition of significantly higher tax and spending, which we don’t have in Britain and aren’t going to have in Britain. We’ve said that we want tax cuts for low and middle income families. That’s a sign of a fairer tax system; it’s not about higher taxes.

Miliband's words suggest that while a Labour government would increase taxes on the wealthy (as well as proposing a mansion tax, the party is considering reintroducing the 50p rate), it would not significantly increase the overall tax burden. Rather than traditional tax and spend, Miliband will look to predistributive measures such as the living wage, curbs on predatory energy and rail companies and universal childcare to combat inequality.

But the question he will need to answer is whether it is possible to fund the party's priorities -  jobs, housing, social care and childcare - without also raising taxes on middle and lower earners. If Labour goes into the 2015 election promising only to make the rich pay more, the Tories will be quick to dust down their "tax bombshell" posters. 

Ed Miliband and Swedish Social Democratic leader Stefan Lofven, visit the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.