Miliband's Wonga tax is another trap for the Tories

Should Cameron's party oppose the levy, Labour will accuse it of again siding with predatory companies against struggling consumers.

After doing battle with the energy companies, Ed Miliband is taking on Wonga and co. The Labour leader will announce today that his party would impose a new levy on the profits of payday loan companies (call it the "Wonga tax") and use the money raised to double the public funds (currently £13m) available to credit unions and other low-cost lenders. The plan was first mooted in August shortly after Justin Welby vowed to put Wonga "out of existence" by supporting non-profit lenders, which charge a maximum interest rate of 26%. Labour says that it is currently "consulting on the rate and details of our addition to the levy" but I'm told by a party source that the rate is likely to be around 10%. 

Miliband will also announce that Stella Creasy, who was overlooked in the shadow cabinet reshuffle, will be given "special responsibility" for leading the party's campaign against abuses by payday lenders. On a visit to Peckham today with Creasy, last week appointed as shadow minister for competition and consumer affairs, he will visit the office of a credit union and meet some of those who have suffered at the hands of high-cost lenders. He will say:

The cost of living crisis afflicting millions of Britain’s families is so bad that it is creating a personal debt crisis too. The prices families have to pay keep on rising faster and faster than the wages they are paid. And, as a result, the market in payday lending has doubled in just four years. Almost a third of the payday loans taken out in Britain at the moment are to cover the cost of people’s gas and electricity bills.

For too many families the end of the month is now their own personal credit crunch. A One Nation Labour Government would deal with the causes of the cost of living crisis. But it would also act to help prevent people falling into unpayable debt with radical reform of the payday lending market. We would cap the cost of credit, halt the spread of payday lenders on our high streets and force them to fund the credit unions that can offer a real alternative for people in desperate need.

We must protect the most vulnerable people in our society from the worst of exploitation by payday lenders. And it is right that the companies that benefit from people's financial plight, accept their responsibilities to help ensure affordable credit is available.

As well as good policy, the announcement is also smart politics. Following his call for an energy price freeze, the Labour leader has again put himself on the side of consumers against predatory companies and set a trap for the Tories. Should they oppose the levy (as will be their instinct), Miliband will accuse Cameron's party of again "standing up for the wrong people" and defending the interests of its donors rather than those of the public. As Labour said last night: "this Tory-led Government stands up only up only for a privileged few and, just as it does nothing to stop energy firms overcharging families, drags its feet over uncontroversial reforms of a poorly regulated industry and is doing little of significance to boost low-cost alternatives to payday lending."

While some Tories are sympathetic to calls for action against payday lenders, others argue that state intervention will raise the cost of borrowing for consumers and push them into the arms of unregulated loan sharks. Labour has already pledged to impose a cap on the rates lenders can charge but despite having supported amendments on this issue in the Lords (after pressure from the opposition and others), the government has yet to act. Asked by Labour MP Paul Blomfield at PMQs yesterday whether he would introduce "tough regulation of payday lenders", Cameron replied: "We are still considering the issue of a cap, and I do not think we should rule it out, although we must bear in mind what has been established in other countries, and by our own research, about whether a cap would prove effective."

The PM will likely take a similar view of Miliband's Wonga tax. But having so badly misjudged their response to his proposed energy price freeze, the Tories would be wise to avoid rushing to oppose it. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the Labour conference in Brighton last month. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland