Angry Kim 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Here's my @CapX column, 'Labour’s mangled sixth-form-level Marxist class war' capx.co/labours-mangled-sixt… Emma Reynolds, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is one of the more sensible Labour MPs. She resigned as a front bencher when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader and is firmly in the moderate wing of the Labour Party. Which is why her comment yesterday that ‘I don’t think employers are working people’ is all the more revealing – and all the more telling about the attitude of the government. Plainly, my description of Reynolds as one of the more sensible Labour MPs is relative. When even someone as relatively sensible as Reynolds believes that employers are a class that don’t work for a living but somehow live off the backs of ‘working people’ then it shows the scale of Labour’s inability to grasp even the basics of wealth creation and growth – and thus the scale of the problem for our economy. Reynolds was being interviewed on GB News by Camilla Tominey, who rightly picked up on her words. As if to ensure they weren’t a slip of the tongue or a misleading statement of her actual view, Tominey sought clarification. Reynolds dug in: ‘Let me say I don’t think employers are working people. They are companies.’ She went on: ‘I’m saying there is a difference between employers and employees. … The distinction I am drawing is between employees and employers’. It was, at least, enlightening to hear that a minister at the heart of economic policy holds a form of mangled sixth-form-level Marxist views about the working class and employers. With the exception of its five years under Corbyn, Labour have sought to portray themselves as a party which understands capitalism and which is best placed to make it work for the whole country. Reynolds has revealed that even those ministers at the vanguard of that purported understanding have, at root, a pastiche 19th century view of the nature of employers. Listening to Reynolds, I wondered if she would, like a good Marxist, move on to attacking the rentier class which lives off the assets created by others. And then I remembered that the Government has done just that. In the very Budget she was on TV to defend Labour imposed a cumulative increase of 4% on tax for rental income, with ministers defending the rises by characterising rental income as ‘unearned’ – as if landlords as a class simply sit on their backsides watching their exorbitant profit rolling in to their already over-fed bank accounts. Not for Labour the idea that the management, maintenance and risk involved in letting property might earn a reward. And Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act has abolished ‘no-fault’ evictions and increased tenants’ powers to challenge rent increases through tribunals. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that cumulative tax and regulatory pressures have resulted in a ‘material reduction in returns to private landlords,’ which risks discouraging new investors and driving existing landlords to sell their portfolios. Presumably that’s regarded as a good thing. Reynolds is no Marxist. But it’s damning of both her and Labour more generally that such a crude Marxist analysis of employers and employees drives their thinking, with no understanding of the nature of small and medium-sized businesses and how hard most employers work to create wealth and employment for their fellow working people. As one poster on social media put it: ‘It’s 7:41 on a Sunday, and I’m at my desk – guess I’m not a working person. My employees are not doing the same, I can tell you that (and I don’t expect or want them to!)’