Polanski v Farage: Is the political centre in Britain dead?

As Rachel Reeves prepares to deliver the budget on Wednesday, she faces the political nightmare of having to come back for more tax, having said she wouldn't and she's already made it clear that whatever she does the burden will fall on all of us, not just the rich minority - but the left and the Greens are demanding a wealth tax, while the right and Reform are demanding welfare cuts and tax cuts.

Voters are disillusioned, inflation is stubborn, services are still struggling and faith in the political centre is evaporating.

So how does the chancellor land her budget without causing a political crisis for Labour or a financial crisis on the bond markets?

On this episode of The Fourcast, Krishnan-Guru-Murthy was joined by Green Party leader Zack Polanski, Labour MP Rosie Wrighting, one of the new intake last year, and Rupert Harrison, a former advisor to George Osborne in the treasury and now at the US investment managers PIMCO.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
The Chancellor keeps talking about tough choices, but they
always seem to be tough choices for children in poverty, for
migrants, for disabled people. Never tough choices for
multimillionaires and billionaires.
You say if you tax the wealth it'll make everyone's life
better and it's not true. It's offering people false hope.
Nigel Farage says jump, Starmer says how high and you are
handing this country on a plate to Nigel Farage.

(00:20):
So I won't take the idea that's me on social media offering
people hope and saying that if we.
Redistributed wealth and false hope.
It's not false hope. If we redispute wealth and power
around this country, everyone will be better.
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
As Rachel Reeves prepares to deliver the budgets on
Wednesday, she is facing the political nightmare of having to

(00:41):
come back for more tax having said she wouldn't.
And she's already made it clear that whatever she does, the
burden will fall on all of us, not just the rich minority.
But the left and the Greens are demanding A wealth tax and the
right and reform are demanding welfare cuts and tax cuts.
Voters are disillusioned, inflation is stubborn, services
are still struggling and faith in the political centre is

(01:02):
evaporating. So how does the Chancellor land
her budget without causing a political crisis for Labour or a
financial crisis? On the bond markets with me
today, Green Party leader Zach Polanski, Labour MP Rosie
writing one of the new intake last year and Rupert Harrison, a
former adviser to George Osbornein the Treasury and now at the
US investment managers PIMCO. Thank you all very much for

(01:24):
joining us, Zach. Let's begin with the politics of
inequality. You, you have been making the
case for a wealth tax. What is it?
Well, ultimately the Chancellor keeps talking about tough
choices, but they always seem tobe tough choices for children in
poverty, for migrants, for disabled people, never tough
choices for multi millionaires and billionaires.
Since the pandemic, billionaire wealth in this country has

(01:46):
doubled. Meanwhile, our assets, our
power, our wealth has been stripped away.
Ultimately, I'm saying let's take it back.
And the way we do that is partlythrough a tax on assets.
A 1% tax on assets of £10 million or more or a 2% tax on
assets of a billion pounds or more could raise between 12 and
£15 billion. Now, it's important to say this
isn't just about revenue raising.

(02:07):
There's lots of other ways to make sure that we're spending on
our capital, infrastructure and investment.
But ultimately, making sure we're getting a grip on the huge
inequality around assets has to be the principal thing that the
Chancellor does this Wednesday. So you don't want to cut
spending at all. I mean, in terms of the the
numbers you put on it, 12 to 15 billion, you know, there's a lot
of scepticism around that, don'tyou?

(02:27):
Well, I think that scepticism isoften from multi millionaires
and billionaires and the media that they own some of the media.
So I think a lot of these narratives are pushed.
I think it's quite obvious that if you tax very, very wealthy
people a small amount, that willbring in a relatively large
amount of money. It's always important to talk
about the difference between millionaires and billionaires.
I've said a few Times Now, but if you go back 1,000,000
minutes, you're at the beginningof 2024.

(02:50):
If you go back a billion minutes, you're at the Roman
Empire. That's how deep this inequality
is. And actually, we're not talking
about taxing plumbers or hairdressers or small businesses
at the moment, although certainly down the road we need
to have a conversation about fairer taxation system for
everyone. It seems obvious right now that
the people who should pay up arethe people who are doing
extraordinarily well, who wouldn't even really notice this

(03:12):
small amount of taxation and whoare making money in their sleep.
And the reason why that matters is they're not earning it with
their hands or their mouths or doing work every single day.
These are people who are accruing that money on their
assets. And that is totally unfair.
It doesn't have to be that way. And we can make different
political choices. Rupert, why is she wrong?
Well, look, I, I don't think he's wrong in the sense that I
think we will have a wealth tax of some kind in the budget.

(03:34):
It looks very likely that the government are going to
introduce, for example, higher taxes on expensive properties.
I think it's quite likely there's going to be reforms to
capital gains tax. There's probably going to
reforms to pensions taxation. So I think the government,
partly because they've ruled outa lot of the other options, they
are going to be going for these capital taxes and.
Taxes on wealthy and properties,not a wealth.
Actual wealth tax. So the the issue is that in this

(03:55):
situation you want to bring in, particularly when you've got
very nervous markets and you're at risk of sort of losing using
confidence there and therefore damaging the economy.
You want to have tax rises if you're going to raise taxes that
are predictable, bring in predictable revenue.
And the problem is on a pure wealth tax like this, there are
very few international examples where anyone's actually managed
to make it work to raise anything that like that kind of

(04:15):
money. So you have actually seen the
Spanish government bring in a form of wealth taxes being
debated in France. But when the Spanish example for
example has so many loopholes tomake it work, it doesn't
actually raise very much money and is.
It really just beyond the Treasury to devise a tax that
works. The fundamental problem is
there, you know, it's not like no one's ever tried this.
It has been tried. In fact, the UK tried a wealth
tax about 100 years ago and thenthe Treasury ended up having to

(04:36):
pay most of the money back. The problem is that when you get
to these billionaires in particular, they're very mobile
internationally. They have a choice about where
to be based. And so unless you're going to do
this as a part of a kind of hugeinternational agreement, you're
very vulnerable to losing the revenue and perhaps actually
losing revenue rather than raising revenue if you drive
those people somewhere else. Well, we've had wealth taxes
since the Doomsday Book, so these have been a principal

(04:58):
tradition of British politics and ultimately be saying we
shouldn't have this deep inequality.
I'm talking about assets. Those aren't particularly
mobile. And I think the really important
point here is if you don't have a lot of money, if you live in
poverty, you have to make decisions based on the lack of
money you have. If you're very, very wealthy,
then you're not just going to move because someone's asking
you to pay a bit more money. That's the point of being

(05:18):
wealthy. And I think we should be more
patriotic about our country thanthat.
People invest here because they love our country, they love the
culture, they love the neighbors, they want to stay
living where they're living. The idea that you ask them for
1% or 2% on their assets and they're gonna move, I think has
pretty been debunked. Also, I should say Spain.
The solidarity tax is working pretty well.
Norway, Switzerland. Switzerland.
The place that famously has lotsof wealthy.

(05:40):
People, they're not good. For the Spanish tax is raising a
fraction of the 600 million. So, well, let's.
Yeah, it might. Be problem but it's not gonna
but 6. 100 million is not gonna do the things that we need to do
to fundamentally change our country.
And make things. Better off, but make things
better off, make things better off for families, families who I
think about in my constituency every single day.
So I think to be honest that it is dangerous that you go on

(06:02):
social media, you say if you taxthe wealth, if you have this tax
on assets, it'll make everyone'slife better.
And it's not true. It's offering people false hope.
It's leading them down a garden path that you cannot deliver on.
And what we're doing as a Labourgovernment is putting the
policies in place so actually changing can change people's
day-to-day lives. A breakfast club that a single
mum, like a family that I grew up in, can drop their child off

(06:25):
so they can get to work on time raising the minimum wage.
This is how you change people's lives, right?
Not by going on social media andjust giving people false hope.
You seem lovely Rosie, but you're defending a government
that you're part of the government that is keeping A2
child benefit cap, which is keeping 300,000 children in
poverty, cut benefits for disabled people.
Some of the most vulnerable people in this country is arming
a genocide in Gaza seems every single week to move further and

(06:47):
further towards Nigel Farage, including with migrants and
refugees. Nigel Farage says jump, Starmer
says how high and you are handing this country on a plate
to Nigel Farage. So I won't take the idea that's
me on social media offering people hope and saying that if
we redisputed. Wealth.
It's. False hope.
It's not false hope. If we redispute wealth and power
around this country, everyone will be better if you sell.
People of policy that in that can't believe implement and it

(07:09):
isn't going to bring in the revenue that you say that we
need to fix our country, then that is false hope.
Why are you so sure it wouldn't bring in the revenue that's
actually? Because of the reasons that
Rupert said, when this has been tried in countries like Spain,
it hasn't driven in the revenue that that we need to to
fundamentally change. But we do compare ourselves to
Spain and Switzerland in any other respect.
Also, I mean, like I, you know, I'm a Labour politician.

(07:33):
I agree with the fact that thosewho are wealthiest in our
society should be paying into our system, should be
contributing to fund our NHS. And that is why I was pleased to
see in the previous budget us make decisions like closing the
non Dom tax loop, putting a a tax on private schools, capital
gains tax. This is taxing wealth.
It may not be the the same clip that you can put on on TikTok,

(07:57):
but it is taxing wealth. On the capital gains, so Rachel
Reeves tinkered with it last year and it was welcome, but we
still have the lowest capital gains in the G7 if we brought
capital gains tax in line with income tax.
The reason why that matters is right now you could be the
cleaner of this building, you could be paying less, you could
be paying more tax as the cleaner than the person who owns
the building. That doesn't as as a proportion

(08:19):
of your wealth, right? Yeah, that's not natural order,
that's a result of political choices.
And this Labour government, a Labour government should be
making different political choices, but in every single
opportunity they protect the wealth and power of a super
rich. Meanwhile, working class
communities in this country are struggling badly and it doesn't
seem like in this budget they have any plans to.
Turn this country around. I mean we, we asked a lot of
businesses, we asked a lot of the wealthiest in our society,

(08:42):
the wealthiest in our society are paying more tax since the
Second World War in order to fund our NHS, in order to put
our public finances back on a sustainable footing.
These were labour choices, they were fair choices.
So what the public elected us todo, and I think that we will
continue to make them this week.I mean, Rupert, the argument
that's often made is that the wealthiest 1% already pay about

(09:02):
what, 30% of the tax raised in income tax.
Yeah, in income tax. I mean, is there a sort of a?
Is there a limit to that, you know, and and where, where do
you get the idea of that limit from?
I mean you. Sadly there is a limit I.
Mean, you know, because the point, The point being that what
we've seen is that the wealthierare relatively comfortable,

(09:22):
yeah, compared to the rest of the country, and most people
can't move. I mean, I'm.
Super rich. I have the great advantage of
like unlike these two, not beinga politician.
So it's a bit bit easier for me to say, look, you try, it's
really complicated. So it look, the truth is, it is,
it is really complicated, the truth.
So if you look in some ways thatthe UK tax system, it's the most
already the most progressive taxsystem of any developed economy
in terms of the ratio of tax paid by the highest earners, in

(09:46):
terms of rates of the tax paid by the lowest earners.
And that's because this government and also previous
governments have done things like increase the personal
allowance and we have a very high top rate of tax, 45 P.
And that means that we're now very, very dependent on that top
1% of earners to pay a very high, as you said, very high
proportion of tax. That means, therefore, that you
really need to work hard to keepattracting those top earners,

(10:06):
make it an attractive place to, to, to build and grow a
business. When it comes to capital gains
tax, all the evidence and the international evidence, that
certainly would be the evidence taken on board, for example, by
the independent OBR. That's not a political body.
They're a bunch of economists. Looking at the data, they would
say that the current top rate ofcapital gains tax is probably
about actually the revenue maximizing rate of corporate
capital gains tax. Because if you start raising it

(10:28):
higher, you'll have people moving away.
And you also have people choosing not to sell assets
because you're only pay capital gains tax when you sell an
asset. So unfortunately we are pushing
up against the limits. There are definitely things you
can do and I expect that they wewill see that in the in the
budget, things like additional council tax bands.
Council tax is an absolute mess.All economists would agree it's
absolutely not progressive because it's based on very

(10:49):
outdated valuations. So I think we will see action
there. But unfortunately, the
government is limited by the reality of what you can raise.
See, I don't think it's that complicated.
We still have the lowest capitalgains in the G7.
Now look for 50 wealthiest families in this country owe
more wealth than the bottom 50% of the entire population.
That's fifty families versus 35 million people.

(11:10):
And the collective wealth of those multi millionaires and
billionaires, they're earning 35,000,000 lbs every single day.
Not every week or every year, every single day.
And so to hear people say there's no wealth in this
country or it's not, it's too complicated or it's too nuanced.
I don't think we said that wealth is too complicated.
But what about that argument? Because these, these referees,
as you say, they're going aroundsocial media a lot, the top 50

(11:31):
families being so absurdly wealthy and the top 20,000
people also, you know, having more than £10,000,000 in the
bank. What?
Why is the Labour government notsaying there's something wrong
with that? I, I want to see the economy
rebalanced. I want to see constituents in,
in my constituency who work hardwork difficult jobs, are coming

(11:55):
home, still worried about the weekly shops, still worried
about how they're going to pay the energy bills.
I don't think that by a simply atax on assets.
I don't think that's a silver bullet that the Green Party are
going out on social media and selling that's actually going to
solve those problems. What I want to see is people
bought out of poverty and and the only way we're going to do
that is real policies that change the way this economy.

(12:18):
Works take on tax argument aboutabout property.
I mean, we're very likely in this budget to see a new regime
in which, you know, houses over £2,000,000 or whatever the
threshold ends up being end up paying a higher tax every year.
You could raise a lot more, couldn't you, from the Super
rich. You've got billions in property.

(12:39):
I'm not going to speculate. I don't know what's going to be
in. I'm not going to say so I'm not
going to speculate on this. The the principle of taking more
from that 50 people you know, 50families doesn't seem to come.
Up yeah, I and I, I think the wealthiest should be
contributing to our economy in order to fund our public
services. I think that's a principle that

(13:00):
is deep rooted in Labour values and in this Labour government.
I just don't think what Zach is selling people will actually do
that. I think what we need to do is
things that we've all already announced in the previous cover,
in the previous budget, things like tax, seeing private jets
like I spoke about the non domedabsolute capital gains tax,

(13:21):
private schools. This is taxing the most
wealthiest in our in our country.
And in the previous budget we raise taxes in all and we ask
the wealthiest in our society tohold the biggest burden so that
we could fund the NHS and make people's day-to-day lives
better. Annoyed with with that sort of
social media promises and I wonder whether you think is that
because it's pulling Labour to the left, no, into a position

(13:43):
that is politically unsustainable.
No, I, I am an annoyed by it honestly, because I think that
it is, it is the exact same technique that Nigel Farage has.
It's people, it have quite people have very, very difficult
lives at the moment. And I, I know that I hear it
from my constituents, I hear it from my friends.
I'm in my 20s. Like I know that life is

(14:05):
difficult at the moment. And whether it's Nigel Farage or
Zach Polanski going out and telling people if we just do
this one thing, your lives are going to get better when they I
think you know that that's not true.
I think it's dangerous, I think it's divisive and I think it's
offensive to the electorate. I'm really honoured to be living
rent free in Labour MPs heads because they obsess about my
social media and I'm not surprised because.

(14:27):
We're seeing the electorate. Thousands and thousands of
people join the Green Party literally every single day.
We've just hit 175,000 members, including 40,000 young people
with the largest youth movement.The, the main thing I wanna say
though is, you know, I just spent time with 2006 formers at
Westminster Hall and just spoke to them for a long time about
their futures. And they're very clear that the
Labour Party are not offering what they need for the future.

(14:49):
And I've never said that a wealth tax is for one thing that
will deal with their future. You talked about bills.
Let's lower people's bills, let's nationalise for water
companies. We have water companies right
now pumping, I'll tell you, pumping sewage into our water
and charging us extra for their privilege for water companies
and making more profit in the terms of the margins than Shell
and Sainsbury's. Now it's not going to cost any
money to nationalise the water companies.

(15:10):
I don't say that the shareholders say that.
They say our assets aren't worthanything and we have a Labour
government. If this Labour government was
around after the world wars, we wouldn't have got the NHS.
People would have said it's timeto invest, You would have gone.
It's too difficult. You're offering people false
hope. We could never do a project as
big as that. There is no imagination, no
vision. You only protect your vested
interests. Oil and gas companies, gambling

(15:31):
companies, arms trade companies,and it's pretty much time I.
Have no vested interests. I am someone who came into
politics from a working class background.
I sit here as with Labour values.
As a Labour, MPI do not have vested interests.
I'm talking about your party. I have no idea about your
donations. I'm not.
Accusing you. I'm talking about your party.
I don't. Think that's you know, I know

(15:51):
you're not a politician, but arepoliticians on the right and
Conservative Party and reform you think looking at this
argument on the left and rubbingtheir hands.
Obviously the Conservative Partyare just as worried about reform
as all the other parties are, I suspect.
But I think that this argument is from us from a center right
perspective. It's a slightly depressing
argument because we're sort of dancing on the head of a pin
about who can tax the rich more or who can provide sort of easy

(16:14):
solutions. When you think about sort of
businesses and investors lookingat the UK, we really need to be
having to conversation about stability, growth, encouraging
investment and and that's sort of this huge territory which the
budget hopefully will address that is slightly being missed by
this, but kind of I think very narrow.
And that's as little measures, is it?
Well, no, I think that look clearly.

(16:35):
To a lot of people that that is like, well, that's just business
as usual and business that usually isn't working for most
people, is it? Well, it has been, it's been a
very difficult few years for growth.
We've had, you know, we had the COVID pandemic, we've had
certainly the ongoing impact of Brexit.
We have had, you know, the energy shock.
Like clearly it's been a very difficult period and governments
have struggled with that, governments of both colours.
But we actually face quite a dangerous moment in this

(16:57):
country. And I think we there's a kind of
bigger conversation. You know, we've got a budget
that really needs to restore confidence in the UK that has
certainly been shaken a little bit by events every some months,
sort of how restore. Well, I think I actually think
the government will probably manage to achieve this in the
budget because in the end, the Treasury is quite good at
putting together budgets and I think that they will deliver a

(17:17):
budget that delivers more headroom against the fiscal
rules that can reassure international investors that
sadly, we rely on that there's aplan to get the deficit down.
And then I think that can be a bit of a clearing moment because
I almost the most damaging thingthat we've had over the last
couple of months has been just the endless speculation this
cycle. Every six months of speculation,
driven really by the decision tohave such a small amount of

(17:37):
headroom against the fiscal rules, means that every six
months we're back in a situationwhere families don't know what
tax they're going to be paying, businesses don't know what tax
they're going to be paying in a few months time.
People saving for pensions or investments for the future don't
know. And that has a freezing effect
on investment. So I, I think it's, you know,
certainly international investors will be hoping that
this budget sort of slightly draws a line in the sand,

(17:58):
establishes a clear plan to get the deficit down and puts to bed
a lot of the speculation. So you can just have some basic
stability, which is the kind of first basic ingredient for
getting, you know, decent growthback in the economy.
I mean that, that sort of opens up the other big argument, I
suppose that would be between the two of you about
international investors in the bond markets.
I mean, Zach, you, you seem to be saying we we shouldn't worry

(18:20):
about the bond markets in the last couple of days.
I don't think. I'm saying that that that debt
to the Bank of England isn't real debt.
I think we should be worrying about people in this country who
elected the politicians. So I'm talking about cleaners,
teachers, nurses, the people whoare actually generating their
income in this country and the well-being of this country.
I'd object to the characterisation of the Labour
government as on the left they're giving fossil fuel

(18:41):
subsidies, £3.2 billion. That is destroying this planet.
We have one of the most nature depleted countries on Earth.
All right, but let's talk about the bond markets.
Well, absolutely. Well, this all links in because
ultimately it's about selling out our nature, selling out our
communities to the bond markets as opposed to going a
politician's principal job should be about protecting
people and planet. Now on the debt and the deficit.

(19:02):
It's not that it's, it's completely irrelevant.
It's just that ultimately the question always is, we talk
about borrowing and borrowing toinvest, but who are you
borrowing from? A lot of that money is from the
Bank of England. We literally owe it to
ourselves. A lot more of the money is from
foreign countries. It's stored as assets because.
But when you say we owe it to ourselves, what are you
suggesting? Are you saying we can write it
off? Although we can just print more

(19:22):
and it's fine. Well, you don't print money in
that same way anymore. We know it all happens on
computers and it's digital and effectively it's basically
simple. Keens.
Really what I'm saying is anything we can do, we can
afford. The limitations because there
are rules are inflation based onthe amount of resources.
So we can. Just keep making more money and
spending it. Up until the point that we have
inflation or we run out of resources.

(19:43):
But by the way, we have much more important boundaries and
the boundaries are ecological boundaries and climate
boundaries. So we both have to watch
inflation in terms of making sure that everyone is employed
properly, we have enough resources to do the things we
want to do. But investing in hospitals,
investing in schools, investing in infrastructure, that's
exactly what our country should be doing.
And I think decades of austerityhas programmed people's minds

(20:04):
with we don't deserve better or we can't have alternatives, but
actually making sure we're investing in our communities is
the exact way to keep the economy moving.
What we're getting from both these panellists, I would say,
is different forms of trickle down economics.
Which has been demonstrated overand over again to fail, and
crucially, people die as a result.
That's how serious these consequences are.
If if Zach was delivering the budget on Wednesday, how would

(20:25):
the bond markets? Zach has just set out something
called modern monetary theory, which is a sort of idea that you
don't need to worry about bond markets or deficit.
And it's it's a little bit like the last five years with
inflation and high yields never happened.
This was an argument that we hadduring the previous decades of
the sort of after the financial crisis up until 2020 when
central banks were doing QE i.e., they were buying up

(20:48):
government debt, interest rates were zero.
And then there was an argument about whether governments could
boost economies by spending and borrowing.
But the, the difference is that as Zach said, we have had the
last five years, we've now had, we've had a big inflationary
surge. We've now got interest rates
quite high. And in this country, in the UK,
we still have inflation stubbornly above target.
So if you tried that approach now, we actually saw the risks

(21:09):
of that with the Liz Trust budget.
If you tried that approach now of deliberately going out to
deliberately, if Rachel Reeves said I'm going to junk my fiscal
rules, I'm going to spend and borrow more.
Actually that would result in the Bank of England having to
raise rates further. That would basically undo any
positive economic impact, because they have and just lay.
Out It's not everyone. As an economist, what does that
actually mean? It means the government paying a

(21:29):
lot more for its debt. It would mean the government,
not only the government paying alot more for it debt, but
actually the the rate that the government pays for its debt
sits underneath every other interest rate in the economy.
So every interest rate that a business pays to borrow to
invest or that someone pays on their mortgage sits on top of
the interest rate that the government pays.
So if you go out and borrow and spend in an inflationary high
rate environment, you will see higher interest rates, not just

(21:52):
for the government. That matters because we all pay
that debt interest through our taxes.
And we would see the graph. Pay more on debt, interest for
education, it would go through the same.
So we know these risks. So I think we've got to confront
these risks understanding that the last five years have
happened. This is a different world now.
And that's why, you know, this market constraint is something
that that we as a country have created by choosing to borrow
billions of pounds from markets.So, Zach, how do you escape that

(22:14):
market? We.
Need to be clear if we're talking about primary bond
markets or secondary bond markets.
But more importantly, the Liz Trust example is the opposite
example. Liz, Trust borrowed money under
your frame to fund unfunded tax cuts.
I'm absolutely not saying that'swhat we should do.
Actually. Opposite what?
Markets were, if anything, more worried about the massive
borrowing she was doing to fund spending on the energy subsidy
scheme. So it was a mix of very, very

(22:35):
large. Spending plans together Just a
couple of days after Liz Truss and everything settled down, the
Bank of England could have adjusted to.
Fire her chancellor and reverse all the policies.
But you're making it. It's the problem around the Bank
of England independence. And actually, I think the
conversation we know the. Sorry, no, no, I mean I'm just
trying to work. Are you saying that interest
rates wouldn't go up or are you saying saying it doesn't matter
if they go up? I'm saying it matters in terms

(22:55):
of making sure we're relating itto resources.
We've had years of trickle down economics and we're in the exact
situation we were just I know. That's the argument.
But if you've got all the the, the people in Marcus and people
like Rupert saying the interest rate would go up if you did
that. But of course, for people in the
what is that? How do you escape that?
I mean, map, The question you'rereally asking me is, are very

(23:15):
wealthy individuals worried thatwhat I'm talking about is not
moving our public wealth to private capital, which has been
happening for decades now, but keeping it as our public wealth
and spending it on our communities.
When we talk about deficit, whatwe're really talking about in
deficit is money that has gone to our communities.
If we talked about surplus, whatwe're really talking about is
where we're not spending money on our communities.

(23:35):
So we need to completely change this economic paradigm.
Now, I know that's going to be difficult for people because
that's a completely different way of looking at the economy.
So let's keep it very simple. What I'm talking about is
spending multipliers, which haveexisted in our economics for a
long time. For every pound you spend, the
economy gets money back on this.Is not a new invention.
Can I just say environmental spending?

(23:55):
For every pound you spend, you get £1.88 back into the economy.
So it doesn't. Make sense?
The economic. Sagity never makes sense.
This multipliers issue. So again, this this is an
argument that we had pre 2000. When you have low inflation and
low rates, there's an argument about whether multipliers are
high. The problem is when you've got
inflation above target, the multipliers are basically zero
in the in the Keynesian sense, which is any money the

(24:17):
government borrows to spend is going to be more than offset by
the Bank of England having to raise interest rates because
it's got to get inflation back to target.
So this really feels like an argument that's sort of out of
date. Like I didn't realize that the
inflation happened and that rates are high.
You know, we live in a differentworld.
And sometimes this gets framed in terms of democratic choices,
like the the bond market sort ofundemocratic.
It is like, you know, there is alegitimate democratic choice,

(24:39):
which maybe, you know, the politicians on the left might
want to take, which is you couldraise taxes to raise spending.
That's a very deliberate democratic choice.
And, and if you get people to vote for that, it's absolutely
fine. Unfortunately, you don't have a
Democratic right to borrow 100 of billions of pounds from
overseas investors. To do that, you have to be
credible and you have to persuade them that you're going
to pay them back. But notice for credibility and

(25:01):
persuasion, because really what we're talking about here is
trust. And what politicians need to be
doing is telling different stories and making sure that the
markets understand the stories they're telling.
A big problem we've had, and we've really got it with Rachel
Reeves right now. And I do agree with what you
said a few moments ago, that part of a huge problem here is
the uncertainty that we seem to be swinging all over the place
and there doesn't seem to be a vision and a plan.
Now, look, I'm not an economist.I'm not going to pretend to be

(25:22):
an economist. But I talk to economists
regularly. And what they're saying more
than anything is there needs to be clarity about what all of
these terms mean. And the fundamental problem in
all of our conversations about economics is the constant
fixation of comparing a household budget to the national
economy. It doesn't work like that.
And a few years ago, it felt, particularly in journalism, we
were having different conversations about how the

(25:43):
economy works. It just feels like that's rolled
back and over and over again. We hear this now it.
Also feels sometimes though though that's some sort of magic
political message and actually there is such a thing as money
in and money out on debt that needs to be repaid.
To a point, let's give an example.
We had a pandemic in this country and we created the money
to respond to the crisis, and that was the right thing to do.

(26:04):
We are in a crisis right now. We're in a crisis of inequality.
We're in a crisis of climate. Ultimately, we need to be
spending money to make sure thatwe're borrowing to invest, if
that's the phrase we're using, or we're spending to invest
because ultimately austerity is the one proven thing to
absolutely not work and to ultimately end people.
'S we're going to come to austerity soon and, and the
whole question of welfare cuts. And obviously Rupert's got an
interesting perspective on that about having been around George

(26:26):
Osborne during austerity. But Rosie, is this, is this the,
is this sort of more snake oil from your point of view?
Yes. And I think that we need to be
clear what will actually happen to people.
There's been a lot of technical talk, but what will happen if we
go to the markets? If, if Zach was delivering this
budget and we went to the markets and we massively

(26:48):
increased borrowing, it would mean families in my constituency
would pay more on their mortgages.
We saw that under Liz Trust. There is a real human impact of
just going to the markets going and just borrowing.
We sit. We saw it under Liz Trust.
Yes, that was for partly for taxcuts rather than spending, but
still it would have the same impacts.
And when I knocked on doors, to be honest, when I still knock on

(27:10):
doors at my constituency, the devastation caused by Liz Trust
is frankly, but her trickle downeconomics, which we will not
return to, is still felt in families day-to-day.
Lives but long term interest rates went back up to beyond
this trust levels yeah, but not after that yeah I mean.

(27:30):
Damage caused sets in Pi have friends who got on the housing
ladder and then had to sell their houses to go back into
rented accommodation because of the impact of Liz Trust's mini
budget on their mortgages. That that impact is still felt
day-to-day in people's lives andwe would see the same thing
under Zac's economics. I mean what raises worrying
about here is essentially debt to GDP ratio which is about 100%

(27:52):
in our country. In Japan it's 270%.
Japan has a much more equal economy than we do, and it has.
Massive problems with their economy.
Of living they have other problems too but in terms of
making sure we're tackling inequality and getting a better
standard of living these scare stories of both the men.
I think the other real issue we have from the labour government
is this constant focus on GDP. Simon Kuznetz, the idea, the

(28:13):
person who designed the idea of GDP, says this is a terrible way
to measure the health and well-being of the country.
We should actually be talking about mental health.
We should be talking about equality.
We should be talking about communities that feel like
they're cohesive and they live with purpose.
There's constant focus on economic growth as the priority,
and the only measure is destroying, destroying our
country. I.
Don't want to come back and be the economist here, but Japan is

(28:35):
in a very first of all, a very dangerous situation.
So Japan is now seeing its interest rates rise and pressure
on its currency because international investors are
starting to say, well, this 200 plus percent of GDP debt maybe
was sustainable when your interest rates were zero, but
what does it look like now that your interest rates are
normalizing? So it's still running a risk for
the future. Japan is also, again, this bit
complicated, but Japan is in a very different situation because

(28:58):
it is a current account surplus country.
So Japan exports far more than it imports and therefore it
doesn't need any kind of national sense to be sucking in
capital just to live on a, on a year by year basis.
The UK is structurally A deficitcountry and so markets are going
to be much, much less tolerant of high debt to GDP in countries

(29:18):
like the UK, which is what you can see in the market reaction
to the trust episode or more recently to some of the wobbles
and what you're seeing in countries like France where
again, concerns over fiscal sustainability are having real
impacts on interest rates. So, so can I move us on to
spending then? Because obviously from from the
right, the demand is you need tocut spending.

(29:39):
You helped guide Britain throughausterity or partly the
architect of austerity. I mean, do we need another
period now of massive cuts? I mean, look, I think that's
the, the immediate challenge is one of confidence.
And like can this budget, as youknow, we've all talked about the
uncertainty of this period. Like can you get a budget that
in a sense is a kind of clearingmoment that provides certainty

(30:02):
for markets, certainty for business.
And then the, you know, the government can focus on its
priorities, people can focus on investing for the future.
I think that from the point of view of international investors
coming back to the markets who we do borrow the money from,
they would want to see anything that's predictable and reliable
and sustainable. And that's why, you know, if
there were credible reductions in spending, particularly on the

(30:23):
welfare side where people can see the welfare bill, especially
for health and disability benefits rising very rapidly, if
there were a credible way to even limit the rise there, we're
not necessarily talking about reducing the scale.
I think that would be seen as credible and permanent.
That's another reason why markets, when it came to tax
rises, I think took the view andmost economists took the view
that well, if you're going to raise tax, probably raising
income tax. No one likes paying more tax,

(30:45):
but it's predictable, it's less distortionary.
The revenues are going to be reliable.
The government's now ruled that out.
The challenge for the governmentis to put together a package and
challenge for Rachel Reeves put together a package, which I
think maybe it will include something on the spending side.
But also if it's going to be taxrises, tax rises that are
predictable, reliable and going to bring in the revenues.
Because again, if you if you're just dealing with novel tax

(31:07):
rises where you don't necessarily know they're going
to deliver the revenues, that's where some of that uncertainty
might. But when?
When you look back at what what happened, I mean, you know,
obviously a lot of people think we are still living with the
consequences of austerity, that the impact on public services,
on the wealth gap, on poverty, on child poverty is partly as a
result of austerity. I mean, do you accept that?

(31:29):
Now, well, austerity means different things to different
people. So, you know, the period I was
in government 2000 and ten 2015,that was really dealing with an
economic crisis in 2010. So this was not, you know, we,
we were borrowing, the government was borrowing 1 LB in
every four that it spent was borrowed from international
markets. The UK had a budget deficit of
more than 10% of GDP, worse thanthe fiscal situation we're in

(31:50):
now. And and there was a moment of
genuine crisis for the UK and that's why you had a coalition
government. It wasn't an ideological
approach. You had Liberal Democrats and
Conservatives in coalition saying, well, we're going to do
a combination of tax rises. Remember that government raised
VAT, raised more than £10 billion of raising VAT.
But do. You think you envisioned the
long term impact? Well, I think that, you know,
there's a, there's a Democratic argument about what's the right

(32:12):
level of tax and spending on public services.
And certainly, you know, like, as you said, I was AI was a
conservative candidate at the last election.
I certainly heard on the doorstep people saying, well,
look, we, we, we didn't look at public services and they're,
they're not good enough. And I think that a lot of the
impact of that was maybe relatedto the pandemic.
But certainly there was a democratic choice, I think at
the election, which is like, actually, we're we're willing to
pay more taxes. Even though the Labour Party

(32:33):
said it wouldn't raise taxes. In my experience, all the voters
expected that they would. And I think there was a decision
by the voters to to elect a Labour majority, a very large
majority, to have a bit higher taxes and more investment in
public services. So Rosie, I mean you've placed
great store in what the markets think and and what Rupert's
saying is being said by all the investment managers that you
know there has to be some credible cuts in spending as

(32:56):
well. I mean, do you agree with them
on that as well? No, I mean, I think that the
years and years of cuts that we had to our public services is
why we see the inequality, that we see why the country is in the
place it's in. I think that if you don't fund
our NHS you will have people on welfare because they're waiting
to get a hip replacement. I think if you don't fund
education properly, you're not giving young people the

(33:18):
opportunity they need to go intothe work and then contribute to
our economy. I think getting the welfare bill
down is a separate conversation because of personally I think
there's a moral case for it. I think that one in eight young
people not in education or work is an absolute damning legacy of
the previous Conservative government and needs to be
something that we address. Work can be a really, really

(33:38):
good thing and we need to talk about that more.
But I do not think, and I don't think under this Labour
government we should go back to seeing cuts to our public
spending. So any any reduction in spending
has to be couched as as as not acut is what you're saying.
Well, I like I said, I think welfare, there's a, there's a
moral case for it and I really do.
I think that there are people that we've let be out of work

(34:01):
who would want, who want to get back into work, who want the
opposite. Does that mean compulsion?
Work. You know, forcing, forcing
people off benefits. No, I think it's by like with
the Tim's review, making sure that we can create an
environment that people feel as though they can try work and not
fear losing their benefits or they feel like there's a work
that will work for them around their life.
I think there's a lot to it. I think it's complicated, but

(34:21):
there's a moral case to get thiswelfare bill down.
Why do you? Think so many young people are
going onto health and disabilitybenefits at the moment?
I mean, do you, do you think they all are?
I think there's disabled and unwell.
I think there's, I think there'sa range of issues, to be honest.
I think that once if you leave education and you go on to
welfare, welfare I, I, and you're on welfare for quite a

(34:44):
long time. I didn't think there's, there's
challenges of getting back in tothe workplace.
And we've seen that. I think that it partly because
of cuts we saw under the previous government to
education, people have left school not feeling necessarily
ready for a modern workforce. And they struggled, of course,
of course, the rise of, of mental health problems.
And again, this could be a wholeseparate broadcast, I think

(35:05):
talking about that, but also cuts that we saw under the
previous government to our NHS that meant people haven't been
able to get access to health care in their communities.
They haven't been able to look at prevention instead of cure.
And, and you can't see that moreclearly than with mental health.
But I mean, you know, we there are plenty of people, you know,
on the reform side of politics who, who are essentially saying

(35:27):
not as bluntly as this, but thatthey're skivers.
I I don't and scrap, you know I would.
I would never use that language.Obviously you wouldn't, but I
mean, that's the argument you'reup against.
As well, I, I think that there are people that could be in work
that aren't and then maybe they aren't in work because they're
scared of losing their benefits,which by the way, is, is, you
know, a valid reason they're scared of losing their benefits.

(35:47):
They're scared that work isn't gonna be economically viable for
them or they're just scared thatthat work isn't gonna be good
for their mental health or they're not able to find a job
that works around what they're facing day-to-day.
I think how? How damaging was it for, you
know, the credibility of the government to deliver any of
these changes, given they've already had to row back on the
welfare cuts they attempted? Well, I, I personally was, was

(36:09):
for the, the government reforming welfare.
Like I said, I, I think there's a moral case for it.
And I hear that from my constituents, by the way, quite
a lot people saying, look, I work hard and that I I feel like
I want the person. What?
Were your colleagues saying, youknow in in opposition?
There was, I mean, the public could see this, right?
There was there was mixed mixed views in the back backbenches

(36:30):
and do. You think they've got to kind of
get real now. I think the Tim's review is a
good forum for backbenchers who have concerns and everyone
represents different constituencies and sees
different and may may want to feed in different information so
that we have the time to have that review to then come at.
This properly reflects the concerns of the backbenchers.
But as I said, I was someone whowas for reforming welfare.

(36:52):
I don't think we can continue how it is.
Zach. Up is down, left is right.
Poverty is not a lack of character.
That's not what I said, money. And to have someone who's
working in a department that's privatising the National Health
Service, who is cutting spendingin real terms and go we should
not be cutting spending is very much the definition of saying
one thing and doing another. What do you mean they're
privatising the? Health service, well, you know,

(37:14):
during the general election I had a debate with W Streeting
and I talked about that they have a plan to privatise it.
He put his arm up at me and saidthe left the bleating on again.
But we've seen that over and over again.
Not only are they accepting money from private healthcare,
companies are looking at more and more ways of reducing.
The spending that we want, it's not free at the point of use.
Yes, I do believe that. I think it's, I think.
It's a shocking narrative to. Tell people, I think we're

(37:36):
seeing over and over again the reduction in real term spending
on the National Health Service, the allowance of corporate
companies and more private healthcare companies to take
contracts. This has happened both with the
previous Conservative government, but we've seen.
It you see, Labour used to say this about the Conservatives and
the answer was always sure that it would be political suicide
to. Which is part of our.
Country so. It's kind of a mad accusation,

(37:56):
isn't it, To say Labour accusation to make people think.
What they're doing, when you look at the figures in terms of
real term spending and in terms of where that money is going to,
it's going to private healthcare.
And then also I, I didn't realise you'd been a
Conservative candidate, but I just think we can't take
lectures or moral lessons or noteven moral lessons, but economic
lessons from a Conservative government that absolutely

(38:17):
devastated this country. I don't think it can be
overstated how brutal that Conservative government was
alongside the five prime ministers who increasingly
reduced spending. Increasingly we saw poverty on
the rise. We've seen people homeless,
we've seen people struggle to eat.
And then the fact that Labour government came in on a promise
of change, but any change we've seen has arguably made things

(38:38):
worse. I think that's why we're seeing
the so-called centre collapse because there is no vision,
there's no real offer. There's just saying one thing
and doing another and I think people are over it.
And actually that's why people want hope to feel normal again
because actually they're lookingto a party in the Green Party
who are actually saying we will invest in your communities, we
won't accept corporate donations.
You know these big multi millionaire and billionaire

(38:59):
contracts for Rosie? I think what we're risking in
this country, because we are at 4 Kinder roads, there is a
party, Reform UK, that are waiting in the wings to come in
and they genuinely want to to move our NHS to an insurance
based system. They want to privatise our NHS.
It is a Labour government that invented the NHS.
It is. A They also say that they would

(39:20):
have free healthcare at the point of delivery, don't they?
I, I think they've been, they'vegone back and forth.
I think they've said one thing one day, one thing the other.
I think it's uncertain what theywould do to our NHS.
I think our NHS is at risk at the hands of Nigel Farage.
It's a Labour government that created the NHS.
It's a Labour government that's increased investment in the NHS.
It's a Labour government that's got our waiting times down.

(39:41):
We promised 3,000,000 appointment, we've delivered
five. I think it is dangerous when we
know the risks that are waiting in the wings in with Nigel
Farage and what he would do to our NHS.
That you say that our Labour government is privatising the
NHSI and doesn't want an NHS free at the point of view that
it's against our DNA. It's against what?
I'm getting more contracts to private healthcare or not?
I, I don't personally, I don't know the the the details and I

(40:02):
think you could look at all different aspects of healthcare
and talk about them all separately.
So do. You think we're reducing
contracts? For private healthcare that a
Labour government will always have an NHS that is free at the
point of view use. It can be free at the point of
use, and it can still. But that's not privatising the
NHS. Well, ultimately it is because
it means that we as the public are being ripped off because of
the money that is going to thoseprivate healthcare.

(40:23):
Companies. But that is not the same as what
you just said. You said Labour want to
privatise the NHS. That would be privatising.
You'd literally be giving it to private.
Labour don't want an NHS rate topoint of views.
I just asked you, I said does Labour want an NHS rate to point
of views and you said no. I think that's where they want
to get to. But where we are right now is we
are seeing the privatisation in terms of the active verb.
You are privatising and that's what.
Helps. I think it's dangerous what

(40:43):
you're selling to the electorate.
Given what the? Government are doing, it's
waiting in the wings, I really do.
Rupert, I mean take on the criticism of the Conservatives
as well. Well, I think it's not really,
for me, austerity is not really for me to sort of defend the
government I wasn't part of. But I think that if I could take
a step back and sort of put my hat on as an investor in the UKI

(41:04):
think that this conversation is something that we should pay
very close attention to. Because while I do think that
most people would expect that inthe short term, the budget will
be a bit of a hopefully a clearing moment, if there can be
a credible plan to deal with thedeficit, restore a bit of
stability. Increasingly talking to
international investors in the UK, the thing that comes up as a
future risk is political stability in the future

(41:24):
politics. And certainly, you know,
investors have long time horizons and they certainly see
the polls and they're looking ahead to Nigel Farage, the
possibility of a Reform government.
I think it's very interesting actually that in just the last
couple of months, even Reform who had, you know, certainly a
very sort of fiscally irresponsible manifesto at the
last election, they've had to backtrack on that.
And you've got Nigel Farage saying, no, everything will be

(41:47):
paid for. You've got rich to Tice uses a
phrase like performance related tax cuts, which I think is him
deliberately trying to learn thelessons of the list trust
episode and say we won't cut taxes if we can't afford it.
And so I think that that the bond market and and
international investors have noticed that and said, OK, well,
maybe that's a risk. There's maybe so do.
You think they will currently see reform as more stable than
the green? Well, well, I think that the

(42:07):
issue now is that I think that the issue of leadership in the
Labour Party has been raised over the last couple of months
because of, you know, all these briefings and stories.
And I don't want to get into political title tattle.
That's not my role, but international investors have
certainly noticed that risk. And I think that the kind of
pressure on Labor from the left,from the Greens and the risk
that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves could be replaced within

(42:28):
Labor by a new leadership that might turn to the left, that
might be a little bit less fiscally responsible is
something that is already starting to raise a risk premium
for the UK. And you can see that a little
bit on the kind of longer part of the interest rates that we
pay. So soft Labour leader.
Well, I think the. Candy burner.
What I'm trying to make is that.Would ring alarm.
What I'm trying to make is we live in a dangerous world now.

(42:48):
We live in a dangerous world with high interest rates, you
know, volatile macro economy, hugely unpredictable
international policy from the Trump administration.
I think that, you know, be very careful the impact that these
political discussions have on real world consequences for
people's mortgages and businesses because, you know,
this kind of talk is not free. You know people are listening,

(43:08):
not just, you know, your, your listeners on, on Channel 4, but
actually the world is listening.Just to be clear on this yet,
but just to be clear on this, interms of what the bond markets
like, are you saying they would like Keir Starmer and Rachel
Reeves to stay in place? Certainly I think that, that, I
mean, I think that uncertainty, markets don't like uncertainty.
They would like to see predictable revenues.

(43:29):
They'd like to see a strong government delivering a plan.
Absolutely. The, the, the risk of, you know,
as I say, I'm not raising this because this is something that
now gets raised very regularly in discussions, investment
discussions about the UK ever since really #10 put it on the
agenda themselves with all that briefing a couple of weeks ago.
So I think that, you know, we have to now, you know, think
that these, this kind of speculation has real
consequences given the world we live in and has real

(43:51):
consequences right now. How imperiled do you think
Rachel Reeves is on Wednesday and how it unravels and or not?
Well, first of all, to Reaper's point, I would agree, I think
political stability does have real implications to to our
markets and, and actually what who feels the brunt of that is
always families and, and the everyday person who I think of

(44:15):
in my constituency. I think, you know, I'm not going
to comment on Rachel Reese's specific position.
Why not? I mean #10 is literally, you
know, if they were literally briefing about Labour leadership
a few days ago, I mean. Yeah.
And I, I don't think briefing isis is helpful or and I think
like. But it's a real debate.
You can't deny that, you know, she gets this wrong.
She's. Yeah, I mean.

(44:35):
Yeah, and I think there's a lot of stake at, at this budget, but
I think there's a lot of stake not not, I'm not, you know, I'm
not thinking about the leadership of the Labour Party.
I'm thinking about the people inmy constituency who want better
lives. And to be honest, like I said,
we're a fork in, in a, in our roads in for this country.
So I think there's a lot mistaketo make people feel better off,
to make the cost of living crisis not feel so prevalent in

(44:58):
people's day-to-day lives. Families who I think of, like I
said, every single day, the mum who drops dropped her kid off at
school and now can drop their kid off a a free breakfast club
who can take the other kid to childcare, which they now have
30 hours free, can go and get a good job.
I think about those people everysingle day.
And it's it's that that I care about the leadership of the

(45:20):
Labour Party. We can talk about it over and
over again. Is delivering for people that
matters? It is very.
Likely that you come through this budget, you know, if
Rupert's right, that you know, things, things stay reasonably
stable. There's no panic on the bond
markets. You get through it, but you lose
political support because ordinary people's taxes go up.
They're already feeling squeezed.

(45:41):
There's no hope on the horizon for the from, you know, for them
and, and, and you are, you are plummeting in that scenario.
Labour MPs We'll start talking about getting rid of Keir
Starmer. Well, I think in this budget we
need to make labour decisions that make this country fairer.
And those people that you just spoke about, I think that we
need to think about them in the forefront of our minds.
When? Well, like I said, I'm not in

(46:01):
the Treasury. I'm not Rachel Reeves.
But they're all going to be worse off next week.
I don't, I don't think that's true.
I don't think that's true. This is a Labour government.
I don't think that's true. It's not migrants that
bankrupted this country. It's not the left that
bankrupted this country. It's not people who are claiming
Universal Credit, many of whom are in work.
They're just work is not paying enough.

(46:21):
And that's a really key point. That's why we increase.
People who bankrupted this country are the bankers.
For people who are bankrupted this country are decades of Tory
politicians and now Labour politicians and their austerity.
That hasn't worked and it's timeto change course.
And, and do you see the political instability as a, as a
good thing for change? Well, I think we do need
political stability. I don't think anyone, I don't

(46:42):
think anyone's coming on this and saying political instability
is a good thing, but. It's helping you, isn't it?
Well, it's helping in terms of people are recognizing that what
is happening right now doesn't work.
The only thing that will maintain right now is the status
quo. So I think people watching this
have a decision to make. Are we going to allow that
status quo through the Labour government to gradually go
further and further to the rightand end up with Nigel Farage or
something even worse as time goes on?
Or are we going to say time to change course?

(47:04):
The Green Party party are there.I'm not pretending we have all
the answers. Yeah, what I am saying is what
we are doing right now isn't isn't working.
And this is absolute madness. Are you keep saying let's double
down. And you keep talking about the
bond markets being scared and terrified.
But I think we've got to worry less about the bond markets and
more about the people in our working class.
Community, I'm talking about thesystem we are currently living
in. You want to change that world?
Fine, I get that. But are you also?

(47:24):
That can be. Dismissed.
But I do think the current system that we're in hasn't
always been this way since Thatcher neoliberalism came in,
and that's what we're suffering now.
So what I'm saying isn't some kind of fantasy or idea that
we've I've never had before. I'm talking about what happens
in most of Western Europe and also what we had before Thatcher
kind of destroyed any kind of sense of social.
Cohesion, but I wonder whether you're also slightly surprised
by your own popularity at the moment and whether it's making

(47:47):
you think about some of these economic issues, you know, more
seriously. I mean, you know, Rupert
mentioned, you know, reform of clearly tacked back from some of
the more eccentric ideas they were throwing out in their, you
know, in their contracts and theand the last election.
You know, are you also having a lot of meetings saying, well,

(48:07):
we've got to get our ducks in a row here and stop saying things
that spook people? Well, you know, you spooked
people yesterday a little bit, to be honest, on Laura
Kuenssberg's show. When you, when you talked about,
you know, you know, it's money we owe ourselves and people.
Thought this is important. Let's not not know, you know,
know how the system. Works well.
Who did I speak? I speak to establishment
figures, multimillionaires and billionaires and people who are
very wealthy, who surprisingly don't like the idea, many of

(48:30):
them, that I want to tax the wealthy.
And so they're finding ways to attack the Green Party like I'm
really privileged and honoured for.
The Green Party right now are shooting up in the polls.
I think in the last poll I have the highest net favourability
ratings of any party leader and I also accept that's a total
responsibility. The Green Party have gone from a
party where we were fighting to get some air time to say things
to a party where I can't stop doing interviews and being given

(48:52):
a platform. I always have more to learn.
I always have more to discover. So I'm not pretending.
I know everything. What I am absolutely certain of
and so certain of is that multimillionaires and
billionaires own many of our newspapers, own many of our TV
channels. And ultimately those people have
a very vested interest in tryingto discredit any idea or story
that challenges the status quo. And the one thing I'm certain of

(49:14):
and people tell me every single day is the status quo is not
working. It is broken.
And Labour ultimately exists right now to protect power and
wealth in this country. And that's before we even get to
the tourism reform. We need a complete clear out of
that broken politics. We need something new, different
and hopeful. And that's what I'm offering.
I mean, I just say that it certainly wasn't billionaires
and millionaires who brought down the trust government, who

(49:36):
was cutting the top rate of tax.It was reality.
And so you've got to differentiate between, you know,
billionaires and millionaires and reality.
And unfortunately, you know, we,we, we, it would be great if we
could worry less about the bond markets, but to do that, we'd
have to run a budget surplus. So let's raise more taxes for
the spending that you want. Unfortunately, I think that the
reality is more important and that confronting reality and

(49:57):
providing a bit of confidence tothe world that the UK takes
reality seriously. The reality is the status quo
and what I'm saying is your reality is not working.
And I think enough people in this this country, more and more
are going. Actually, I don't believe that.
We've been told this over and over again on TV channels and
the newspapers and the difference is happening.
Communities are coming together,people are organising and going.

(50:18):
Let's have a different politicaland economic system and that's
what's coming. I want to make sure Nigel Farage
isn't in charge of that. I want to make sure communities
are. Zach talks about, oh, we all on
this panel don't want political instability, but I think the
Green Party and the Reform UK have the exact same technique.
They are going online often, youknow, TikTok.

(50:40):
They're speaking directly to people.
They're telling them. How awful is me to?
Talk. Directly to people.
I have, I have TikTok. No, but you're telling them lies
and that is awful. Can you name one lie I've said?
Yeah, the a wealth tax would change this country.
I've never said that. No, but that's what you're
telling people. I've said a wealth tax would
reduce inequality in this country.
Do you not believe a wealth tax would reduce inequality?

(51:00):
Because it seems fairly basic, I.
Think there's lots of policies that will reduce inequality?
With a wealth tax reduce. And a Labour government that
implemented you've? Accused me of a lie.
So with a wealth tax, I think that.
Let me just finally ask you, Rose, I mean, because a lot, a
lot of people will also be a bitalarmed because they, because of
the way politics is changing in Britain at the moment, that a
lot of people are wondering whether the the only future for
the centre and the centre left and the left is for you to work

(51:23):
together to stop reform of the next election.
And looking at this conversation, it's not looking
very likely at the moment. It is, I mean.
I, I want people's lives to get better.
I, I don't want the cost of living crisis to continue to
burden families. That's what I think of, you
know, we can come on on a panel like this and we can have the
political debate, but ultimatelyI want to see the policies

(51:46):
implemented, the choices made that make things better for the
ordinary family, the family thatI was brought it up in, that
made my life. It has been good.
I've had opportunities because of what the last Labour
government did for my childhood,and I want this Labour
government to do the same for children growing up.
I don't think we're gonna be able to do that with this
divisive politics that we. The Progressive Alliance.

(52:06):
Is the only chance of the next right?
Are you up for it? I think the chance of the next
election is delivering for families and I think that's what
we'll do. Thank you all very much indeed
for joining us. That was fascinating.
I hope you enjoyed that. That's it for this episode of
The Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.