Boris johnson v keir starmer polls

Keir Starmer has said he “will have to make it work” with Donald Trump if they are both elected to power in the UK and US at their next elections.

The Labour leader said the challenges around the world “are too great” and that the “important, special relationship” between the two countries must be maintained. A US general election is due in November next year, while a UK one will take place sometime before January 2025, likely in either Spring or Autumn next year.

Mr Starmer, who appeared on the BBC’s Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast, was pressed about his relationship with international leaders. He has recently visited France’s Emmanuel Macron and Canada’s Justin Trudeau.

Asked about whether Mr Trump being elected again would be a challenge for a Labour government, Mr Starmer said: “We have to make it work and I think that is where any incoming Labour government would want to be. The challenges in the world are too great. This relationship between the UK and the US has been such a strong relationship for so many years and an important, special relationship that we have to make it work.”

Mr Trump has triggered fears he could slash help for Ukraine if he wins next year’s presidential race, claiming he could end the war in 24 hours without saying how. Pressed on this point, the Labour leader said: “We have to make it work – that doesn’t mean we would agree on everything but we have to make it work. I think one of the things about being a leader is you don’t get to choose the other leaders around the world. That is the job of democracies around the world, where there are democracies. But in a grown up world you have to make that relationship work.”

Elsewhere in the interview Mr Starmer spoke about his relationship with former US President Barack Obama, who he described as a “keen student of UK politics” who is watching “very carefully”. “I think you can always learn from people who win, how they did it, what the challenges were as they won and then when they came into power,” he said. “I find it quite helpful to talk to people outside the bubble, if you like. We’ve got an intense bubble around Westminster – but even within the Labour team, we’re working as one team, we’re working hot, it’s hard and we’re all thinking together and sometimes having a line of sight from someone outside of that is really helpful.”

Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey last week told the Mirror he believed the “special relationship” between Britain and America can withstand Mr Trump returning to the White House. He insisted the deep ties between the UK and US were stronger than any personality. “What’s more important than any Prime Minister or any President at any one time is the strength and depth of that relationship,” he said.

“It goes back more than six decades on nuclear sharing, it’s hardwired into our intelligence services, the sharing of military technology – not just joint exercising but doctrines as well. It’s got a long-term resilience that has always allowed that UK-US essential cooperation … to ride through the ups and downs of political cycles, either on the US side or the UK side.”

* Follow Mirror Politics on Snapchat , Tiktok , Twitter and Facebook .

Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson have overseen the largest set of tax rises since the Second World War, according to economic analysis.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates that – by the time of the next general election – the tax burden will have risen to around 37% of national income.

This equates to roughly £3,500 extra per household – although the increase is not shared evenly.

Politics latest: Ofcom ‘doesn’t want to give knee-jerk response’

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm. Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.

Tap here for more

Records began in 1950 for the figures, and no parliament has seen a larger hike.

The size of the tax burden and the lack of cuts to tariffs have been the subject of the ire of many Conservatives.

The headroom for tax cuts has suffered as interest rates rose and the cost to service debt has risen. High inflation has led the government to be cautious of cutting taxes and leaving people with more cash to spend.

Last week, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said it would be “virtually impossible” to cut taxes at the moment.

“I really, really wish it was true but unfortunately, it just isn’t,” he told LBC.

“If you look at what we are having to pay for our long-term debt, it is higher now than it was at the spring budget.

“I wish it wasn’t, it makes life extremely difficult, it makes tax cuts virtually impossible, and it means that I will have another set of frankly very difficult decisions.

“All I would say is, if we do want those long-term debt costs to come down, then we need to really stick to this plan to get inflation down, get interest rates down.

“I don’t know when that’s going to happen. But I don’t think it’s going to happen before the autumn statement on November 22, alas.”

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Read more: Inheritance tax ‘punitive and unfair’ Truss to urge government to cut taxes Sunak refuses to answer questions on HS2’s future

There will likely be pressure for Mr Hunt and Mr Sunak to cut taxes – with some eyeing up cuts to sizeable projects like HS2 as a way to free up cash, and others calling for a relaxation of inheritance tax.

The economy is an area that Mr Sunak wants to make his strength – with three of his five pledges made at the start of this year relating to them.

Ben Zaranko, senior research economist at the IFS, said the pandemic could not be blamed for rising tax levels and predicted a high-tax approach was here to stay regardless of who wins the next general election.

“It is inconceivable that this parliament will turn out to be anything other than a tax-raising one – and it looks nailed on to be the biggest tax-raising parliament since at least the Second World War,” he said.

“This is not, for the most part, a direct consequence of the pandemic. Rather, it reflects decisions to increase government spending, in part driven by demographic change, pressures on the health service, and some unwinding of austerity.

“It is likely that this parliament will mark a decisive and permanent shift to a higher-tax economy.”

This was echoed by Mark Franks, the director of welfare at the Nuffield Foundation.

He said: “There will be strong pressure in coming parliaments to raise taxes further to meet growing demand for public services such as healthcare.

“Future governments must not only have a credible and robust strategy for the economy and the public finances, but should also be forthright and transparent about the difficult trade-offs they will face.”

Opposition parties seized on the findings, as Labour said that the Tories had “clobbered” the public.

Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said: “Successive Tory governments have overseen 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages. Their response in the face of this bankrupt legacy is always to load their failure onto working people. And what are we getting back? Crumbling public services.

“Brits are working hard but getting clobbered with 25 Tory tax rises and a continuing Conservative premium on their household budgets.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

A Treasury spokesperson said: “Despite needing to take the difficult decisions to restore public finances in the face of the dual shocks of the pandemic and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the latest data shows our tax burden will remain lower than any major European economy.

“Driving down inflation is the most effective tax cut we can deliver right now, which is why we are sticking to our plan to halve it, rather than making it worse by borrowing money to fund tax cuts.

“We have also taken 3 million people out of paying tax altogether since 2010 through raising personal thresholds, and the chancellor has said he wants to lower the tax burden further – but has been clear that sound money must come first.”

Will he, won’t he? One moment we hear that Rishi Sunak is considering abolishing inheritance tax, or at any rate raising the threshold at which it becomes payable. The next moment, No 10 says the idea has been chucked into the wastepaper basket.

And then, lo and behold, reports emerge that Rishi is having another look at getting rid of inheritance tax (IHT), after being rightly reminded by advisers that it is the most hated tax in Britain.

Why doesn’t he do it? What’s holding him back? For I predict that consigning this detested tax to history would transform Tory fortunes, and blow a hole in the side of HMS Starmer, which is already beginning to list quite noticeably, with gusts of black smoke periodically discharging from its funnel.

I say this with confidence because when George Osborne promised as shadow chancellor in 2007 to raise the limit at which it was paid, the Tories ‘ popularity rose so quickly that Gordon Brown decided to call off the election he was contemplating. An instant poll found that 62 per cent of respondents approved of Mr Osborne’s plan.

Even though the majority of people are in no immediate danger of having to pay the tax, they nonetheless dislike it. (In 2020-21, slightly less than 4 per cent of deaths resulted in an inheritance tax charge.) The widespread loathing for IHT is particularly interesting because polls suggest most Britons favour higher capital taxes, including one on wealth.

Inheritance tax is seen differently. Many think it intrinsically unfair to tax the assets of those who have already paid tax on them. Moreover, it is a natural human instinct to wish to pass on hard-earned cash to one’s children without the State helping itself to another hefty slice.

A YouGov poll last year suggested that 63 per cent of voters support increasing the existing threshold at which an inheritance levy becomes payable. An amazing 48 per cent of respondents wanted to abolish the tax altogether, with 37 per cent opposed.

IHT is charged at 40 per cent on estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed on to children or grandchildren. A married couple can share their allowance.

For the very rich, of course, inheritance tax is essentially voluntary. They employ expensive accountants, who come up with clever schemes for avoiding the tax, such as buying agricultural land, which is normally exempt.

Alternatively, the truly wealthy are advised to set up complex trusts, or to transfer some assets to their children, which don’t attract IHT when given more than seven years before death. If you are worth many millions, handing some of them to your offspring is no great sacrifice.

It is the not-so-rich who get clobbered – people who have built up modest fortunes through thrift and hard work. Glimpsing the Grim Reaper on the horizon, they may consider selling the family home to lessen the blow of IHT – and then pay more tax to the insatiable State by way of stamp duty to buy a smaller property.

No wonder, though there may be little prospect of their having to pay inheritance tax, that so many people are opposed to it. They can imagine being ensnared, and they appreciate the fundamental injustice of it.

So I repeat my question: Why doesn’t Mr Sunak have the courage of what I believe to be his inclination, and either get rid of the tax, or increase the threshold by a significant amount? Is it because he’s worried about losing the £7 billion annual revenue that IHT brings in — a figure which the Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts will climb to £15 billion over the next decade, as more and more people are pulled into the net?

It may be a consideration, though £7 billion represents much less than 1 per cent of Government spending, and in public expenditure terms is loose change you might find down the back of the sofa. Besides, there’s no need to get rid of inheritance tax in one go. A Tory manifesto could pledge its phased abolition.

Might Rishi be a little frightened of his hair-shirt Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who only last week said that tax cuts will be ‘virtually impossible’ this autumn, and last November mean-spiritedly froze existing IHT thresholds until 2028?

It doesn’t seem very likely. Is anyone afraid of Mr Hunt? In any case, Rishi understands numbers better than the Chancellor, and seems master of his ship. He could get IHT reform past the Treasury if he wished.

Perhaps both men feel that, if there are going to be any pre-election bribes next year, a penny or two off income tax would be preferable. It’s a reasonable point, though jettisoning inheritance tax would be a bold and popular statement, and could be deferred until the next Parliament, if the Tories win.

And here we come to the nub. Sir Keir Starmer could in theory spike Rishi’s guns by undertaking to match Tory plans to get rid of death taxes. After all, he seems intent on narrowing the gap between Labour and the Tories, so as not to frighten centre-ground voters.

But I submit that championing the abolition of inheritance tax would be a bridge too far for Sir Keir. The Labour Left, who are not a spent force, would be apoplectic. I don’t believe he could sell such a policy to his party, even if he wanted to, which he almost certainly doesn’t.

No, getting rid of IHT is one policy the Conservatives can have for themselves — if only they have the courage. The milksop Lib Dems are surely no more likely than Labour to appropriate it.

Isn’t this exactly what the Tories need? A highly popular measure of their own that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would attack at their peril. In politics, it doesn’t often get better than that.

Doubtless some would accuse the Tories of favouring the rich (and possibly suggest that the PM, as an immensely rich man, was looking after his own). The proper response is that abolishing IHT isn’t a wacky idea beloved of extreme governments.

Countries without any inheritance tax include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Portugal, Israel, Sweden and Norway, nearly all of which have recently had, or still have, left-of- centre administrations.

In many other countries, the threshold is higher than in the UK. In the United States, for example, only estates worth more than $13 million (about £10.7 million) are subject to federal death taxes. Rates are also often lower. In Germany, the top rate is 30 per cent, in Italy 4 per cent.

Britain, by contrast, has one of the most onerous rates of inheritance tax in the developed world. And this — despite George Osborne’s famous pledge in 2007 — after 13 years of Conservative rule.

Rishi Sunak is at his best when he listens to his inner Tory voice. He did so last week, announcing that some of the most unrealistic net zero targets will be relaxed to protect ordinary people.

Here is another opportunity for him to do the right thing, if only he has the will. Lift the burden of inheritance tax and the Tories will reap their rewards.