Before the Labour government’s first budget speech in 14 years, Prime Minister’s Questions took place as usual. But it was not a usual PMQs. Rishi Sunak led the Opposition for the last time, since a new Tory leader will be elected this weekend. Flattering speeches about his tenure as PM came from all sides of the House. Of course they did. After all, at the end of the day, they’re all friends, whichever party sponsors them, together ensuring the “stability” of the British political system and its capitalist economy.

    The only question of any significance came from the leader of the Greens: “as a human rights lawyer, does the Prime Minister agree that banning UNRA [the UN humanitarian aid organisation for Gaza, just proscribed by the Israeli parliament] is a breach of international rights law and how much more evidence does he need before calling out what is happening as a genocide?” Starmer answered that he thought Gaza was a “human catastrophe” but that he’d never described what is happening there as “genocide” - he did however agree that “all sides should comply with international law”.

   As if the naming of systematic mass murder of civilians was the point here. But this exchange does, very explicitly, illustrate the true function of “international law”: nothing but a smokescreen for the world’s political leaders to hide behind, while their interests are taken care of by proxies who they supply with the necessary weapons.

   Whether the Palestinians exist or not into the future, is neither here nor there, for US, British, or EU leaders. Today’s imperialism is only interested in a Middle East which is stable enough to ensure a profitable flow of goods, services and raw materials. The British government could not care less about treatment of the populations by their rulers - as, for instance, the very close ties with Saudi Arabia’s vicious feudal dictator, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (also) goes to show.

   The budget delivered by Reeves was predictable. It had been leaked beforehand. The main controversy was the increase in National Insurance Contributions for the bosses (but not “working people”). “Very” small businesses were relieved to be offered certain exemptions. However the Office for Budget Responsibility said that 76% of this “NIC cost” to the bosses is likely to be taken back from employees in one way or another: through wage cuts, job cuts, cuts in conditions, etc. So much for that.

   Nevertheless the bosses’ organisations are up in arms about what is described as the biggest tax rise in proportion to GDP, since WW2 - or, says former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, “in British history”!

   But Reeves has done exactly what was expected of her by the bosses - and indeed what many prominent bourgeois economists advised - in order to try to inject some life into the decrepit capitalist economy.

   She’s not wrong, for instance, to say that a “healthy economy needs a healthy NHS”, among other public services. But curing disease, means rooting out the cause. And that would mean rooting out capitalism itself. Only a revolutionary working class party could organise the forces required for such a task. That party needs to be built!

Ahead of Labour's first budget, the debate over what was in it, became quite farcical, focusing on the definition of a "working person", since Labour promised that “working people” would not face tax increases.

    BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg joined the weeping chorus of those shedding tears over small businesses which might have to pay more tax and thus face bankruptcy! She asked Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson whether such entrepreneurs were not "working people" after all, and should thus be exempt?

   For a growing number of real workers, however, the problem is not their tax bill, but how to make ends meet because of low wages, precarious work and the fact that there aren’t enough hours in the day and night to work, sleep and live...

   Indeed, casual and low-paid jobs have become the norm: out of the total workforce today, 25% are part-time; 13% are self-employed; 10% are temps or agency workers and over 3% are on zero-hours contracts. And it remains to be seen which “exploitative” zero-hours contracts will be banned under Labour’s new Employment Rights law!

   As for the "self-employed", of the 4.3m who are supposedly their "own bosses", a quarter live under the poverty line! But nevertheless, they must pay special National Insurance Contributions out of their pittance wages. This includes Deliveroo drivers, who last year lost their Supreme Court case to be categorised as the employees they clearly are, as well as many construction workers. It would surely be a travesty if they have their taxes increased?

   However what's most striking about this budget is that the one source of potential public funds which Reeves is not only not touching, but in fact freezing at its all-time low level, is the tax on company profits!