Damian Green's arrest reflects badly on all political parties and their politicians. It also raises questions about the common law offence of misconduct in public office.
Apparently arresting a publicly elected legislator is a sign of a "Stalinesque" state. I would suggest shooting them more so. Let's make no mistake, the arrest of Damian Green - the Conservative's Shadow immigration spokesperson - is a grave affair. But not for the party political reasons we're likely to hear much of over the coming days.
The real issue surrounds the common law offence of "misconduct in public office". The offence was introduced post-Hamilton following a recommendation by the Nolan Committee on standards in public life, and has been used in the past to prosecute, for instance, police officers who have sex whilst on duty.
Let's be clear: Damian Green is not accused of misconduct in public office. He is accused of "aiding and abetting misconduct in public office" - i.e. helping someone else commit an alleged offence.
That individual is the unnamed civil servant who appears to have been passing information about the Home Office to Damian Green, which Green subsequently passed to the press. It is unclear to me what the "aiding and abetting" could have consisted of, if not the act of supplying that information to the press.
It is perhaps a bit rich for Damian Green to have criticised the Government earlier in the year over leaked documents, especially if he actively solicited those documents from a helpful insider.
But that isn't justification for arrest. Misconduct in public office is proven on the basis that an act "amounts to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder" (amongst other things).
Does passing confidential documentation which the government of the day are witholding from the public amount to an abuse of the public's trust in that office holder?
On one hand, I can see the arguments which suggest it is - someone who more often acts against their employer, than for them is a liability. Nonetheless, the public should expect that information is not deliberately withheld from them by the politicians they elect.
I expect the Conservative party will make some ridiculous statement about erosion of civil liberties in the wake of this arrest. No doubt they will call for resignations. Perhaps Labour will too. Nonetheless, the fact that it has happened, and on Labour's watch, makes this a rather sorry affair for the Government.
The real question, however, is whether the misconduct in public office offence is being appropriately used. On the evidence of this arrest, I suspect not. And there are other ridiculous examples - such as affairs by politicians being investigated under that offence.
It appears to me that, when it comes to misconduct in public office, the letter, rather than the spirit of the law is being applied all too often.
Friday, November 28
Wednesday, November 26
Woolworthless
The news that Woolworths has entered administration is hardly a surprise; the chain had ceased to be relevant in today's crowded high street.
I remember visiting Woolworths as a child and being struck by just how much tat can be crammed into one store at any one time. Its strength in days of yore became its achilles heel in the modern world: variety of product lines.
Woolworths is the retail equivalent of a 'jack-off-all-trades, master-of-none'. Schizophrenic in the extreme. It sold everything at once and - as we've found out today - not much at all. Competitors in all of its chosen markets - DVDs, books, clothes, homeware etc - typically did it better, if not cheaper.
It is all too easy to get sentimental about brand names. Yet if a business is not a going concern, then what can be done? Times change. The high street moves on.
The likely job losses so soon to Christmas are the real shame in all of this. For all the rubbish it sold, Woolworths employed a massive number of people - 25,000 according to reports. Let's hope as many of those can be saved as possible. Or that those who lose their jobs - as seems inevitable for many - manage to find new employment soon.
I remember visiting Woolworths as a child and being struck by just how much tat can be crammed into one store at any one time. Its strength in days of yore became its achilles heel in the modern world: variety of product lines.
Woolworths is the retail equivalent of a 'jack-off-all-trades, master-of-none'. Schizophrenic in the extreme. It sold everything at once and - as we've found out today - not much at all. Competitors in all of its chosen markets - DVDs, books, clothes, homeware etc - typically did it better, if not cheaper.
It is all too easy to get sentimental about brand names. Yet if a business is not a going concern, then what can be done? Times change. The high street moves on.
The likely job losses so soon to Christmas are the real shame in all of this. For all the rubbish it sold, Woolworths employed a massive number of people - 25,000 according to reports. Let's hope as many of those can be saved as possible. Or that those who lose their jobs - as seems inevitable for many - manage to find new employment soon.
Monday, November 24
VAT was all the fuss about?
Conservatives and their supporters bemoan a cut in VAT. Why?
It is a rather perverse state of affairs when Labour, not the Conservatives, champion tax cuts (albeit temporary ones). Of the policies in today's pick 'n' mix PBR which seemed to incur the greatest ire of those on the right - judged by blog reaction, and the collective animal noises of those on the opposition benches - was the cut in the rate of VAT from 17.5% to 15%.
The principle argument in opposition to the VAT cut is simply that it will not work: a 2.5 percentage point cut in a sales tax is hardly likely to spur consumer spending enough to stave off a sharp recession; business won't pass on the cuts, but boost profits (or at least revenue) instead; the costs to business to factor in the changes will dwarf the benefits of making the cut etc.
This all misses the point. And the Conservatives are missing a trick.
Economically, the policy makes sense - sales tax is regressive and provides a channel through which consumer spending will be directly stimulated (assuming cuts are passed on to consumers), rather than tax rebates which are typically used to save or pay off debt (just look at the US experience from earlier this year - and they are now proposing another fiscal stimulus 25 times our own). Even if business does not pass the cut on to consumers in full, it won't hurt their profit margins in the current climate (and hence their ability to continue employing staff who can themselves continue to spend).
Plus the argument often levelled at the measure - that a change in price from 99p to 97p won't be enough to modify consumer expenditure - ignores the cumulative effect of a VAT cut. The PBR itself suggests that the measure will cost the taxpayer £8.6bn next year - not inconsiderate for a marginal cut in VAT. Cumulatively, the measure may save the average household between £250 and £500 a year. Again not inconsiderate, and more likely to be spent than tax rebates.
But that is besides the point. The Conservatives shouldn't oppose the measure on the basis that it may not work. They should embrace the measure as a cut in an unnecessary and unfair tax (surely a desirable aim for the Conservatives?). Moreover, cuts in VAT are consumer friendly - particularly to those on lower incomes. All parties should commit to maintaining VAT at the lowest possible level under EU VAT area rules - the 15% should remain beyond the end of 2009.
If the Conservatives did so, DC and GO can claim to be both tax-cutting and friendly to the poorest in Britain in one fell swoop. The opposition to VAT may serve a short-term political objective, but it will make it difficult for the Conservatives to emphasies any tax-friendly credentials in future.
PS It was interesting to note the reaction over the weekend to the interview with Kenneth Clark in the Times:
"We can expect to see a lot of Ken Clarke over the next few days; the Tories know that he is still on of their most convincing voices on the economy. His interview in the Times today is helpful to the Tory cause. But it is worth noting that he breaks with the leadership in endorsing the idea of a stimulus package albeit one of a very different stripe from the one Brown and Darling are said to be planning, Clarke favours a temporary reduction in VAT to 15 percent." (emphasis added)
James Forsyth, Spectator Coffee House Blog, 22nd November 2008
Oops.
Sunday, November 23
Offside
Is it fair that football clubs owing millions of pounds to HMRC can write most of it off by going into administration, without necessarily incurring commensurate league penalties?
I ask the question because the Donal MacIntyre programme have done a special on the unpaid tax bill of clubs who have recently entered administration - some £28m by their calculations (which is in a statistical error as far as government is concerned, but that seems moot).
As a Leeds United fan my views are shaped by experience rather than strict logic. I agree that it seems unfair that, as Alan Sugar put it, "Leeds spent millions and millions of pounds, go bust and the following Saturday start again".
But should clubs who go into administration be thrown out of the football league, instead of incurring a points penalty as at present?
I don't know what purpose that would serve, except to get get one over on long-standing rivals. Leeds United were relegated twice in just a few years, sold their stadium and lease it back, now languish in League One, and have had to assemble an entirely new team mainly through reliance on free transfers and youth players.
Hardly "starting again". Going bust was in no way the best thing that happened at Elland Road, except that financial security now seems to be a principle aim of the club. The couple of years of Champions League action were evidently not worth the price Leeds have subsequently paid.
That an increasing number of clubs enter administration implies a symptom of a deeper problem, probably the increasing inequality in revenue between clubs in the Premier League and those in lower leagues.
To be successful today, clubs have to spend. And to be really successful, clubs have to spend a lot. Premier League TV deals have increased the pressure on all clubs in terms of cost of players, and wages. As a result, costs have risen far faster than gate receipts for many clubs. But without spending, teams cannot guarantee footballing success which potentially increases revenues.
That footballing debts are honoured at 100% when a football team goes bust whereas non-footballing debts are not is anomalous. But the wider rules of administration - that clubs coming out of administration pay less than 100% of the debt owed - should not be changed just for football clubs.
Kicking clubs when they are down in the way Sugar suggests doesn't help address wider failings in football league management. The Football League should put appropriate measures in place to ensure that clubs do not put themselves into financially precarious positions.
One suggestion may be to apply points penalties to clubs whose wage bill exceeds a certain ratio of revenue. Whatever, more can and should be done to ensure clubs do not go into administration, instead of applying additional and harsher penalties when they do.
Saturday, November 22
The PBR and VAT
Speculation is mounting of a deferred increase in VAT to pay for a borrowing splurge. That could be politically indefensible from a Labour chancellor.
The Spectator's Coffee House blog today picks up a blog post by Robert Peston about Monday's Pre Budget Report, in which Peston predicts:
Sales taxes are regressive taxes - those on lower incomes tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services, and so spend more on VAT as a proportion of their income than those on higher incomes.
Necessary goods - food, energy, transport, children's clothes - are either zero-rated or reduced-rate VAT items, which admittedly accounts for some of the more significant expenditure by households. But zero- and reduced-rate VAT levels recognise the regressive nature of ad-valorem taxation.
Which is why it is puzzling a deferred rise in VAT might feature in a Labour budget. Ultimately, those on lower incomes will pay a higher proportion of their income in sales taxes in order to fund a stimulus for all today. This seems peverse to me.
If anything, the Chancellor should cut VAT to the lowest permissible rate under the European VAT area, which is 15%, as part of the stimulus to encourage greater expenditure. Exactly how he would pay for it is quite another question...
UPDATE: I've just discovered an interview with former Chancellor Ken Clarke in this morning's Times in which he advocates a temporary cut in VAT to 15%. I hadn't read the article before making my post, but the reasons Ken Clarke makes his suggestion are essentially the same as mine - a reduction on taxation on expenditure is more likely to stimulate spending, than tax rebates (which are more likely to be saved...).
So which taxes will rise?
Well my prediction is VAT.
For the sake of transparency I should say that I don't know that there will be a VAT rise.
But a deferred increase from 17.5% to 22.5% in the VAT rate would raise around £20bn.
And it's one of the few future tax rises which might actually stimulate a bit of increased economic activity ahead of its implementation, rather than encouraging us to save.
To use the economic cliche of the moment, it would give us all quite a "nudge" to spend now, before the swingeing increase in VAT would kick in.
Sales taxes are regressive taxes - those on lower incomes tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services, and so spend more on VAT as a proportion of their income than those on higher incomes.
Necessary goods - food, energy, transport, children's clothes - are either zero-rated or reduced-rate VAT items, which admittedly accounts for some of the more significant expenditure by households. But zero- and reduced-rate VAT levels recognise the regressive nature of ad-valorem taxation.
Which is why it is puzzling a deferred rise in VAT might feature in a Labour budget. Ultimately, those on lower incomes will pay a higher proportion of their income in sales taxes in order to fund a stimulus for all today. This seems peverse to me.
If anything, the Chancellor should cut VAT to the lowest permissible rate under the European VAT area, which is 15%, as part of the stimulus to encourage greater expenditure. Exactly how he would pay for it is quite another question...
UPDATE: I've just discovered an interview with former Chancellor Ken Clarke in this morning's Times in which he advocates a temporary cut in VAT to 15%. I hadn't read the article before making my post, but the reasons Ken Clarke makes his suggestion are essentially the same as mine - a reduction on taxation on expenditure is more likely to stimulate spending, than tax rebates (which are more likely to be saved...).
Friday, November 21
Sunday, November 16
Dale-y Wail
I find Iain Dale's blog posts increasingly difficult to read due to a variety of factors, not least his pomposity. Yet, for some reason, he is one of those 'must-read' sites. Today he made a post which epitomises everything that irritates me about his blog - a post on a Daily Mail article about unemployment.
The article itself is a travesty of modern print-publishing. If I had the time, I'd take the article apart line-by-line. However, all I can afford is a couple of key thoughts based on quotes from the article itself:
1. "I wasn't expecting any sympathy. Just as well. I didn't get any. Just lots more questions about me, my wife, my children, my state of health, my nationality, whether I'd been abroad recently, how much savings I had."
If you weren't expecting any sympathy, why make a point out of the fact you didn't receive any. If you were expecting sympathy (which seems to be the case), why state the opposite?
The questions that were asked seem to me to be necessary in order to ensure that people do not fraudulently apply for benefits for which they are not entitled. This seems to me to be a sensible thing for a government to insist upon. Yes, it makes the process of applying for benefits slightly more burdensome for those with a legitimate claim than otherwise, but this is surely preferable to letting people (effectively) steal from the taxpayer.
2. "The 'system' that I had supported with tens of thousands of pounds over 35 years of work had treated me like a number".
The NHS assigns everyone a number. As does the DVLA. And banks. And schools, universities, exam boards. Modern databases require some form of unique identifier. Assigning such a unique number improves the efficiency with which services which rely on mass databases can operate. Such databases would not be possible if you did not uniquely identify individuals. Most people are 'treated as numbers' in most parts their everyday life and yet selectively complain about it. I find this bizarre.
3. "Outside I was overwhelmed with a sense of despair, humiliation, anger and helplessness. I called my wife. Although I find it hard to believe now, I uttered: 'I feel like throwing myself under a bus.'"
It seems to me that the reason the writer felt like this was because he was unemployed. Not because he'd had to answer a few questions at a JobCentre. Anybody who feels a desire to kill themselves because they are asked some personal questions for the purposes of receiving benefits should seek medical help.
4. "She had to fill in three potential areas of work for the job search she was going to conduct. I'm told that the workshy, feckless scroungers come up with all sorts of ambitious career goals so that they will never be matched to a job."
Does the writer consider himself a "workshy, feckless scrounger"? Applying such generalisations to those who seek help from the government in their time of need is unfortunate. Maybe some of the "workshy, feckless scroungers" referred to included individuals not too dissimilar to the writer himself? Most families receive some form of tax credit. We don't find derogatory ways of describing them, do we? A minority of people try and abuse the benefit system. However it is right that we have a form of social insurance in the event that individuals find their circumstances dramatically changed.
5. "The system"
Use of inverted comments, indeed use of the whole statement, makes my blood boil. It is unnecessary.
That Dale is so quick to promote shoddy writing and argumentation is disapointing from a self-styled right-of-centre pundit. I would have expected more thoughtful consideration. It seems to me desirable to have an efficient administration of our benefits system so as to minimise the impact on the taxpayer, and maximise the effectiveness of welfare programmes.
Dale evidently hasn't properly thought through the implications of providing some sort of one-on-one counselling for every claimant of Jobseekers allowance.
Benefits should be awarded on a firm but fair basis. The Daily Mail article gives me confidence that this is the case in reality, even if the writer feels ashamed for having to claim benefits.
That shame isn't the result of the Government. Rather, it is precisely the result of poor invective such as that exhibited in his own article.
The article itself is a travesty of modern print-publishing. If I had the time, I'd take the article apart line-by-line. However, all I can afford is a couple of key thoughts based on quotes from the article itself:
1. "I wasn't expecting any sympathy. Just as well. I didn't get any. Just lots more questions about me, my wife, my children, my state of health, my nationality, whether I'd been abroad recently, how much savings I had."
If you weren't expecting any sympathy, why make a point out of the fact you didn't receive any. If you were expecting sympathy (which seems to be the case), why state the opposite?
The questions that were asked seem to me to be necessary in order to ensure that people do not fraudulently apply for benefits for which they are not entitled. This seems to me to be a sensible thing for a government to insist upon. Yes, it makes the process of applying for benefits slightly more burdensome for those with a legitimate claim than otherwise, but this is surely preferable to letting people (effectively) steal from the taxpayer.
2. "The 'system' that I had supported with tens of thousands of pounds over 35 years of work had treated me like a number".
The NHS assigns everyone a number. As does the DVLA. And banks. And schools, universities, exam boards. Modern databases require some form of unique identifier. Assigning such a unique number improves the efficiency with which services which rely on mass databases can operate. Such databases would not be possible if you did not uniquely identify individuals. Most people are 'treated as numbers' in most parts their everyday life and yet selectively complain about it. I find this bizarre.
3. "Outside I was overwhelmed with a sense of despair, humiliation, anger and helplessness. I called my wife. Although I find it hard to believe now, I uttered: 'I feel like throwing myself under a bus.'"
It seems to me that the reason the writer felt like this was because he was unemployed. Not because he'd had to answer a few questions at a JobCentre. Anybody who feels a desire to kill themselves because they are asked some personal questions for the purposes of receiving benefits should seek medical help.
4. "She had to fill in three potential areas of work for the job search she was going to conduct. I'm told that the workshy, feckless scroungers come up with all sorts of ambitious career goals so that they will never be matched to a job."
Does the writer consider himself a "workshy, feckless scrounger"? Applying such generalisations to those who seek help from the government in their time of need is unfortunate. Maybe some of the "workshy, feckless scroungers" referred to included individuals not too dissimilar to the writer himself? Most families receive some form of tax credit. We don't find derogatory ways of describing them, do we? A minority of people try and abuse the benefit system. However it is right that we have a form of social insurance in the event that individuals find their circumstances dramatically changed.
5. "The system"
Use of inverted comments, indeed use of the whole statement, makes my blood boil. It is unnecessary.
That Dale is so quick to promote shoddy writing and argumentation is disapointing from a self-styled right-of-centre pundit. I would have expected more thoughtful consideration. It seems to me desirable to have an efficient administration of our benefits system so as to minimise the impact on the taxpayer, and maximise the effectiveness of welfare programmes.
Dale evidently hasn't properly thought through the implications of providing some sort of one-on-one counselling for every claimant of Jobseekers allowance.
Benefits should be awarded on a firm but fair basis. The Daily Mail article gives me confidence that this is the case in reality, even if the writer feels ashamed for having to claim benefits.
That shame isn't the result of the Government. Rather, it is precisely the result of poor invective such as that exhibited in his own article.
An unlikely saviour?
"The Prime Minister has to take a double-or-quits gamble. The Tories do not. George Osborne's critics are only thinking eight days ahead. He is trying to see 18 months ahead. That makes the Shadow Chancellor smarter than those Tories who want to toss him overboard."
Andrew Rawnsley comes to George Osborne's defence in the Observer.
Friday, November 14
Inked off
One of the issues that vexes me is why some of the freesheets given out on London's streets morning and night more often end up all over my hands than remain on the pages onto which they were originally printed.
It is more than mildly irritating that upon arriving at the office each morning, the first thing I have to do is to wash my hands as a result of merely perusing the Metro.
Surely in this technological age, somebody could come up with a way of printing with ink that doesn't come off in your hands. And more than that, that newspaper proprietors would use it...
It is more than mildly irritating that upon arriving at the office each morning, the first thing I have to do is to wash my hands as a result of merely perusing the Metro.
Surely in this technological age, somebody could come up with a way of printing with ink that doesn't come off in your hands. And more than that, that newspaper proprietors would use it...
Sunday, November 9
The futility of hope
Barack Obama's election victory is probably historic. But voters are likely to end up being disappointed.
Barack Obama's election victory has rightly been hailed as an important step forward in US history, particularly for the Africa-American community. But I feel strongly that people are getting ahead of themselves about what the election victory will mean. Reality may frustrate our current hope.
There are a few issues I have with the excessive jubilation which has met Obama's victory:
Firstly, his election is the stuff of Hollywood movies. And like all good Hollywood movies, finer details are often overlooked. Of all those US voters I saw interviewed in the run up to election day and on the day itself, few (if any) gave solid policy-based reasons as to why they would vote for Obama. Most referred simply to 'a need for change'. It remains unclear in what ways Obama's policies will bring that change (these still need a lot of work - especially his economic policies), or if he will be able to at all.
Related to that point: a President should be judged on his actions, not his rhetoric or his skin colour. It is widely accepted that Obama's victory has been helped in part by a tough two terms under George W. Bush. But it is the current President who serves to show that mistakes in office can reflect very badly on entire political career. Obama promises change. He now has to deliver it. And supporters should recognise the inherent difficulties of putting promises into action, instead of putting the cart before the horse and assuming change has occurred simply by virtue of Obama's election victory - he has the potential to be a transformational figure, but whether or not he is remains to be seen.
Thirdly, the election of a black President does not necessarily mean that the civil rights issue is over, or even ameliorating. At the end of his (possible) eight years in office, the black community in America will need to assess whether or not Obama has improved their life chances. It is still entirely feasible that he will fail to do so. Or, indeed, that Obama proves less capable as a President than he does at the lecturn. A bad stint in office from Obama could set back the cause of civil rights campaigners further than his election as President progresses it.
Finally, Obama's election victory isn't necessarily as historic as some people suggest. It is clear the mainstream media were hoping for an Obama victory because it would make the better story, and he got a fair wind as a result. But Obama raised close to $1bn for his campaign, and outspent McCain by more than double. Obama's breaking of a commitment to accept public funding allowed him to raise significantly more than McCain, and to spend more in key states. It was therefore hardly a level playing field. Given this, and the unpopularity of the incumbent, is a Democrat win really that exceptional? Perhaps the real question is why Obama didn't do even better, given these other contextual factors.
Obama has a lot going for him - youth, intelligence, oratory, the ability to surround himself with the right people and so on. However, he has made the mistake of raising expectations too high and can now only fail to deliver.
We hope that the promised change will come. But, knowing politics, that hope is likely to be futile.
UPDATE: A friend last night reminded me of a line Tony Blair once used, reflecting on his own experience: "You campaign in poetry, and govern in prose."
There are a few issues I have with the excessive jubilation which has met Obama's victory:
Firstly, his election is the stuff of Hollywood movies. And like all good Hollywood movies, finer details are often overlooked. Of all those US voters I saw interviewed in the run up to election day and on the day itself, few (if any) gave solid policy-based reasons as to why they would vote for Obama. Most referred simply to 'a need for change'. It remains unclear in what ways Obama's policies will bring that change (these still need a lot of work - especially his economic policies), or if he will be able to at all.
Related to that point: a President should be judged on his actions, not his rhetoric or his skin colour. It is widely accepted that Obama's victory has been helped in part by a tough two terms under George W. Bush. But it is the current President who serves to show that mistakes in office can reflect very badly on entire political career. Obama promises change. He now has to deliver it. And supporters should recognise the inherent difficulties of putting promises into action, instead of putting the cart before the horse and assuming change has occurred simply by virtue of Obama's election victory - he has the potential to be a transformational figure, but whether or not he is remains to be seen.
Thirdly, the election of a black President does not necessarily mean that the civil rights issue is over, or even ameliorating. At the end of his (possible) eight years in office, the black community in America will need to assess whether or not Obama has improved their life chances. It is still entirely feasible that he will fail to do so. Or, indeed, that Obama proves less capable as a President than he does at the lecturn. A bad stint in office from Obama could set back the cause of civil rights campaigners further than his election as President progresses it.
Finally, Obama's election victory isn't necessarily as historic as some people suggest. It is clear the mainstream media were hoping for an Obama victory because it would make the better story, and he got a fair wind as a result. But Obama raised close to $1bn for his campaign, and outspent McCain by more than double. Obama's breaking of a commitment to accept public funding allowed him to raise significantly more than McCain, and to spend more in key states. It was therefore hardly a level playing field. Given this, and the unpopularity of the incumbent, is a Democrat win really that exceptional? Perhaps the real question is why Obama didn't do even better, given these other contextual factors.
Obama has a lot going for him - youth, intelligence, oratory, the ability to surround himself with the right people and so on. However, he has made the mistake of raising expectations too high and can now only fail to deliver.
We hope that the promised change will come. But, knowing politics, that hope is likely to be futile.
UPDATE: A friend last night reminded me of a line Tony Blair once used, reflecting on his own experience: "You campaign in poetry, and govern in prose."
Saturday, November 1
Say what you 'C'
Ben Brogan suggests Labour have "found the interweb" on his blog this morning, embedding video proof of the new line of e-attack from the party (reproduced below).
I think it's a little too early to make such bold proclamations - the video trots out the usual list of well-worn attacks on the Conservative party and all without the wit that viral videos require to be fully effective.
If Labour have found the interweb, then they obviously don't know how to use it properly.
A case of "a lot done, a lot still to do"..!?
