The grass is always Green

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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...).

Blame Game

At last, some sense from the Economist on the reaction to Baby P and the Brand-Ross affair...

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.

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.

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...

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."

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"..!?

Old Mother Hubbard

"The Government’s deficit is so big that the cupboard is now bare."

David Cameron, Oct 17 2008

Apparently it is a la mode to patronise the electorate by reducing the complexities of modern fiscal policy to children's nursery rhymes.

Perhaps here is what we can expect from the Conservative Party policy commissions in the run up to the election:

• The Baa Baa Black Sheep Agricultural Policy
  
• The Humpty Dumpty Defence Plan
  
• The Simple Simon Vision for Small Businesses
  
• The Pat-A-Cake Pat-A-Cake Child Poverty Action Plan
  
• The Owl and the Pussycat Civil Partnership Bill
  
• The Ride a Cock-Horse Transport Plan
  

Spoilt ballot

The decision by Labour's National Policy Forum to support reducing the voting age to 16 is confused, is unlikely to achieve its intended aim, and doesn't address the problem of low political activism amongst younger voters.

Apparently this fisking business is in vogue in the "blogosphere", so I've decided to fisk this post at Labourhome titled "Labour takes the final leap".

The time has come to give 16 year olds the right to vote

Left-wing commentator Ellie Levenson outlines good reasons why this is not the case in her 2004 Independent article. I will not repeat them here for reasons of brevity.

Many politicians and party activists decry the fact that 18-25 year olds are the least engaged voting demographic. However, what many fail to realise is that 16-18 year olds are considerably more interested in politics, and by disenfranchising young adults, we isolate them and many lose interest by the time they are old enough to vote.

Two things: Firstly, the logic of this argument points to lowering the voting age beyond merely 16 (for instance - we wouldn't to disenfranchise 14 year olds, say, who may be interested in politics but unlikely to vote by the time they're 16 and so on ad infinitum) which is plainly absurd. Secondly, it is just stupid to suggest that the best way to get 18-25 year olds to vote is to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. This doesn't address the root cause of apathy at all, and will just add to the stock of people who abstain from voting.

The Labour Party has made many positive steps towards engaging young people; the introduction of Citizenship education in schools, the appointment of a Labour Party Vice Chair Youth, currently Dawn Butler MP, and even the amount of money being ploughed into youth services speaks volumes in itself. However, the National Policy Forum, with overwhelming support from both CLPs and Trade Unions, has now taken the final leap, and elected to reduce the voting age to 16.

If Labour's "positive steps" have been so successful, you would expect voter turnout amongst younger groups to have increased since 1997. But they haven't. It is voter turnout amongst the under-25s which is taking the final leap (off a cliff):

• Under 25 turnout 1997 General Election - 59.7%
• Under 25 turnout 2001 General Election - 49.4%
• Under 25 turnout 2005 General Election - 44.3%

Oh dear. And giving a whole additional tranche of (largely) uninformed people a chance not to vote is supposed to ameliorate the situation? Give me a break.

In doing so, the party has responded to a wealth of national campaigns on the issue, being run by numerous organisations, from the National Union of Students to the British Youth Council. Not only do these organisations put forward their own compelling cases, but the very fact that teenagers are prepared to run campaigns on this issue should be proof in itself that there is the desire out there amongst young people to have the right to vote.

Read: Labour's NPF has succumbed to a well-organised lobby group with a vested interest in the outcome and who evidently don't represent the constituency they claim to (because most young people don't vote). Just because there exist a handful of political hacks aged 16 and 17 does not mean all 16 and 17 year olds are interested in politics, nor does it mean all 16 and 17 year olds deserve the vote. And the NPF should do better than just accepting any argument put forward to it by a pressure group.

However, if all of this seems too theoretical, there is an even simpler argument for allowing young people to vote. That old adage “no taxation without representation” pretty much sums it up. If young people are working and paying income tax, then they have the right to vote for who they pay those taxes too. Furthermore, if 16 year olds can get married, pay adult fares on transport, and die for their country, they quite simply should have the right to vote.

16 and 17 years olds for the large part don't pay tax, and given Labour has proposed to keep all children in school until 18, this would preclude them earning a sufficient amount to pay income tax. It is confused to argue that we should keep 16 and 17 year olds in school and simultaneously argue that 16 year olds need the vote because they pay income tax.

Moreover, the unemployed don't pay tax either, but I haven't seen a legion of progressives marching on the NPF to demand Labour revoke suffrage from those without a job. Ellie Levenson takes apart other well used fallacies often trotted out in support of lowering the voting age.

Thus, I am hopeful that Annual Conference will respond positively to these arguments and ratify the decision made by the National Policy Forum. The time has come for 16 year olds to be given the right to vote. There is wide ranging support both within the youth movement and outside of it. Young people are more informed about politics than ever before. Please let’s give them a chance to express their interest, before we lose it for ever.

I am hopeful that Labour's annual conference doesn't have a collective brain failure and support this barmy policy suggestion. Giving 16 year olds the vote won't cement their interest in politics (and let's not forget that the vast majority of 16 year olds aren't even politically aware, let alone active). Extending suffrage to 16 year olds is an easy way for politicians to appear like they are doing something about young voter apathy. But the reason 18-25 year olds don't vote isn't because they didn't have the vote when they were 16. It's because politicians don't work hard enough or offer enough to that group to make it worth their while to vote.

The problem with voter apathy lies not with our electoral system, but with our politicians. Let's fix them - the problem - to encourage more young people to vote.

I'm not personally opposed to extending suffrage given legitimate reasons to do so. But I have not seen any compelling arguments on the issue of giving 16 year olds the vote.

So maybe all these 16 years who are so politically aware can come up with better reasons for extending suffrage to them, instead of the lazy and ill-considered argumentation that appears to be on offer.

Countdown

The electorate is now clear: they do not want Gordon Brown, nor the Labour party to remain in Government beyond this Parliament. Glasgow East has started the countdown to the end of the latest incarnation of the Labour party.

The SNP are probably right to describe the result in Glasgow East as "off the richter scale". And it goes to show that the traditional campaigning methods that served Labour so well in the 1990s - the "Tories are bad" strategy - need to be dramatically revised if the party is to avoid decimation at the next general election.

As I've said before, telling the electorate that things were bad under the Tories in the 1980s doesn't wash anymore - people want to hear a vision for the country and for their communities, not a history lesson. It is embarrassing that the Labour party stick steadfastly to this antiquated mantra.

Punters at PoliticalBetting.com are currently suggesting that Gordon Brown will still be in charge on the 1st January 2009. I think this is optimistic, and would certainly be a mistake on the part of Labour MPs - many of whom now look certain to lose their jobs at the next national poll.

It is difficult to see how the Labour party will 'renew' itself from here.

• I was upset to hear the news that Carol Vorderman is leaving Countdown. Without either Vorderman or the late Richard Whiteley on the show, and given the current trend of having an almost Have I Got News For You-style of presenter changes, it is difficult to see what future the programme has.
  

About time

The 35-hour working week - introduced by Lionel Jospin in France almost ten years ago - is dead. And about time too.

The policy was originally designed to help reduce historically high levels of unemployment. However, despite recent improvements in the French unemployment rate, they have remained stubbornly high - and well above the Eurozone average.

The 35 hour working week was an ill-conceived attempt to assist the French labour market. Since its inception it has repeatedly been watered down. Its failure today demonstrates that excessive regulation is not the path to rising economic growth, and does not readily help those outside the labour market.

The balance between workers' rights and the ability for employers to respond to prevailing economic factors is difficult to strike. Despite running counter to popular French opinion, the scrapping of the 35 hour working week will redress the current imbalance and should help France recover from years of sluggish growth.

Plane Stupid

Forget gluing yourself to the Prime Minister in order to get the government to act to stem growth in airport demand, why not simply use some basic economic arguments?

Photo credit: 2747.com

I was reading an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday written by the US Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, which highlighted her attempts to change the way landing slots are allocated at the busiest airports in the US - the three in the New York area (JFK, La Guardia and Newark).

It also outlined the rationale for landing slot auctions - that demand should determine the price (cost) of acquiring a slot. The most lucrative departure/arrival slots would have a premium over those less popular slots, in contrast to the current allocation mechanism which sees a flat charge applied irrespective of demand (based on aircraft weight, instead).

She writes:

After all, the airlines themselves lower ticket prices to attract passengers when demand is low and then raise prices to maximize revenues when demand is high. What would happen if airlines were required by the government to charge the same ticket price for travel on Dec. 24 as they charge in the middle of September? There would either be rationing of extremely scarce seats on Dec. 24 or exorbitantly high prices for widely available seats in the middle of September. In either case, this inefficient outcome would damage the economy broadly and the aviation sector specifically.

Yet that is exactly how airports charge airlines for the use of their terminals and runways.

I was surprised to learn that landing slots were not already allocated by auction in the US. Further investigation revealed that a similar flat pricing structure is used at BAA's airports as well, determined by the Civil Aviation Authority - the industry regulator, with landing slots allocated by ACL.

Price caps are a ludicrous way to manage increasing air travel demand. Passengers and airlines alike should face the full cost of their use of airport services - after all, there exist opportunity costs of allocating scare resources.

The main benefit of auctioning landing slots is that market forces will dictate demand for slots, with prices dictated by the value of the slots to bidders.

There could be many benefits to this, which could address many of the concerns of groups such as Plane Stupid. Auctions are likely to moderate demand for slots, which could ease the need for airport expansion. Furthermore, existing slots are likely to yield greater revenue - thereby providing much needed funds for further capital investment in existing infrastructure, which could ease the need for airport expansion.

At the same time, auctions would allow the removal of 'use-it-or-lose-it' conditions, as the impact of this could be factored into pricing decisions by airlines at the point of auction. This would mean they wouldn't have to fly ghost flights in order to maintain slots.

Gluing yourself to the Prime Minister is a decent stunt. But environmental lobbyists miss the point - it is price caps, not airport expansion per se, that are plane stupid.

• Rising oil prices are already putting strains on airline business models. Increasing input costs could naturally moderate demand assuming the mechanisms to consumer fares work appropriately. Nonetheless, auctions, not price caps, are a better way of regulating use of the UK's airport services.
  

Water-way to have a good time

I was reading the New York Time earlier and spotted an article about debunking health myths. The full article is here. The most interesting - about drinking water - is reproduced below.

DRINK EIGHT GLASSES OF WATER A DAY

I had long believed that eight glasses of plain water or caffeine-free beverages a day were important to keep the body hydrated and to prevent constipation. Perhaps the toilet paper manufacturers were behind this notion. Researchers have been unable to find scientific support for it.

The Institute of Medicine recently noted that you can meet your body’s need for liquids in many ways, including drinking coffee and tea (with or without caffeine) and eating fruits and vegetables with a high water content. Two clues that you may need to drink more are thirst and the color of your urine, which should be clear like, well, water.

If you are physically very active, especially in hot weather, repeatedly sipping cold water is helpful. But beyond two quarts, you may need to also replace the salts lost in sweat — for example, by drinking a diluted sports drink or eating foods with salt and potassium.

Would glue believe it?

The BBC is reporting that Gordon Brown found himself in a rather sticky situation with an anti Heathrow-expansion protestor.

This is a rather novel protest, but it is a shame that security at Downing Street weren't keeping their eyes glued on possible security threats...

Sour grapes

Unless you hadn't already noticed, Barack Obama is currently dashing around the Middle East and Europe to try and boost his foreign policy credentials.

This has created a campaign headache for John McCain's team; one of their main lines of attack until recently had been that Obama hadn't visited Iraq in almost three years - they even had a clock on his official website counting the time since Obama last visited the country (now removed).

Obama's visit simultaneously removes that line of attack as well as boosting his credentials on foreign policy.

McCain's team is now resorting to criticising Obama for announcing the detail of his Iraq policy in advance of his visit to the country. They are also trying to portray Obama as a 'flip-flopper' (see video below) - the worst kind of smear a Presidential candidate can suffer.

Fox News was also running items over the weekend bemoaning the "liberal" media for their anti-McCain bias and heavy focus on this Middle East/Europe trip.

This seems like sour grapes to me - the McCain campaign should have anticipated that Obama would take steps to address a perceived weakness in his armory. They should have been better prepared for it. And anticipated it being headline news.



McCain may well prove to be right to want to tough the Iraq mess out. However, Iraq remains a running sore in the US - as elsewhere in the world - with the majority of US citizens now opposing the action and wanting troops home. In this light, moves to reduce and withdraw troops from the country are likely to prove popular.

In any event, the economy is likely to be a more salient issue come November. Iraq may just prove to be a distraction.

• Elsewhere, a journalist with the New Yorker, which recently printed 'that' satrical image of the Obamas engaging in a 'terrorist fist bump' - Ryan Lizza - has been barred from the Obama tour this week, presumably in retribution for the cartoon. The image was damaging, but refusing access to the trip is another case of sour grapes.
  

Not being the Tories is no longer good enough for Labour

A couple of days ago, I received an email mailshot from Margaret Curran - Labour's Parliamentary Candidate in the Glasgow East by-election.

The email implored me to give my hard earned cash to the Labour party so that she could buy leaflets bashing the SNP. The particular hook for the leaflet? - An interview given by John Mason, the SNP candidate in the by-election, to BBC's Newsnight Scotland, in which he suggested that there would be "little difference" between a Conservative or Labour administration in Westminster.

Leaving aside the substantive point about whether or not his analysis is correct, I wanted to address another point - the inability of the Labour party to move on from the 1980s.

After 11 years in Government, and despite the fact Thatcher hasn't been Prime Minister for almost two decades, the Labour party seem to believe that they can win election after election simply by invoking how difficult things were after ERM and during the Thatcher government.

They can't. The electorate wants to know what the Government will do for them now and in the future. Not how they differ from the past. Whilst Labour may be right to boast of certain achievements since 1997, they need to better address the concerns of the electorate in today's uncertain economic climate as well as offering a vision for where Britain will be in twenty years time.

David Cameron has successfully decontaminated the Tory brand. The recent by-election victory in Crewe and Nantwich suggests that the electorate are not scared of punishing Labour.

The party will have to do better than simply reminding people how tough things were twenty years ago - both in Glasgow East, as well as further afield.

• I'm in the US at the minute on 'vacation' and hope to bring some insights on the US election whilst I'm here.
  

Monster Raving Looney wins in Haltemprice and Howden

Full results here.

I still don't understand the point of it all...

UPDATE: Davis appeared on 5Live Breakfast at around 8.40 this morning and dealt with a challenge over the cost of this charade pretty badly by his usually high standards...

I'm quitting because I'm rubbish at what I do I want to spend more time with my family

Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader, is resigning "to spend more time with his family".

So, absolutely nothing to do with being bad at his job then...

Labour should not indulge David Davis' ego

Labour should not stand a candidate against David Davis in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election to show the stunt up for what it really is - a waste of the electorate's time, and taxpayers' money.

What is the point of a representative democracy if MPs resort to referendum by-proxy every time the majority of their colleagues pass legislation which they oppose? There is a very good reason why the Rousseau model of democracy is unworkable; the electorate elect representatives for a reason and not to then make every decision themselves.

The fact of the matter is that the issue was debated by our elected representatives in Parliament, and a vote was taken. All MPs, elected to represent their constituencies (meant in the broad sense - i.e. both geographically, and ideologically), had a vote, and they were free to use that vote in accordance with their own conscience.

Those who opposed the anti-terror legisation lost. In Parliament. Where legislation is decided.

Moving the debate over this issue to a constituency in Yorkshire is not how legislation in this country should be decided.

Hence I vehemently disagree with the view of former Davis henchman, Iain Dale, on the resignation - that:

"this isn't about one man's vanity. It is about the ability to sacrifice personal and public advantage for a greater cause."

And that:

"If [Labour don't field a candidate], they will be treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. The 42 day issue can now be debated fully during the by election campaign."

Rubbish. It is David Davis who is treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. Firstly, he is ignoring the proper institutions in which these matters should (and have) been decided. Secondly, he is forcing the taxpayer to fund his vanity exercise - money which could be better spent on public service provision, not ego-massaging.

Labour would do better to tell it how it is: David Davis put his arguments to Parliament. And lost. Therefore there is no need to re-engage him on this debate in a by-election.

It is to the Lords that Labour's attention should now focus. The bodies of Parliament - not Haltemprice and Howden - is where this matter should rightly be decided.

Mayoral Debate

Politics as it should be?

Rogue Poll?

It's difficult to believe that the events of the last week or so would lead to an increase in Labour support. But that's exactly what the latest Guardian/ICM poll shows...

According to the Guardian, Labour have improved their polling position by 5 points on the previous ICM poll to narrow the gap between themselves and the Conservatives to just 5 points.

The poll shows the Conservatives on a 39% vote share, Labour on 34%, the Lib Dems on 19% and others on 9%.

Is this the start of a turnaround in fortunes for Gordon Brown? Or merely an abberation in an otherwise intransigent trend?

Mike Smithson over at Political Betting - an expert on these matters - refuses to be drawn either way.

Fudget

The current debate over the 10p tax rate confuses two distinct policies introduced in Gordon Brown's last Budget.

This morning I posted over on Labourhome about the 10p tax issue. Whilst the title of the post might have been a little inflamatory, I stand by my general points.

I'm constantly surprised, however, by how well-meaning Labour supporters seem to oppose any measures which don't appear to be "Labour", even if the effect of those measures is consistent with the principles of the party.

Lump sum transfers (i.e. tax credits) are far better than marginal tax rates at targeting resources towards those on low incomes. Why? Because lower marginal tax rates are a benefit enjoyed by all, whereas tax credits target resources where they are most needed.

If I as a policy maker want to help those on low incomes, then why should I give EVERYBODY a tax cut - even those who can afford to pay. Isn't it better to help those most in need, rather than indiscriminantly handing out tax rebates to prince and pauper alike?

Apparently not, if you read a lot of the comment that has been generated in recent days about the matter.

Sadly, the current argument about the 10p tax rate is caused by the combination of two distinct policies in Gordon Brown's last budget - the removal of the 10p tax rate and the lowering of the basic rate to 20%.

People believe that the one paid for the other. This isn't necessarily strictly true. But the combination of the two policies confuses the issue in peoples' minds.

The government would have an easier job explaining the benefits of the tax credit system over the starting rate had they not abolished the starting rate at the same time as lowering the basic rate.

The Thick(ness) of It

The Oxford Union's decision to invite Chris Langham to speak is just a publicity stunt, despite what the current President says.

As a fan of the BBC comedy series, The Thick of It, I was both shocked and disappointed when its main star, Chris Langham, was convicted of child pornography offences. As a result of his actions, his career - which had up to that point promised so much - ended abruptly.

So it is with some confusion that I heard the news this week that the Oxford Union will be inviting Chris Langham to speak this term.

On what, exactly? How to commit child pornography offences?

I supported the Union over their decision to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving for a debate on free speech - their attendance had some relevance to the topic under discussion.

However, inviting Chris Langham for a speaker meeting is not, in the same way, defensible.

Current President Ben Tansey suggests that "[The Oxford Union] do not invite speakers for publicity."

He is wrong.

Is this the issue that will cost Labour the next election?

Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth today started legal proceedings against the Government because of alleged inaction over fuel poverty. Will pensioner power force Labour from Government at the next national poll?

Today's news that charities Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth are seeking a judicial review application in order to challenge the Government over its fuel poverty strategy didn't seem to set the media alight, but this is a slow-burning issue (excuse the pun) which could seriously threaten Labour's electoral chances at the next election.

Despite official consumer price inflation figures suggesting increases in the general level of prices remain relatively modest - 2.3% in 2007 - fuel prices have been rising at a much faster rate in recent years. For example, electricity price inflation was 8.0% in 2007, down from 21.7% in 2006, and gas price inflation was 7.6% in 2007, down from 31.3% in 2006. In summary, domestic fuel prices rose at over three times the rate of general prices last year, and almost fifteen times as fast the year before.*

Those who lose out from high price inflation on 'necessary' goods (goods that are demand-inelastic) are predominantly those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners and the unemployed.

Rightly, the Government had perviously committed to eradicating fuel poverty by 2010 - this was a legally binding commitment. Yet in their latest annual report on progress towards these targets, the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (alarmingly) note that:

"The Government appears to have given up on the legally binding 2010 Fuel Poverty Target."

In 2007, 2.9m households and 2.3m vulnerable households remained in fuel poverty.

Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth are right that the Government should not give up on its promise to eradicate fuel poverty merely because energy prices continue to rise (if anything, that should be even more reason to meet its target).

However, the Government can ill-afford the additional expenditure necessary to fulfil its legal obligation on fuel poverty. Finances are already tight, and additional taxation in the current uncertain global economic climate is likely to compound the downside risks to the economy.

That will be scant consolation to the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes.

If the 2010 target isn't met, and if the Government do little to alleviate current energy inflation, then pensioners (amongst others) will be rightly aggrieved. And what's more, they are the most likely to vent their anger at the ballot box.

The Government ignores its pledge on fuel poverty at its own peril...

*Source: ONS

False hope?

As when football club Chairman express their confidence in a troubled manager, a Chancellor expressing "optimism" over the economy will surely lead to doom?

Alastair Darling today hit back at IMF claims that UK growth will slow to 1.6% in 2008. This is a shade lower than the revised Budget predictions of 1.75% to 2.25% growth over the same period.

In the grand scheme of things, 1.6% growth is still remarkable given the current liquidity problems. But the economy is finely poised; it would still be possible for the UK economy to grow by around 1.0-1.3% this year, and yet register a mild technical recession - 2 successive quarters of contraction (which looks increasingly likely to occur in the US).

Which is the right forecast - the IMF's or the Treasury's - is a nigh-on impossible question to answer. As J.K. Galbraith once remarked that: "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

Nonetheless, when times are good, Chancellors need not voice 'optimism' about the economy. Economic optimism is a tool only deployed when times are turbulent. Darling's comments this morning make me slightly less optimistic about this year's porspects by virtue of the fact he felt it necessary to make them.

It's a bit like when Football Club Chairman express confidence in their managers who have dragged the club into a relegation fight - far from being a vote of confidence, you fully expect the manager to get sacked...

Taxing times

Cameron's Conservatives are pushing the issue of the 10% tax rate hard, but putting the evident political point scoring aside, what would they do any differently?

There has been a lot of noise in recent days over the abolition of the 10% tax rate, announced in Gordon Brown's final Budget last year. The Conservatives have been attempting to capitalise on the issue and this leaflet, according to Iain Dale, is to be delivered to the consituencies of the Labour MPs who signed an early day motion condemning the tax change.

Yet the leaflet merely promises to "oppose Labour's plans to double the 10p tax rate". Putting the technical issue of the 'plans' not being 'plans' anymore, this isn't exactly a firm commitment to reverse the decision.

In fact, the Tories can't readily promise to reverse the decision. To do so would immediately cost them £7.4bn in indexed terms this year, and nearer £9bn in future years. And that is on top of their £3.5bn pledge to change inheritance tax; and their commitments on stamp duty and tax credits.

Where would they get the money from, especially given their commitment to "match Labour's spending plans"?

And what are we to make about claims of "putting stability first" (which, ironically, comes second to "keeping the cost of living down" in the leaflet)?

Opposing everything the Government does, and promising to do it all better, may be easy for an party in opposition. But when it comes to making the difficult decisions, would Cameron's Conservatives be able to move away from their Lib Dem tendancies toward policy making whilst in opposition?

I suspect probably not.

But as far as rabble-rousing goes, being all things to all people is probably his best option...

Text Gordon

I've just received a nice shiny email promoting the fact that Gordon will engage in some new media thing on t'internet "tonight" (the first in the world ever by a Head of Government, apparently).

A quick look on the Labour party website, where there is a form which punters can use to submit questions to Gordon, suggests that the webchat will in fact take place on "Monday 4 April".

The next Monday 4th April is in 2011 - Gordon is evidently uber-confident that he will win a mandate from the electorate to head up a fourth term Labour Government...!


Update: The apparent confidence has disappeared! Webcast will take place tonight, Monday 7th April instead of in 4 years time....

Slim Pickings

If you fancy a tipple on the Grand National this afternoon, try Slim Pickings.

If you believe the polls, and fancy a tipple on the General Election, also try Slim Pickings.

Quite simply, no...

... in answer to a question posed by Iain Dale.

See for yourself:

In praise of ... the BBC News website redesign

For so long, the BBC News website looked stuck in Web -47.0. So it's sleek new look, unveiled today, is a welcome breath of fresh air.

The new features are outlined at length in this post on the BBC News Editor's blog.

However, I'm most impressed by the wider page, better use of white space and the calmer, less cramped layout of the information (Guardian Unlimited has a not too dissimilar look).

Who cares about substance when information looks this good...?

A good day to bury old news...

Should we be suprised that today, of all days, the FCO complied with the Information Commissioner's demand to release draft copies of the WMD dossier...?

Nonetheless, the documents make for interesting reading - particularly with the benefit of the retrospective eye.

The key headline from the draft is that it didn't include reference to the now infamous "45-minute" claim.

The argument about that particular 'fact' was, at the time, merely a convenient tactic for those opposed to the military action to pretend that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat. The evidence, on balance, suggests that he was at the time the document was put together.

The Government could have done a better job in presenting the available intelligence back in 2002. However, it seems clear enough that the final dossier was something approximating the available intelligence at the time.

Yet I'm not so sure history will remember it as such...

You can find some of the documents, as well as a summary report, on the BBC News website here. And the July 2002 draft here.

Logic of Life

Tim Harford, the Undercover Economist, has a new book out called the Logic of Life. He recently publicised this in the US, by visiting Comedy Central's Colbert Report.



I first met Tim at a work event a year ago. He is quietly impressive, and his books and FT columns are always a good read.

You can find more at his website, at timharford.com.