Assets and liabilities

Brown promised a "government of all the talents". Why doesn't he show them off more?

Tonight Labour kicked off the party election broadcast season in the run up to the local and European elections on June 4th. Nothing remarkable in that. But what was remarkable was the fact that the only member of the government to appear in the 3 minute video was ... Gordon Brown.*

When Gordon promised a government of all the talents, I hadn't realised he meant just himself. What about David Miliband or Straw? Smith or Johnson? Mandelson or Benn? What about Alexander or Hutton? Harman or Blears? Hoon or Balls? Ed Miliband or Purnell? Woodward or Baroness Royall? What about Burnham or Denham? Cooper or Murphy? (And that's before we even get to the GOATs.)

It is understandable that Labour wish to emphasise Gordon's economic credentials by focusing on him in a broadcast about the recession. But such a strategy is doubled-edged: if voters buy the line that the UK is well placed in the current recession thanks to Gordon, then Brown is the primary beneficiary; if they don't, they'll blame Gordon, not necessarily the government.

Would it not be better to show a unified cabinet out and about sorting out the recession? Working together to make life better for all? Interspersed with shots of Gordon speaking at G20 and Congress, to emphasise his leadership credentials, this would surely have made for a more compelling narrative.

For someone so economically and commercially tuned, his party election broadcast suggests Brown has confused Labour's assets and liabilities.

*The back of Alistair Darling's head got a cameo.

Debatable

Brown's YouTube disaster highlights the importance of style, as well as of substance

Hopi Sen blogs that Brown should debate Cameron in the run up to the next election in response to a post by Danny Finklestein. Sen thinks these debates will generate more attention on policy, where Cameron is weak, thus boosting Labour's chances. Finklestein argues that Cameron doesn't have much to gain by debating Brown, so shouldn't bother.

They are both wrong. 

While I agree that debates will allow more time for policy detail than would otherwise occur in an election campaign, I remain unconvinced that such a forum would benefit Brown. His YouTube appearance last week emphasised how uncomfortable he is communicating policy (although in this case the policy was not thought through either). Cameron, a former PR man, is far more polished on his WebCameron videos and will likely do well in any televised debate.

A live debate is therefore a danger to Brown. Remember Kennedy-Nixon 1960?

It is for this reason that I think Cameron would benefit from a debate - it would take a lot for Brown to convince voters, even if his policy detail was impeccable. He has much to lose. Cameron does not.

That all said, if the debates were structured such that ministers and shadow ministers debated detailed policies, leaving Brown and Cameron to fight it out over the big picture narrative, then this might work to Brown's advantage: while Cameron has detoxified the Conservative brand, not all shadow cabinet ministers are so endearing; and, while the focus is on others, Brown is, ironically, less likely to lose votes.

Such talk may be academic, however, given there is so much debate over whether there should even be a debate.

Brown and out

April is over. And with it, surely, Labour's re-election hopes at the next national poll.

They say it never rains, but pours. For Gordon Brown, April - with its attendant showers - has been torrential. First 'porno-gate', then 'smear-gate', then 'smiley-You Tube video-gate', and, finally, 'budget-gate'. No wonder that Labour's poll ratings are collapsing faster than Britain's house prices.

It is almost inevitable that the electorate will tire of the same old faces - Gordon's looks older by the day - and that the press will ignore policy in favour of tittle-tattle about expenses claims for porn, and the like. But the current lot don't do themselves any favours.

A lot of the policy and posturing at the minute looks party political. To an extent, this should be expected - Labour is a political party. But the actions of Brown et al recently nods to a more guileful bent - one that places political maneouvering above the object of government.

This is a shame. One of the great achievements of the Labour government was attention on outcomes, without so much emphasis on means. Now the balance is shifting in the other direction - for example, the Budget was miserly, but gave the appearence of a triumph for the working man over his baron paymasters (in truth, a 50% top rate tax band will generate comparatively little compared to the duty hikes in the budget which will hit lower income earners).

Tony Blair once said that: "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." On the basis of the past month, Labour will end the next election with neither.

VAT are you talking about?

Cameron and Clegg get it wrong on VAT.

Nick Clegg today joined David Cameron in attacking the VAT cut as "a waste of money" (DC said something similar yesterday).

It hardly takes a single-celled organism to realise that a cut in VAT results in HMRC receiving less income - the Government does not pay for a sales tax cut through general taxation.

Therefore NC and DC are essentially arguing that consumers are wasting the money they are not giving to the goverment (presumably by saving it), and that government would spend it better if only consumers weren't able to keep it.

Most bizarre.

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.