Government

Darling carves up the spending pie

It’s the eve of the Pre-Budget Report, and the lunacy has already begun. Tomorrow’s FT says that Darling will copy the Tories’ plans to protect the NHS budget – and throw police and schools in to the protected status as well. This is introduced as “the biggest squeeze in pubic spending for a generation,” with the headline figure of 14 percent cuts. How to make sense of that? My guide: 1. Any sentence that starts “A Labour government would…” can be ignored. Darling can promise to fund free beer for everyone after 2011 – he won’t be in office. These are decoys for the media: the wilder his claims, the

Ringfence-a-rama

Just watching Newsnight, and the show’s economics editor, Paul Mason, has said we can expect several budgets to be ringfenced from spending cuts in tomorrow’s PBR – hospitals, schools and perhaps even the social security budget.  If so, it’s another sign of how political the document is set to be.  Ringfenced budgets are the other side of the soak-the-rich coin: sending out the twin message that Labour will batter the “City fat cats,” while also “investing” in public services “for the many”.  Just a shame that it’s all insufficient to the scale of the debt crisis.

Luck shines on the brave

Nevermind the bankers, the UK Border Agency should have been awarded £295,000 in performance bonuses. Phil Woolas’s defence that “brave” border workers deserved remuneration beyond their basic salaries is imaginative, though unremittingly egregious. The agency is plainly maladroit. Keith Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee has found: ‘There is still a huge backlog of unresolved cases and UKBA simply must get through them faster than they have promised. What is really surprising and disappointing is the number of cases where the UKBA is basically saying “we don’t know” exactly what has happened to these applicants – over half the applications are concluded for some “other” reason than being granted or denied

Darling contra Brown, Part 573

Ok, so tomorrow’s Pre-Budget Report is shaping up to be a horrendously political affair.  But, rest assured, it could have been so much worse.  In what is, by now, a familiar Budget-time story, Alistair Darling is fighting the good fight against some of Brown’s most inharmonious fiscal brainwaves.  According to Rachel Sylvester’s column today, here are just some of the measures that the Chancellor has resisted: — A long-term windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses (Darling favours a temporary, one-year tax). — A call to lower the 50p tax threshold from £150,000 to £100,000. — A reversal of the plan to make it easier for couples to pool their inheritance tax

When did the Tories become an “alternative government”?

There are a couple of noteworthy snippets in today’s FT interview with George Osborne: the claim that the Tories may not take corporation tax as low as it is in Ireland; the outline of a “five-year road map” on business tax policy, etc.  But, I must admit, it’s this passage which jumped out at me:    “[Osborne] says his Tory conference speech in October, which included plans for a public sector pay freeze and an increase in the state retirement age, ‘was an important moment’ that showed a mental leap to being ‘an alternative government, not just an opposition’.” These self-bestowed titles – “alternative government,” and the like – are

Balls: ‘I have resisted moving’

Ed Balls has given an interview to The Times Educational Supplement which contains a comically audacious attempt to rewrite history. When asked about whether he really wants to be in his current job, Balls tells the interviewer, “I have resisted moving”. Now, I suspect this will come as a bit of a shock to Alistair Darling who fought off an effort by Balls to take his job. 

Paranoia rather than camaraderie

Another one for the Brown as Nixon folder, courtesy of Rachel Sylvester’s column today: “‘It’s about style of government,’ says one senior figure due to give evidence [to the Iraq Inquiry]. ‘Blair would have a war Cabinet, but a small caucus would meet beforehand. The civil servants were frustrated. Gordon is just as bad. He gives lots of time to Peter Mandelson and Shriti Vadera and ignores the officials. There’s a darker side to the Brown machine — he’s more suspicious. It’s cliquiness driven by paranoia rather than camaraderie, but it has the same result.'”

If you want to restore Cabinet government, you have to reduce the size of the Cabinet

In the politics column this week, I write about how the Tories plan to hand over many of the traditional policy making powers of the Cabinet to a seven man policy board. The Cameroons are going to do this partly because it is a model that has worked well for them in oppoistion and that they are comfortable with but also because the Cabinet is just too large for effective, detailed discussions about policy. The shadow Cabinet currently has 34 members in it. In government, this number will have to drop by at least ten. But still, a 24 person group is, probably, too large to foster constructive and detailed

Byrne draws a dividing line over decentralisation

Good work by the Guardian, who have got their hands on leaked sections of a government report into downscaling Whitehall.  At first glance, it all looks kinda promising.  There are provisions to reduce the cost of senior civil servants, to cut the numbers of quangos, and to make it more difficult to establish new quangos.  Surely, these are measures which will be necessary to fix our broken public finances. But it’s the headline idea which could give you cause for concern: namely, that the government “wants a review” into relocating around 200,000 civil servants and other public sector workers away from London and the South-East.  It’s meant to strengthen localism

A debased database

As with much police work, the questions surrounding a DNA database come down to one thing: striking a balance between civil protection and civil liberties.  Going off a new report by the Human Genetics Commission, reported on the cover of today’s Times, the government are getting that balance seriously wrong: “Jonathan Montgomery, commission chairman, said that ‘function creep’ over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects. Almost one million innocent people are now on the DNA database… …Professor Montgomery said there was some evidence that people were arrested to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstance. He

A fine line between love and hatred for Peter Mandelson

So far as Downing Street is concerned, this morning’s Sunday Times cover is a presentational nightmare. It reports that Peter Mandelson is calling on Brown to make him Foreign Secretary – a move which would create all kinds of internal difficulties for the PM. Sounds a little bizarre to me: we all know that Mandelson would, in theory, like the role which was once occupied by his grandfather, but would he really want it under such controversial circumstances and for what would likely be only six months? Perhaps not. But, true or no’, it still feeds into the idea that the government is divided and self-obsessed. It’s also the kind

David Cameron’s Immodest Belief in Government

David Cameron’s response to the Queen’s Speech was, of course, dictated by both convention and political nit-picking. Nonetheless, I agree with Sunder Katwala that it’s rum to see a Conservative leader complaining that the government isn’t proposing enough legislation. A useful reminder that whatever else they may be, Dave’s Conservatives do not take an especially modest or reatrained view of government. On the contrary: if there is a problem there must be a bill and damn the consequences. So Cameron, correctly, identified Labour’s approach as believing that “The answer to every problem is more big government and spending” at the same time as he demanded that the government do more,

Nothing to see here

Blink and you missed it.  After seven minutes, the Queen had rattled through the Government’s legislative agenda for the next few months.  It was all pretty much as expected – although it’s worth noting the “council of financial stability,” made up of the Treasury, the Bank of England and FSA, chaired by the Chancellor, and which was first mooted back in July.  The question is whether any of this will connect with the public.  I rather doubt it. We’ll put footage on Coffee House as soon as it’s available.

Balls dumps Brown into another lose-lose situation

Things never seem to go smoothly for Gordon.  On a day when the Telegraph carries details of his Whitehall savings programme, the FT has news that one of his closest allies, Ed Balls, is calling for relatively hefty spending increases elsewhere.  Apparently, Balls has asked the Treasury to grant his department – the Department for Children, Schools and Families – real-terms spending increases of 1.4 percent until 2014.  That’s an extra £2.6 billion in total – and goes beyond previous Labour commitments to “protect” schools spending. It’s a brassy move by Balls and one which is sure to aggravate his colleagues.  After all, remember when Labour called Cameron “Mr 10

Can Clarke serve in a Cameron government?

Despite his pronounced Europhile views, a Politics Home insider poll suggests that Clarke can remain in the Shadow Cabinet and join a prospective Euro-sceptic Cameron government. As Clarke is signed up to the Cameron plan, I doubt that Europe is necessarily the problem. Concern arises from Clarke’s apparent unwillingness to fulfil the duties of his brief. One think tank supremo is quoted by Pol Home saying: “No. It isn’t just Europe, it’s his non-fondness to work hard, master a brief, do the hard slog. He likes being on television, but there’s more to being a Secretary of State than that, and plenty of current non-frontbenchers who would work.” This objection

James Forsyth

Brown’s spelling mistakes prove how badly run Downing Street is

The row over Gordon Brown’s spelling mistakes in a letter to the mother of a soldier who had been killed in Afghanistan shows how badly run Brown’s Downing Street is. It is well known in Westminster that Brown’s handwriting is poor because of his bad eyesight. There is little that can be done about that and it is rather unfair to criticise him for that. But someone in Brown’s office should be checking all his letters to the families of the fallen to check that all the names in them are spelt correctly. Because this basic fail-safe mechanism is not in place there is now a family whose grief has

Scorching the earth

Tim Montgomerie is right; Peter Oborne is at his best in the Mail today – a mix of relevant history and sharp analysis of current affairs. Like Callaghan and Major before him, Gordon Brown faces electoral defeat. Brown’s predicament is deep – consistently loathed by the electorate and the target of unhatched coups and constant intrigue. How does a prime minister defend a hopeless position? Does he govern in the best interests of the country, his party, or himself? Oborne remarks about the magnanimity of Callaghan and Major and notes that Brown has not followed their example. ‘The truth is that Gordon Brown is now governing Britain purely for partisan

Nanny knows best

Does Professor David Nutt’s dismissal concern the impossibility of relaxing drugs legislation, or the relationship between experts and ministers? David Nutt was sacked because he spoke the unspeakable and criticised the government for failing to acknowledge the self-evident scientific truth that horse-riding, especially after quaffing sherry, is more dangerous than taking ecstasy and dancing maniacally in a night club. As Bruce Anderson notes in today’s Independent, it is impossible to have a rational debate about drugs. The politics of narcotics always trumps evidence. Despite David Nutt’s eminently sensible view that classification must reflect quantifiable harm, for the benefit of proportionate punishment and effective education, disassociation from any leniency on drugs is a

Efficiency savings are no match for budget cuts

Jack Straw has abandoned what he described as “simply unacceptable” efficiency saving recommendations. This is self-evidently the correct action, as the proposals would have endangered the processes of our democracy for a negligible saving. Everyone, even the Prime Minister, though grudgingly on his part, recognises the need for cuts. Efficiency savings are part of this process – £5bn a year is wasted by the NHS on middle management alone. However, there is a danger that Civil Servants will make counter-productive and paltry efficiency savings in an attempt to ward off substantial budget cuts. The Ministry of Justice’s proposed skimping on election expenses, rather than the abolish the targets and red