Going back five years, Crewe had rather less in the way of supermarkets than it does today, but even so, there was no clamour for more choice or more outlets. Neither did the population have any obvious problem accessing one or other of the stores.
This state of affairs, however, was clearly not a satisfactory one for more than one of the big players. There was no Tesco outlet, and the nearest Sainsbury’s was on the edge of Nantwich, a whole three miles from central Crewe. Things would inevitably change, and the process started in earnest with Morrison’s takeover of Safeway.
The Crewe Safeway soon closed, and then reopened as a 24 hour Tesco. Since then, two smaller Tesco outlets have opened on Nantwich Road. Sainsbury’s have moved into the former Kwik Save on Edleston Road, and now want to open another store in town. But the most blatant new proposal is from discounter Aldi, who want to bulldoze The Earl, a roadhouse pub on Nantwich Road, to enable them to build a second Crewe outlet, which would coincidentally be opposite a Co-op of roughly the same size.
All this is excused by the deployment of the C-word – as in Choice. And it’s another dose of industrial strength drivel.
If the next proposal were to come from Lidl or Netto – or any other retailer without a presence in the area – then that would indeed bring choice. But another Sainsbury’s, Aldi or Tesco does not bring more choice: it merely heralds an attempt to gain territory and squeeze smaller competitors.
It is against this backdrop that independent stores and street markets – Crewe does market days Friday, Saturday and Monday – have to try and keep their heads above water.
So it’s a town rather like any other in the UK in that respect.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
Austerity and Utility – Take Two
Giving the least well off more money? How do we pay for that? And how can we be sure that they’ll spend it?
Lifting the folks at the bottom of the income pile out of tax, partially or wholly, means that others will have to pay more. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this: varying the VAT rate, increases in duty on tobacco and alcohol, or even the rate of direct taxation. That there would need to be increases in taxes elsewhere to enact this idea should not be ducked.
The benefit would come in the far greater likelihood that the extra money going to the least well off – or money not being taken away from them in tax – will be spent, driving economic activity, rather than being saved for the proverbial rainy day.
And that likelihood is far greater because the least well off will invariably have more things to spend money on, than the amount of money to do that spending. Economist speak calls this the propensity to spend. That propensity is rather lower among the well off: there are only seven opportunities in a week for dining out of an evening, and less if there are dinner parties to arrange or attend. There is a limit to the number of cars that can be kept and maintained within one household, or to the amount that can be expended on holidays, hobbies and other habits that exceed any concept of necessity.
The less well off, with their disposable income and therefore discretionary spending power at a low level, are far better candidates for a marginal increase in that income as a way of maintaining or even increasing economic activity. The spending may not garner universal acclaim amongst the chattering classes – it may go on the occasional takeaway or skinful of ale – but it is most likely to be spent.
But what of the deserving entrepreneur? This talisman of free marketeers, libertarians and others on the right, it is often argued, needs the extra marginal income as they drive increased economic activity through their efforts. However, this does not stand serious analysis. The straightforward question needs to be asked: just how many entrepreneurial spirits have been stifled waiting on a marginal personal tax break?
It’s all gone quiet.
Lifting the folks at the bottom of the income pile out of tax, partially or wholly, means that others will have to pay more. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this: varying the VAT rate, increases in duty on tobacco and alcohol, or even the rate of direct taxation. That there would need to be increases in taxes elsewhere to enact this idea should not be ducked.
The benefit would come in the far greater likelihood that the extra money going to the least well off – or money not being taken away from them in tax – will be spent, driving economic activity, rather than being saved for the proverbial rainy day.
And that likelihood is far greater because the least well off will invariably have more things to spend money on, than the amount of money to do that spending. Economist speak calls this the propensity to spend. That propensity is rather lower among the well off: there are only seven opportunities in a week for dining out of an evening, and less if there are dinner parties to arrange or attend. There is a limit to the number of cars that can be kept and maintained within one household, or to the amount that can be expended on holidays, hobbies and other habits that exceed any concept of necessity.
The less well off, with their disposable income and therefore discretionary spending power at a low level, are far better candidates for a marginal increase in that income as a way of maintaining or even increasing economic activity. The spending may not garner universal acclaim amongst the chattering classes – it may go on the occasional takeaway or skinful of ale – but it is most likely to be spent.
But what of the deserving entrepreneur? This talisman of free marketeers, libertarians and others on the right, it is often argued, needs the extra marginal income as they drive increased economic activity through their efforts. However, this does not stand serious analysis. The straightforward question needs to be asked: just how many entrepreneurial spirits have been stifled waiting on a marginal personal tax break?
It’s all gone quiet.
Austerity and Utility - Take One
It was said of Clem Attlee’s second Chancellor of the Exchequer, Stafford Cripps, that he almost revelled in doling out the bad economic news. Well, Alistair Darling is now giving out the bad news, but how he’s liking it is not readily apparent. He’s certainly not liking having to explain it.
And austere it is. Government spending growing at the rates put forward in Wednesday’s Budget means more likelihood of job losses, with many public sector workers – not all of whom are at CEO level – facing what may be a pay freeze. It’s going to be more of the same in the private sector, too.
Should we be worried about this? In a word, yes. Because the ability of such people to spend money is going to be a crucial part of getting the economy to recover. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, folks either had no money, or held on to what they had, with the result that economic activity remained depressed throughout the thirties.
So how could more economic activity be generated from those millions of ordinary people, whether in the private or public sector, if they’re having to suffer pay constraints and therefore have little extra disposable income?
The answer has been supplied by the World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable and his fellow Lib Dems. And it involves a straightforward, but common sense, adjustment to the level at which income tax is levied.
The Lib Dems are proposing raising the tax threshold – that level at which we start to pay income tax – to take many low earners either out of tax altogether, or reduce their contribution significantly.
So why is this “common sense”? Well, if you’re going to give someone a tax break, giving that break to the folks for whom it will prove immediately useful is most likely to generate economic activity. The less well off will derive far more benefit – economists like to use the word “utility” – from an extra pound in the metaphorical pocket than the very well off.
This idea, however, is not universally popular on the right of the political spectrum. I’ll revisit the whole business, and show why the protests from the right are little more than hot air, later.
And austere it is. Government spending growing at the rates put forward in Wednesday’s Budget means more likelihood of job losses, with many public sector workers – not all of whom are at CEO level – facing what may be a pay freeze. It’s going to be more of the same in the private sector, too.
Should we be worried about this? In a word, yes. Because the ability of such people to spend money is going to be a crucial part of getting the economy to recover. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, folks either had no money, or held on to what they had, with the result that economic activity remained depressed throughout the thirties.
So how could more economic activity be generated from those millions of ordinary people, whether in the private or public sector, if they’re having to suffer pay constraints and therefore have little extra disposable income?
The answer has been supplied by the World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable and his fellow Lib Dems. And it involves a straightforward, but common sense, adjustment to the level at which income tax is levied.
The Lib Dems are proposing raising the tax threshold – that level at which we start to pay income tax – to take many low earners either out of tax altogether, or reduce their contribution significantly.
So why is this “common sense”? Well, if you’re going to give someone a tax break, giving that break to the folks for whom it will prove immediately useful is most likely to generate economic activity. The less well off will derive far more benefit – economists like to use the word “utility” – from an extra pound in the metaphorical pocket than the very well off.
This idea, however, is not universally popular on the right of the political spectrum. I’ll revisit the whole business, and show why the protests from the right are little more than hot air, later.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Best Supporting Actor?
Thursday afternoon, and I’m having to play catch-up. Yesterday, as the weather was pleasant, and nobody was going to be bothered about what I thought of the Budget (a thought that has not yet entered the heads of some of my fellow bloggers), I went out and about the north-west travelling, meeting people and generally chilling.
So the first Budget analysis I sat down to was last night’s edition of The Inquisition of Pax Jeremiah, which told me that Paxo delights in asking questions that he knows the interviewee isn’t going to answer. He can then continue to say that politicians don’t answer his questions.
What of the Budget? Alistair Darling doesn’t do soaring rhetoric, so it was necessary to actually listen to what he said. The forecast numbers may be optimistic, but those resorting to countering with the IMF equivalents need to bear in mind that the latter body has been less optimistic than the Government for more than a decade, and usually proved wrong.
And the opposition? I do wonder why the opposite numbers to the Chancellor, the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, and World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable, can’t respond for their parties. Doesn’t David Cameron have any faith in the abilities of the Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet? Is Corporal Clegg frightened that Cable will steal his thunder? In any case, the act that got noticed, as was no doubt the intention, was Cameron.
Other commentators have now noticed, as I have for some time, that Cameron’s performances at the Dispatch Box are not spontaneous. The rehearsal extends beyond the words into gestures and attitude. The faux anger of yesterday’s response was good for Tory morale, but little else: it’s the same as ever, getting himself worked up to shout down all those jolly stupid types on the other side, while telling us that he and his fellow rather good chaps are fed up and jolly angry about it.
There are dramatic arm movements; the pile of notes is left in disarray. Yet underneath everything, there is no idea of how Cameron the opposition leader would act in Government, except of course that acting as he is now doing – play acting – will not tackle economic woes, international affairs, energy security, climate change, or, of course, expenses.
The Coulson claptrap machine drives on. But we are none the wiser.
So the first Budget analysis I sat down to was last night’s edition of The Inquisition of Pax Jeremiah, which told me that Paxo delights in asking questions that he knows the interviewee isn’t going to answer. He can then continue to say that politicians don’t answer his questions.
What of the Budget? Alistair Darling doesn’t do soaring rhetoric, so it was necessary to actually listen to what he said. The forecast numbers may be optimistic, but those resorting to countering with the IMF equivalents need to bear in mind that the latter body has been less optimistic than the Government for more than a decade, and usually proved wrong.
And the opposition? I do wonder why the opposite numbers to the Chancellor, the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, and World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable, can’t respond for their parties. Doesn’t David Cameron have any faith in the abilities of the Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet? Is Corporal Clegg frightened that Cable will steal his thunder? In any case, the act that got noticed, as was no doubt the intention, was Cameron.
Other commentators have now noticed, as I have for some time, that Cameron’s performances at the Dispatch Box are not spontaneous. The rehearsal extends beyond the words into gestures and attitude. The faux anger of yesterday’s response was good for Tory morale, but little else: it’s the same as ever, getting himself worked up to shout down all those jolly stupid types on the other side, while telling us that he and his fellow rather good chaps are fed up and jolly angry about it.
There are dramatic arm movements; the pile of notes is left in disarray. Yet underneath everything, there is no idea of how Cameron the opposition leader would act in Government, except of course that acting as he is now doing – play acting – will not tackle economic woes, international affairs, energy security, climate change, or, of course, expenses.
The Coulson claptrap machine drives on. But we are none the wiser.
All Hail the Prezza!
Has politics lost its sense of humour? That supporting cast of more or less eccentric MPs seems to be in terminal decline. And typical of the retreat of “real characters” is the vacating of centre stage by John Prescott.
Even though you knew there was going to be a comprehensive mangling of the English language as soon as he opened his mouth, it still made for good copy or viewing. The odd details were good fun, too: that shortest of car journeys to keep Pauline’s hair just so, and the response to egg throwing that Michael Grade, while guesting on Have I Got News For You, described as “the Eric Cantona memorial blow”. And all the time he waved that pledge card.
Added to all of this was Prezza’s blatant infidelity, made all the more improbable when his bulk and love of Chinese fill-ups were considered. What kind of chat-up line would someone like him use? “Ey up, Tracey, catch the romantic whiff of that fart”, perhaps?
At least he could summarise the affair in suitable language: “Traditional misbehaviour in a modern setting”.
There’s a pledge for you.
Even though you knew there was going to be a comprehensive mangling of the English language as soon as he opened his mouth, it still made for good copy or viewing. The odd details were good fun, too: that shortest of car journeys to keep Pauline’s hair just so, and the response to egg throwing that Michael Grade, while guesting on Have I Got News For You, described as “the Eric Cantona memorial blow”. And all the time he waved that pledge card.
Added to all of this was Prezza’s blatant infidelity, made all the more improbable when his bulk and love of Chinese fill-ups were considered. What kind of chat-up line would someone like him use? “Ey up, Tracey, catch the romantic whiff of that fart”, perhaps?
At least he could summarise the affair in suitable language: “Traditional misbehaviour in a modern setting”.
There’s a pledge for you.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
The Vanishing Gravy Train
Expenses. They’re back. But this time, they won’t be quite so obvious. Let me explain.
The reason we all know about Jacqui Smith’s bathplugs and her husband’s taste in films is because everything has to be accounted for. Electronically. Thus the barrage of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests: this is easy copy for hacks, broadcasters and bloggers, and even if only two MPs a week get hit, there’s enough for more than a whole five year parliament.
And, although that hurts the party in government the most – they’ve got more MPs, for starters – the constant drip feed of expense revelations affects Tory, Lib Dem, Nationalist and the rest too.
So it would make sense if someone devised a system where there was rather less to gain from all the FOI requests. Guess what? That is, more or less, what Pa Broon outlined yesterday afternoon. While some were making fun of the Prime Minister’s, shall we say, unrehearsed performance, nobody appeared to get the point: if it’s all rolled into a daily allowance, then there is no more picking off the instances of flat screen TVs, sofa beds and bathplugs.
Who will know in future if ministers’ partners are into “adult” films? There won’t be any separate accounting for them, so no disclosure need be made. That leaves an awful lot of column inches, airtime and bandwidth to fill.
So, after Young Dave and Corporal Clegg have had a think about it, what will they say to the daily allowance? They may just come round to the idea. After all, it’s for their benefit as well.
Here’s a lesson for the Tories, their hangers-on, and all the others who think that, just because he’s awkward in front of the camera, he’s stupid: Gordon Brown didn’t get to be P M by being stupid. He got there because he’s a formidable politician.
And you’ve got to be pretty damn formidable to make a gravy train vanish.
The reason we all know about Jacqui Smith’s bathplugs and her husband’s taste in films is because everything has to be accounted for. Electronically. Thus the barrage of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests: this is easy copy for hacks, broadcasters and bloggers, and even if only two MPs a week get hit, there’s enough for more than a whole five year parliament.
And, although that hurts the party in government the most – they’ve got more MPs, for starters – the constant drip feed of expense revelations affects Tory, Lib Dem, Nationalist and the rest too.
So it would make sense if someone devised a system where there was rather less to gain from all the FOI requests. Guess what? That is, more or less, what Pa Broon outlined yesterday afternoon. While some were making fun of the Prime Minister’s, shall we say, unrehearsed performance, nobody appeared to get the point: if it’s all rolled into a daily allowance, then there is no more picking off the instances of flat screen TVs, sofa beds and bathplugs.
Who will know in future if ministers’ partners are into “adult” films? There won’t be any separate accounting for them, so no disclosure need be made. That leaves an awful lot of column inches, airtime and bandwidth to fill.
So, after Young Dave and Corporal Clegg have had a think about it, what will they say to the daily allowance? They may just come round to the idea. After all, it’s for their benefit as well.
Here’s a lesson for the Tories, their hangers-on, and all the others who think that, just because he’s awkward in front of the camera, he’s stupid: Gordon Brown didn’t get to be P M by being stupid. He got there because he’s a formidable politician.
And you’ve got to be pretty damn formidable to make a gravy train vanish.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
The Style of Shanks
There’s always a bit of needle between local rivals: Spurs and Arsenal, Man City and Man U – even Preston and Burnley. So it is with Liverpool and Everton.
Into the mix recently has been pitched the comment by Liverpool manager Rafa BenÃtez that Everton were a “small club”.
Call me old fashioned, but if I object to one thing about that remark, it’s that it’s lacking in style. Bill Shankly delivered a far better dig at his rivals, without even mentioning them.
Shanks simply said “There’s two great teams on Merseyside ... ehh ... Liverpool ... ehh ... and Liverpool Reserves”
Into the mix recently has been pitched the comment by Liverpool manager Rafa BenÃtez that Everton were a “small club”.
Call me old fashioned, but if I object to one thing about that remark, it’s that it’s lacking in style. Bill Shankly delivered a far better dig at his rivals, without even mentioning them.
Shanks simply said “There’s two great teams on Merseyside ... ehh ... Liverpool ... ehh ... and Liverpool Reserves”
Coming Clean
One lesson to be learnt from both the G20 policing fallout and Smeargate is that of honesty: dissembling and dodging doesn’t work and sooner or later you’ll get rumbled. And with the immediacy of all those cameras and blogs, the chances are that it will be sooner.
As to the corollary – the following up of coming clean with at least saying sorry – that seems to be lacking in both cases. I know that Pa Broon won’t want to look as if he’s being pushed around by the Tories, but it still looks bad.
And if there is any more bad news in the Downing Street closet, and the government thinks it can sit on it and hope the mob will move on, they’re just plain flat wrong.
You have been warned.
As to the corollary – the following up of coming clean with at least saying sorry – that seems to be lacking in both cases. I know that Pa Broon won’t want to look as if he’s being pushed around by the Tories, but it still looks bad.
And if there is any more bad news in the Downing Street closet, and the government thinks it can sit on it and hope the mob will move on, they’re just plain flat wrong.
You have been warned.
Budget, Darling?
They always used to be in March, as I remember, but this year the Budget has had to wait until April. Much has already been trailed – that wouldn’t have pleased Clem Attlee – but here’s some entirely personal thoughts.
Where can we save money? Well, sorry Jacqui, but I D Cards are a complete waste. The idea that any or all of us may be safer as a result of their introduction does not stand serious scrutiny. So let’s have that one in the bin right now.
But probably even more could be saved by ending the pretence of an allegedly independent nuclear deterrent. Trident is certainly nuclear, but it ain’t independent, and it deters none of the threats to the UK – as if you’d take out a terrorist cell with a nuclear warhead. Yes, there will be screams of protest from the Usual Suspects (step forward the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail), but we don’t need it, and the money could be used to far better effect elsewhere.
So-called “non doms”: yes, let’s have them paying something towards the country that they think is so wonderful. Again, there will be howls of protest: that these entrepreneurial spirits are being targeted by mere leftist envy. That is industrial strength drivel. If the folks at the bottom of the pile are expected to chip in, so should everyone else.
And, as someone who takes an interest in things transport wise, I’d strongly favour the start of a programme of railway electrification. Electric working is more reliable, does not rely on one power generation source, and is more pleasant for the traveller. More, at a time of increasing unemployment, it can tap into the pool of workers shed by the construction industry, with the increased number of workers employed feeding through into more general economic activity.
So let’s start that programme with the Great Western Main Line, and all the way to Plymouth and Swansea, with no corner cutting – so that means doing “via Bristol” as well as “via Westbury”.
Finally, while on the subject of transportation – let’s revisit light rail solutions for our largest cities, and give folks a decent alternative to increased car usage. Leeds and Liverpool should never have had theirs dropped, and neither should the London cross river tram have been binned.
Might this mean the re-regulation of bus services outside London? Well, as the man in House of Cards might have said, “you might wish to think that – I couldn’t possibly comment”.
Where can we save money? Well, sorry Jacqui, but I D Cards are a complete waste. The idea that any or all of us may be safer as a result of their introduction does not stand serious scrutiny. So let’s have that one in the bin right now.
But probably even more could be saved by ending the pretence of an allegedly independent nuclear deterrent. Trident is certainly nuclear, but it ain’t independent, and it deters none of the threats to the UK – as if you’d take out a terrorist cell with a nuclear warhead. Yes, there will be screams of protest from the Usual Suspects (step forward the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail), but we don’t need it, and the money could be used to far better effect elsewhere.
So-called “non doms”: yes, let’s have them paying something towards the country that they think is so wonderful. Again, there will be howls of protest: that these entrepreneurial spirits are being targeted by mere leftist envy. That is industrial strength drivel. If the folks at the bottom of the pile are expected to chip in, so should everyone else.
And, as someone who takes an interest in things transport wise, I’d strongly favour the start of a programme of railway electrification. Electric working is more reliable, does not rely on one power generation source, and is more pleasant for the traveller. More, at a time of increasing unemployment, it can tap into the pool of workers shed by the construction industry, with the increased number of workers employed feeding through into more general economic activity.
So let’s start that programme with the Great Western Main Line, and all the way to Plymouth and Swansea, with no corner cutting – so that means doing “via Bristol” as well as “via Westbury”.
Finally, while on the subject of transportation – let’s revisit light rail solutions for our largest cities, and give folks a decent alternative to increased car usage. Leeds and Liverpool should never have had theirs dropped, and neither should the London cross river tram have been binned.
Might this mean the re-regulation of bus services outside London? Well, as the man in House of Cards might have said, “you might wish to think that – I couldn’t possibly comment”.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Shock of the New
In the post-Ealing film comedy The Wrong Arm of the Law, a gang of Australian criminals starts operating in London, giving themselves legitimacy by posing as policemen. This so offends both the established body of criminality, and the real police force, that the two join forces to see the Aussies off. As the criminals’ representative says to one of the senior policemen, “We pull a job. You chase us. We both know where we are”.
It was this exchange that came to mind after I found myself, firstly, watching Newsnight Review on Friday evening. Why? Dunno. It had been a long day, and I wasn’t quick enough to turn off the TV. But there was Ian Hislop, archetypal “young fogey” editor of Private Eye, apparently laying into the blogosphere in general, and Paul Staines in particular, in the wake of the Damian McBride email business.
Then, the following morning, the Telegraph also went after Staines, who is better known under his blogging nom-de-plume of Guido Fawkes. Many have seen the Telegraph article as evidence that the paper is being used by the Labour Party as a conduit, and that this is merely a payback hatchet job executed on the say so of Pa Broon, or at least someone close to him.
However, put the two together, and you get something rather more straightforward: the establishment media versus the blogosphere, the latter being something that some journos either do not get, or would rather the rest of us do not. The reason that there was a common target is straightforward: Staines has had the recent scoop, and the departure of Damian McBride happened before the mainstream print media got involved (although the knowledge that the Screws was going to publish may have helped him out the door).
As I posted previously, the Eye would have previously been the conduit for the McBride emails, but as a fortnightly, cannot match the immediacy of the blogosphere. Moreover, the Telegraph had tried to get something out of the story the previous Saturday, and its being usurped by a mere blogger would have hurt.
So the Hislop grumble and the Telegraph hatchet job have a simple commonality: the established order take exception to a newcomer on what they see as their patch - with the potential for many more newcomers to follow in short order – and react accordingly. They may look like incompatible bedfellows, but it’s as in the film.
We both know where we are.
It was this exchange that came to mind after I found myself, firstly, watching Newsnight Review on Friday evening. Why? Dunno. It had been a long day, and I wasn’t quick enough to turn off the TV. But there was Ian Hislop, archetypal “young fogey” editor of Private Eye, apparently laying into the blogosphere in general, and Paul Staines in particular, in the wake of the Damian McBride email business.
Then, the following morning, the Telegraph also went after Staines, who is better known under his blogging nom-de-plume of Guido Fawkes. Many have seen the Telegraph article as evidence that the paper is being used by the Labour Party as a conduit, and that this is merely a payback hatchet job executed on the say so of Pa Broon, or at least someone close to him.
However, put the two together, and you get something rather more straightforward: the establishment media versus the blogosphere, the latter being something that some journos either do not get, or would rather the rest of us do not. The reason that there was a common target is straightforward: Staines has had the recent scoop, and the departure of Damian McBride happened before the mainstream print media got involved (although the knowledge that the Screws was going to publish may have helped him out the door).
As I posted previously, the Eye would have previously been the conduit for the McBride emails, but as a fortnightly, cannot match the immediacy of the blogosphere. Moreover, the Telegraph had tried to get something out of the story the previous Saturday, and its being usurped by a mere blogger would have hurt.
So the Hislop grumble and the Telegraph hatchet job have a simple commonality: the established order take exception to a newcomer on what they see as their patch - with the potential for many more newcomers to follow in short order – and react accordingly. They may look like incompatible bedfellows, but it’s as in the film.
We both know where we are.
In the Very Old Loop
Just released is In The Loop, a film by Armando Iannucci about the currently topical subject of behind the scenes spinmeisters, and their effect on government ministers.
Yes, this kind of thing is happening right now somewhere in the Westminster village. But it has been happening not for a few years, but for almost half a century. I’ve not delved any further back than 1964 - perhaps there is yet more to turn up – so my potted digest of spin starts with Joe Haines, who was press secretary to Harold Wilson until he stepped down as Prime Minister in 1976.
Haines remains an ambiguous figure, having later taken the Maxwell shilling and written what was widely regarded as a hagiography of the man that Private Eye cheerfully dubbed the Bouncing Czech. But while he served Wislon, he would, generally, behave in a way that present day lobby correspondents would recognise: keeping bad news out of the media, and otherwise limiting the damage, putting the least worst face on events.
Later, before the term “spin doctor” had been coined, came one of its greatest exponents, Bernard Ingham. Ingham was a career civil servant, but this did not stand in the way of his work behind the scenes in support of Margaret Thatcher during her time at 10 Downing Street. It was Ingham who fed the characterisation to the media of John Biffen – then Leader of the Commons – as “semi detached” (Biffen did not last beyond the next cabinet reshuffle). His briefings were “off the record” which meant that they were not attributable to him. That aspect may just sound familiar.
Ingham also had that characteristic which some saw as “Yorkshire gruff” but which was perhaps best summed up by Thatcher, who once said to him “You know, Bernard, neither of us are smooth people”.
Those who think that spin started with Alastair Campbell just haven’t been in the loop.
Yes, this kind of thing is happening right now somewhere in the Westminster village. But it has been happening not for a few years, but for almost half a century. I’ve not delved any further back than 1964 - perhaps there is yet more to turn up – so my potted digest of spin starts with Joe Haines, who was press secretary to Harold Wilson until he stepped down as Prime Minister in 1976.
Haines remains an ambiguous figure, having later taken the Maxwell shilling and written what was widely regarded as a hagiography of the man that Private Eye cheerfully dubbed the Bouncing Czech. But while he served Wislon, he would, generally, behave in a way that present day lobby correspondents would recognise: keeping bad news out of the media, and otherwise limiting the damage, putting the least worst face on events.
Later, before the term “spin doctor” had been coined, came one of its greatest exponents, Bernard Ingham. Ingham was a career civil servant, but this did not stand in the way of his work behind the scenes in support of Margaret Thatcher during her time at 10 Downing Street. It was Ingham who fed the characterisation to the media of John Biffen – then Leader of the Commons – as “semi detached” (Biffen did not last beyond the next cabinet reshuffle). His briefings were “off the record” which meant that they were not attributable to him. That aspect may just sound familiar.
Ingham also had that characteristic which some saw as “Yorkshire gruff” but which was perhaps best summed up by Thatcher, who once said to him “You know, Bernard, neither of us are smooth people”.
Those who think that spin started with Alastair Campbell just haven’t been in the loop.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
At Last the 1995 Show!
Was it so long ago? Manchester United endured an end of season without the one player who could make a difference: one midweek evening at Selhurst Park, the red mist descended on Eric Cantona after a Wimbledon fan – yes, such people really did exist – shouted something rather stronger than the admitted “Off! Off! It’s an early bath for you!” following the Frenchman’s sending off.
So the Red Devils arrived at Wembley – the original and genuine one – for the F A Cup Final without him. They were still fancied to beat Joe Royle’s Everton side, but the clock ticked by and the score remained nil-nil. Until, that is, an Everton counter attack found the Blues with a man over and they scored the only goal of the game. Alex Ferguson’s men besieged the Everton goal in the dying minutes but there was no way past Neville Southall, a keeper who ranked alongside the very best.
Until today, the joke going the rounds about Everton is of Joe Royle getting a letter from Everton FC, only to find a huge electricity bill inside. When Joe calls to ask what they’re playing at, they tell him that he was the last one inside the trophy cabinet, and he left the light on.
Well, whisper it quietly, but in David Moyes, Everton once again have a manager who can get them punching well above their weight. And this afternoon at Wembley – the new one with the unfeasibly poor playing surface – Moyes got his tactics absolutely right. The match went to extra time, then to penalties – but that would be suicidal against Man U, right?
Wrong.
I would never have called Everton to come out on top in a penalty shoot out, but Moyes must have been busy behind the scenes. So Everton are the first team in 39 years to put Man U out at the semi final stage of the F A Cup. Now they only have to beat The Chelski in the final. It’s a big ask, but at the start of the season, nobody would have given them a chance of being there at the death.
Perhaps the time has come for someone else to go into that trophy cabinet.
So the Red Devils arrived at Wembley – the original and genuine one – for the F A Cup Final without him. They were still fancied to beat Joe Royle’s Everton side, but the clock ticked by and the score remained nil-nil. Until, that is, an Everton counter attack found the Blues with a man over and they scored the only goal of the game. Alex Ferguson’s men besieged the Everton goal in the dying minutes but there was no way past Neville Southall, a keeper who ranked alongside the very best.
Until today, the joke going the rounds about Everton is of Joe Royle getting a letter from Everton FC, only to find a huge electricity bill inside. When Joe calls to ask what they’re playing at, they tell him that he was the last one inside the trophy cabinet, and he left the light on.
Well, whisper it quietly, but in David Moyes, Everton once again have a manager who can get them punching well above their weight. And this afternoon at Wembley – the new one with the unfeasibly poor playing surface – Moyes got his tactics absolutely right. The match went to extra time, then to penalties – but that would be suicidal against Man U, right?
Wrong.
I would never have called Everton to come out on top in a penalty shoot out, but Moyes must have been busy behind the scenes. So Everton are the first team in 39 years to put Man U out at the semi final stage of the F A Cup. Now they only have to beat The Chelski in the final. It’s a big ask, but at the start of the season, nobody would have given them a chance of being there at the death.
Perhaps the time has come for someone else to go into that trophy cabinet.
Class Warriors – This Time it’s Taxing
There are two schools of thought on the concept of higher taxation for the very well off: one suggests that this is mere envy and the most basic kind of class war, with the other saying that it’s just a convenient source of a little extra dosh.
As I showed in the earlier post on Class Warriors, it is easy to paint the picture of politicians like David Cameron and his chums as victims of envy, while failing to see that they are more likely to be the object of ridicule. Similarly, the idea that extra taxes on the best off is another helping of envy politics does not stand up to practical scrutiny. An example may serve to make the point.
I’ve previously mentioned my status as a freelance, and that, therefore, for me Gordon Brown has previous. Under his chancellorship, we got IR35 and, I suspect, Labour lost a number of votes. So what was the idea of IR35 – was it some kind of envy amongst the Labour brethren, or merely an extra income source for H M Treasury?
Answering that question should not detain anyone for long: the average freelance is never going to be in the top five per cent of earners, and has to cope with a market where rates and availability of assignments varies considerably. So, yes, there may be times without work for weeks, or even months. This was part of the quid pro quo before IR35, where freelances working through their own limited companies benefited from being able to pay less in National Insurance contributions, but when “between assignments” tended not to claim benefits.
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that those in the Treasury, or elsewhere in the government or the Labour Party, envied freelance workers? Pull the other one. IR35 wasn’t an exercise in envy, but the tapping of an extra source of income. Asking the best off to pay more in income tax is another such source. That is how the Treasury works, whatever the stripe of the governing party.
It’s nothing to do with envy – but all about cash flow. Boring but true.
As I showed in the earlier post on Class Warriors, it is easy to paint the picture of politicians like David Cameron and his chums as victims of envy, while failing to see that they are more likely to be the object of ridicule. Similarly, the idea that extra taxes on the best off is another helping of envy politics does not stand up to practical scrutiny. An example may serve to make the point.
I’ve previously mentioned my status as a freelance, and that, therefore, for me Gordon Brown has previous. Under his chancellorship, we got IR35 and, I suspect, Labour lost a number of votes. So what was the idea of IR35 – was it some kind of envy amongst the Labour brethren, or merely an extra income source for H M Treasury?
Answering that question should not detain anyone for long: the average freelance is never going to be in the top five per cent of earners, and has to cope with a market where rates and availability of assignments varies considerably. So, yes, there may be times without work for weeks, or even months. This was part of the quid pro quo before IR35, where freelances working through their own limited companies benefited from being able to pay less in National Insurance contributions, but when “between assignments” tended not to claim benefits.
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that those in the Treasury, or elsewhere in the government or the Labour Party, envied freelance workers? Pull the other one. IR35 wasn’t an exercise in envy, but the tapping of an extra source of income. Asking the best off to pay more in income tax is another such source. That is how the Treasury works, whatever the stripe of the governing party.
It’s nothing to do with envy – but all about cash flow. Boring but true.
Oh Carol!
She may be Mrs T’s daughter, but Carol Thatcher is delightfully independent in spirit. She acquitted herself well on today’s Andy Marr Show, occupying the sofa with Neil “utterly and totally” Kinnock. Clearly the deeply subversive Beeboids have relented and allowed her back on to their mainstream channel.
Her independence was shown at the end of the programme, when she and Kinnock were joined briefly on that sofa by the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, who found himself on the wrong end of a comment attributed by Carol T to her mother (although Kinnock remembered it as being one of Nye Bevan’s) about folks going into politics to be someone, rather than to do something.
She clearly noticed Osborne sitting there on the end of the sofa, and quickly added “present company excepted”, but she’d said it. And it was right: apart from being the Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, Osborne hasn’t been anyone outside politics. And he is not alone in the House of Commons.
Moreover, this is not merely a Tory characteristic: Pa Broon’s confidante “Auguste” Balls is another career advisor cum politician – well, apart from a spell at the FT, that is.
And then they take it in turns to accuse each other of being out of touch with ordinary people. They may all be right, which really is scary.
Her independence was shown at the end of the programme, when she and Kinnock were joined briefly on that sofa by the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, who found himself on the wrong end of a comment attributed by Carol T to her mother (although Kinnock remembered it as being one of Nye Bevan’s) about folks going into politics to be someone, rather than to do something.
She clearly noticed Osborne sitting there on the end of the sofa, and quickly added “present company excepted”, but she’d said it. And it was right: apart from being the Heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, Osborne hasn’t been anyone outside politics. And he is not alone in the House of Commons.
Moreover, this is not merely a Tory characteristic: Pa Broon’s confidante “Auguste” Balls is another career advisor cum politician – well, apart from a spell at the FT, that is.
And then they take it in turns to accuse each other of being out of touch with ordinary people. They may all be right, which really is scary.
Look, I Really Mean It
This morning – and running a little late, as it’s been raining in Shanghai – the Andy Marr show featured an interview with the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne (heir to the seventeenth Baronet), who, on current polling data, is set to occupy 11 Downing Street some time next year.
As the interview progressed, I had a déjà vu moment. It was David Cameron. Or, rather, it was Cameron’s gesture. As questions were being asked, Osborne affected that same concerned-yet-attentive slight frown. Also, when answering, there was a noticeable restraint, less of the aren’t-I-clever of old, with a measured delivery, and – God strike down Tony Blair for bringing this to politics – a few “y’knows” as well. We were being presented with a more acceptable and ordinary Osborne. It was a triumph of presentation over substance, the Coulson claptrap machine clearly in overdrive.
Because what there was not was any specific commitment to where spending cuts might fall, nor how the adverse effect on tax revenues of having more unemployment would be dealt with. We were, though, told that Osborne and Cameron were “fiscal conservatives”, which may sound snappy, but in reality leads back to spending cuts. Saying someone is “fiscally conservative” is a fancy way of saying that they’re tight.
What there was, of course, was the on-message pinning of all woes on Pa Broon, with the added twist that any spending cuts that a future Osborne-as-Chancellor made wouldn’t be his, but Brown’s. This was industrial strength drivel of the highest order.
Labour should be able to pick apart such flannel with ease, but the party has got itself mired in whatever-the-media-is-calling-it-todaygate – and for that they have only themselves to blame. In the meantime, blatant careerists like Osborne have a clear road to make the running, without needing the skills of Sebastian Vettel.
And what of the Lib Dems? The prosaic reality is as before: Clegg and Co need to make themselves heard over the tabloid Tory approach. Whether or not you like the Tories, what they are doing is working right now.
And I really mean that.
As the interview progressed, I had a déjà vu moment. It was David Cameron. Or, rather, it was Cameron’s gesture. As questions were being asked, Osborne affected that same concerned-yet-attentive slight frown. Also, when answering, there was a noticeable restraint, less of the aren’t-I-clever of old, with a measured delivery, and – God strike down Tony Blair for bringing this to politics – a few “y’knows” as well. We were being presented with a more acceptable and ordinary Osborne. It was a triumph of presentation over substance, the Coulson claptrap machine clearly in overdrive.
Because what there was not was any specific commitment to where spending cuts might fall, nor how the adverse effect on tax revenues of having more unemployment would be dealt with. We were, though, told that Osborne and Cameron were “fiscal conservatives”, which may sound snappy, but in reality leads back to spending cuts. Saying someone is “fiscally conservative” is a fancy way of saying that they’re tight.
What there was, of course, was the on-message pinning of all woes on Pa Broon, with the added twist that any spending cuts that a future Osborne-as-Chancellor made wouldn’t be his, but Brown’s. This was industrial strength drivel of the highest order.
Labour should be able to pick apart such flannel with ease, but the party has got itself mired in whatever-the-media-is-calling-it-todaygate – and for that they have only themselves to blame. In the meantime, blatant careerists like Osborne have a clear road to make the running, without needing the skills of Sebastian Vettel.
And what of the Lib Dems? The prosaic reality is as before: Clegg and Co need to make themselves heard over the tabloid Tory approach. Whether or not you like the Tories, what they are doing is working right now.
And I really mean that.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
The Deadly Embrace
Previously, I mentioned coalitions, and asserted that nobody except the Tories should relish such an arrangement. Here I’ll show why that assertion was made so unequivocally.
UK Governments have managed without formal coalitions for most of the recent past. There was a brief “Lib-Lab Pact” in the late 1970s between David Steel’s Liberals and Jim Callaghan’s majority Labour party, but this stopped short of full coalition. Where there have been such coalitions, they have involved the Tories, and it is that party that has emerged stronger as a result.
The wartime coalition that saw David Lloyd George become Prime Minister in 1916 was continued after the war, and this alliance of Tories and some Liberals gained a majority after the 1918 General Election of over 250 seats. The Tories, however, became increasingly unhappy with Lloyd George and in 1922 the coalition was ended after an impassioned speech to his fellow Tories by Stanley Baldwin – something that surprised LG, who noted that Baldwin never uttered a word in Cabinet. Lloyd George, now without a party, was effectively finished, as was a divided Liberal Party.
The Tories, however, were by 1924 able to form a majority government on their own, but were defeated by Labour in 1929. The economic situation, and the lack of unanimity in Labour ranks, led to Ramsay MacDonald going into coalition with the Tories in the National Government of 1931. MacDonald became merely a figurehead Prime Minister, with Stanley Baldwin holding the levers of power. Labour were, as with the Liberals previously, divided and weaker after the event. The Tories had a majority after the 1935 General Election of over 300.
Outside parliament, the Tories have occasionally courted and encouraged Trade Unionists: during the so-called “Winter of Discontent” they egged on council workers, and even settled their wage demands on taking office in 1979, only to throw many of them out of work soon afterwards as a result of rounds of spending cuts. This encouragement continued with the Nottinghamshire miners during the 1984-5 Miners’ strike: the Notts miners carried on working, formed their own trade union, then were as effectively doomed as their former colleagues in the NUM.
There’s a lesson here, and a straightforward one, for anyone tempted by overtures from young Dave: get into bed with the Tories, and you get shafted.
My hunch is that Andy Coulson may be avoiding that particular strapline.
UK Governments have managed without formal coalitions for most of the recent past. There was a brief “Lib-Lab Pact” in the late 1970s between David Steel’s Liberals and Jim Callaghan’s majority Labour party, but this stopped short of full coalition. Where there have been such coalitions, they have involved the Tories, and it is that party that has emerged stronger as a result.
The wartime coalition that saw David Lloyd George become Prime Minister in 1916 was continued after the war, and this alliance of Tories and some Liberals gained a majority after the 1918 General Election of over 250 seats. The Tories, however, became increasingly unhappy with Lloyd George and in 1922 the coalition was ended after an impassioned speech to his fellow Tories by Stanley Baldwin – something that surprised LG, who noted that Baldwin never uttered a word in Cabinet. Lloyd George, now without a party, was effectively finished, as was a divided Liberal Party.
The Tories, however, were by 1924 able to form a majority government on their own, but were defeated by Labour in 1929. The economic situation, and the lack of unanimity in Labour ranks, led to Ramsay MacDonald going into coalition with the Tories in the National Government of 1931. MacDonald became merely a figurehead Prime Minister, with Stanley Baldwin holding the levers of power. Labour were, as with the Liberals previously, divided and weaker after the event. The Tories had a majority after the 1935 General Election of over 300.
Outside parliament, the Tories have occasionally courted and encouraged Trade Unionists: during the so-called “Winter of Discontent” they egged on council workers, and even settled their wage demands on taking office in 1979, only to throw many of them out of work soon afterwards as a result of rounds of spending cuts. This encouragement continued with the Nottinghamshire miners during the 1984-5 Miners’ strike: the Notts miners carried on working, formed their own trade union, then were as effectively doomed as their former colleagues in the NUM.
There’s a lesson here, and a straightforward one, for anyone tempted by overtures from young Dave: get into bed with the Tories, and you get shafted.
My hunch is that Andy Coulson may be avoiding that particular strapline.
The Prescription is Written
This week, Pa Broon and the rest of his Cabinet have been on another awayday – this time to Scotland. Indeed, this is the first such meeting north of the border since 1921, during the time of the Lloyd George coalition. I will be returning to the C-word later, but here is another visit to the E-word – that’s as in Economy.
Some of the differences in outlook between the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments were already known – one apparently irreconcilable one being that of new nuclear power stations. But Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond had another bone to pick with Pa Broon this week – he’s not keen on upcoming spending cuts, and is worried that this will choke off recovery from recession.
He is right to be worried – but whether the cuts are enough to turn down a recovering economy is not certain: the overall trend is still one of growing overall public spending. Were that trend to be downward, the uncertainty would be ended. And there is now a party advocating just that.
In this news item from the BBC, the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne (heir to the seventeenth Baronet) has used the C-word (this time as in Cuts) unequivocally. As the Beeb reports, Osborne has told the Financial Times that spending cuts will be the order of the day, as "You don't want to kill off the recovery with heavy tax rises that bring you back to square one."
Osborne does not mention the clear corollary of these cuts, the inevitable rise in unemployment. Hence he fails to acknowledge that, all things being equal, there will still have to be tax rises, as the tax take will be reduced with less people employed. How this particular circle will be squared is not explained.
But George does want us to know that the Tories want to be honest with the public, even though details of where the cuts will fall have yet to emerge.
And to get into power in the first place, the Tories have to turn a large number of constituencies from red to blue, especially if the Lib Dems hold on to their sixty-odd seats. Unless, that is, they were to try and form some kind of coalition.
And why nobody except the Tories should relish such an opportunity, I will consider later.
Some of the differences in outlook between the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments were already known – one apparently irreconcilable one being that of new nuclear power stations. But Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond had another bone to pick with Pa Broon this week – he’s not keen on upcoming spending cuts, and is worried that this will choke off recovery from recession.
He is right to be worried – but whether the cuts are enough to turn down a recovering economy is not certain: the overall trend is still one of growing overall public spending. Were that trend to be downward, the uncertainty would be ended. And there is now a party advocating just that.
In this news item from the BBC, the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne (heir to the seventeenth Baronet) has used the C-word (this time as in Cuts) unequivocally. As the Beeb reports, Osborne has told the Financial Times that spending cuts will be the order of the day, as "You don't want to kill off the recovery with heavy tax rises that bring you back to square one."
Osborne does not mention the clear corollary of these cuts, the inevitable rise in unemployment. Hence he fails to acknowledge that, all things being equal, there will still have to be tax rises, as the tax take will be reduced with less people employed. How this particular circle will be squared is not explained.
But George does want us to know that the Tories want to be honest with the public, even though details of where the cuts will fall have yet to emerge.
And to get into power in the first place, the Tories have to turn a large number of constituencies from red to blue, especially if the Lib Dems hold on to their sixty-odd seats. Unless, that is, they were to try and form some kind of coalition.
And why nobody except the Tories should relish such an opportunity, I will consider later.
Potty Training
The police have got themselves a whole load of bad press recently, much of it richly deserved. Here’s a little more: two Austrian tourists (father and son) have decided that they would rather not return to London after they were apparently forced to delete all their transport related photographs for, you guessed, “security reasons”. It is, plainly, potty. The deeply subversive Guardian has the story here.
The Met are now “investigating”, which may be code for “nobody has yet owned up”.
Also, the impression is gaining hold in at least one Usenet community that the “officer” involved may have been a PCSO, in which case they aren’t in a position to tell punters to delete their snaps. And neither are security guards, whatever the appearance of their uniforms or their demeanour.
It does seem that, like rail staff, the direction and training given from the top of the organisations concerned is not getting through to those “on the ground”, or that such people are varying the rules to suit themselves.
If in doubt, summon the real Police. And, whatever the outcome, by all means tell the media. This sort of thing has to be stopped.
The Met are now “investigating”, which may be code for “nobody has yet owned up”.
Also, the impression is gaining hold in at least one Usenet community that the “officer” involved may have been a PCSO, in which case they aren’t in a position to tell punters to delete their snaps. And neither are security guards, whatever the appearance of their uniforms or their demeanour.
It does seem that, like rail staff, the direction and training given from the top of the organisations concerned is not getting through to those “on the ground”, or that such people are varying the rules to suit themselves.
If in doubt, summon the real Police. And, whatever the outcome, by all means tell the media. This sort of thing has to be stopped.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Eddie’s Good Deed
I often pass adverse comment on my MP, Edward Timpson (the man with marginally more charisma than a Burton’s dummy) and, after he sat on the fence over Network Rail’s potty idea of moving the station out of town, there will be more of the same.
But credit where credit’s due: Eddie has been out on the football field recently, and with the highly sound target of raising £25,000 for charity. More, this was not any old kick about: on the opposing team was one Cyrille Regis, and that means it was serious football.
But credit where credit’s due: Eddie has been out on the football field recently, and with the highly sound target of raising £25,000 for charity. More, this was not any old kick about: on the opposing team was one Cyrille Regis, and that means it was serious football.
A Question of Balance
Balance and equilibrium. Two words that encompass much of the way that economists used to think, and of the way that some still do. The depression of the 1930s changed some perceptions, but some lessons take a lot of learning.
Economies were believed, before the depression, to have a natural tendency towards a state of equilibrium, at which point anyone wanting to work would be employed, and the laws of supply and demand meant that all goods produced were sold. Increased unemployment was thought of as some kind of temporary state; a passing phase.
Then came the depression, and it became obvious, even without the advocacy of John Maynard Keynes, that economies could reach a state of equilibrium with a high level of unemployment if left to themselves. This thought, however, was not allowed to disturb the presidency of Herbert Hoover, who was therefore unable to face what, for all too many citizens of the USA, was the issue that concerned them most.
The Hoover administration in fact ran a budget surplus as banks failed across the country, unemployment headed towards 25% of the workforce, and shares lost 89% of their value. Small wonder, then, that once Franklin Roosevelt had committed himself to tackling the issue, he was elected President in a landslide.
But unemployment remained high both in the USA and here in the UK. And, despite his commitment to addressing the issue, Roosevelt was reluctant to maintain a budget deficit. So, in 1937, measures were taken to bring the budget back into balance, and the result was as Keynes had warned: the economy slumped. It’s a lesson that, today, many politicians and economists are also reluctant to recognise.
The balanced budget is still, to some, the touchstone of credibility. Margaret Thatcher drove towards it in her first term, and gave the UK a decade of appallingly high unemployment as a result. Now there are signs that David Cameron and his ostensibly new and caring Tory Party will also be so committed, if returned to power.
Should they do so, the result will be, more or less, as Keynes told: any recovery will stall, and unemployment will rise. The mistakes of the past will be needlessly repeated, but those that make them will not have to suffer the consequences.
And that would not be good enough.
Economies were believed, before the depression, to have a natural tendency towards a state of equilibrium, at which point anyone wanting to work would be employed, and the laws of supply and demand meant that all goods produced were sold. Increased unemployment was thought of as some kind of temporary state; a passing phase.
Then came the depression, and it became obvious, even without the advocacy of John Maynard Keynes, that economies could reach a state of equilibrium with a high level of unemployment if left to themselves. This thought, however, was not allowed to disturb the presidency of Herbert Hoover, who was therefore unable to face what, for all too many citizens of the USA, was the issue that concerned them most.
The Hoover administration in fact ran a budget surplus as banks failed across the country, unemployment headed towards 25% of the workforce, and shares lost 89% of their value. Small wonder, then, that once Franklin Roosevelt had committed himself to tackling the issue, he was elected President in a landslide.
But unemployment remained high both in the USA and here in the UK. And, despite his commitment to addressing the issue, Roosevelt was reluctant to maintain a budget deficit. So, in 1937, measures were taken to bring the budget back into balance, and the result was as Keynes had warned: the economy slumped. It’s a lesson that, today, many politicians and economists are also reluctant to recognise.
The balanced budget is still, to some, the touchstone of credibility. Margaret Thatcher drove towards it in her first term, and gave the UK a decade of appallingly high unemployment as a result. Now there are signs that David Cameron and his ostensibly new and caring Tory Party will also be so committed, if returned to power.
Should they do so, the result will be, more or less, as Keynes told: any recovery will stall, and unemployment will rise. The mistakes of the past will be needlessly repeated, but those that make them will not have to suffer the consequences.
And that would not be good enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
