ZaNuLab - The Evidence

Is Gordon Brown basing his Premiership on Robert Mugabe and the Zanu PF 'governing' party in Zimbabwe?

Let's take a tongue in cheek look at the evidence...

1) PRINTING MONEY - On the 8 January the Times ran a story entitled 'Chancellor set to print more cash as interest rates hit record low'. Alistair Darling denied it as true but last Friday the Guardian said the Bank of England was preparing to turn on the cash tap in an article entitled 'Bank of England to use £50bn of taxpayers' money to ease credit crunch' in what it said was "the clearest signal yet that Britain is moving towards the desperate recession-busting tactics of 'quantitative easing'. This is Mugabeconomics!

2) POLITICAL INTIMIDATION - The government is upset that a civil servant is leaking embarrassing information from the Home Office to the Conservative Party. The police are brought in to investigate, the civil servant is arrested and the Conservative shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green has his offices and home raided by counter-terrorism police and he is detained at a police station for over 9 hours. Police raid his Commons office without a warrant. Cue cries of "police state" as Zanu PF-style intimidation tactics are used.

3) ELECTORAL FRAUD - Mike Smithson from PoliticalBetting.com reports that the marked register - the list of those who actually voted in the Glenrothes by-election has "gone missing" which is supposed to be open to inspection. Given that many expected a SNP win or a much narrower margin of victory for Labour, Labour's decisive victory raised eyebrows. As Mike notes: "The startling thing about Glenrothes was the massive increase in postal votes compared with the general election - up four-fold if I recall correctly. It all sounds fishy." Mugabe and Zanu PF-style electoral rigging of elections from Labour.

Brown is following the Mugabe rule book word-for-word it would seem. He has taken the economy down the toilet, has intimidated opponents via the police and is now rigging elections! What's next?

Will Labour leadership speculation start again?

Gordon Brown's second bounce - his perverse economic bounce - has come to crashing, thudding halt. This will be his last bounce.

As one can see from the figures below, taken from the excellent UK Polling Report website run by Anthony Wells, the Tories have regained double digit leads in surveys by all of the pollsters and are also above the psychologically important 40 percent mark.

It is not quite as bad for Brown and Labour as it was last summer but it is still pretty awful pointing to an outright Conservative victory at the next general election. What is more, it is likely the polls will continue to get worse for Brown.

More...

It is clear that nothing our hyperactive Prime Minister does is having the desired effect of making the recession shorter and shallower. Voters who seemingly started to give Brown the benefit of doubt before Christmas have since concluded that far from "saving the world," he hasn't even saved Britain. Brown is the "achieve nothing" Prime Minister.

Consequently, some are speculating that given Labour's dire polling and the worsening economic situation, the fun and games of last summer with all the leadership speculation will return with a vengeance.

I don't think this will happen.

Just as Brown had his chance to win an election back in Autumn 2007, the Parliamentary Labour Party had their chance to oust Brown last summer. As usual, the party bottled it and failed to knife a leader who will lead them to a heavy electoral defeat in 2010.

The Labour Party has made their bed and will have to lie in it. There is not time to change leader and in any case the public would punish them for naval gazing if they engaged in an act of regicide at a time of recession which is likely to prove the worst since the Second World War. Brown is therefore safe.

It would seem that Bottler Brown and the Bottler Labour Party deserve one another... and their electoral fate!

Labour a disgrace over MP expenses

Last week it was reported that Harriet Harman had bowed to Labour backbench pressure to stop detail's of MPs' expenses claims being published, exempting them from the Freedom of Information Act. This is contrary to a High Court ruling that under the FOI Act MPs ought to publish their receipts.

Remember this is the same Labour government and party that threw out tougher rules in July last year when the vast majority of Members – 146 of the 172 – who voted to keep the allowance, described as the “John Lewis list”, were Labour, including 33 ministers.

We have now learnt today that Gordon Brown is imposing a three line whip on his Labour MPs to support the FOI exemption and with it a curtailment of transparency and accountability. Does he think this in any way helps his and his government's battered reputation?

This is a disgrace. Even LabourHome has called it "a dreadful decision."

Thankfully, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said that they will be whipping their MPs to oppose the exemption. Let's just hope that there are enough ballsy Labour MPs willing to defy their odious government to get this exemption thrown out. We know of four decent Labour MPs so far - Frank Field, Mark Fisher, Kate Hoey and David Winnick.

More...

It really is a scandal that the rest of us have to account for our expenses, filling out expense forms. Sure its a burden and is very tiresome but it's the law.

Ben Brogan asks a good question: "Who are the ministers who have lobbied for an exemption because they are embarrassed about what their receipts will reveal?"

Greedy Labour MPs and Ministers clearly have something to hide and are arrogant enough to think there ought to one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Hiding behind facile claims that publishing all receipts is too expensive is frankly pathetic.

Brown is increasingly looking out of touch with public opinion.

Old Labour rises from the dead

In the 1992 general election, the Labour shadow cabinet ran on a platform of increased taxes on middle and higher-income earners – a decision which cost them the election after the Conservatives ran an effective ‘Labour’s tax bombshell’ campaign. After Labour’s 1992 general election defeat, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took the decision that they must nullify forever voters’ fears that Labour would tax the rich wealth creators punitively. Never again would Labour only protect the poor to the detriment of the interests of middle and higher income earners and neither would it go into an election as a tax-raising party. The failure of the 1992 election led to the establishment of Blair as Labour leader and Brown as shadow Chancellor, and the two men set about making New Labour the party of ‘aspiration’. New Labour embraced wealth to such a degree it made its traditional supporters very uncomfortable. Peter Mandelson, one of New Labour's architects, memorably said that he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich." Tony Blair understood that by encouraging wealth creation he could enhance social justice as the former paid for the latter. It was one of the central tenets of the New Labour philosophy.

But after yesterday’s Pre-Budget Report, Darling effectively killed New Labour. He not only increased taxes on the wealthiest two percent of the country which was something New Labour had promised not to do (more of a symbolic move than a significant tax raising measure), he also raised national insurance tax by 0.5 percent from 2011 onwards (not that Darling was explicit about this in his speech and unsurprisingly was the only key measure not to leak out beforehand) – a move that will affect those earning just £19,000 or more a year (Labour disputes this but the IFS has confirmed it is true). Once again Labour will fight a general election with the promise of tax hikes not only on the wealthy but Middle England too. George Osborne called it “a tax on the jobs and incomes of Middle Britain.” The Tories also called it “the most socialist budget since Callaghan” and the BBC’s Economics Editor Robert Peston said this was the "first genuine socialist budget" from Labour since they returned to power in 1997. The IPPR also proclaimed Alistair Darling’s tax measures as “the most redistributive budget statement of the last 30 years.” This Robin Hood Budget has shown that Old Labour has risen once again from the dead, killing New Labour in the process. ‘Aspiration’ has been replaced with ‘redistribution’, or ‘fairness’ as Labour is spinning, as the party’s central message.[1]

The move has delighted Labour’s core voters and traditional supporters because Brown, an instinctive tax raiser, has boldly decided to jettison the strictures holding him back. Polly Toynbee was ecstatic exclaiming: “The New Labour era is over – welcome to social democracy!” and Labour MPs were also jubilant hailing what they called a “soak the rich” package. Changing course so drastically is much easier to do now. Not only is the country in recession which allows Brown to say “extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions,” his greatest restraint is no longer next to him – Tony Blair. When shadow Chancellor Brown favoured a 50p top rate on incomes over £100,000 in the run-up to the 1997 election, but the plan was vetoed by Blair. Once Chancellor, Brown decided increasing income tax on high earners was not worth the effort – until now. It is inconceivable that Blair would have sanctioned such a Budget, fearful of losing the Big Tent of the electorate that he had constructed so carefully over the years, delivering three massive general election victories in the process.

The Budget, therefore, has to be seen as an enormous U-turn from Brown; as big as they come. It is also a gigantic economic and political gamble. Brown is gambling that the economy recovers by the second half of next year; that the government can deliver a major clampdown on spending and huge efficiency savings; and that the electorate will support a significant rise in taxes targeted at the wealthy but which will hit those on middle incomes too. By abandoning New Labour, Brown is gambling that voters will stay with him. Has the public mood changed so much that it is once again willing to give Old Labour a go? Brown is gambling that it has and that people no longer remember or fear the 1970s.

If the gamble works, Brown will have hauled the political centre to the Left, destroying the Thatcherite politico-economic consensus/settlement. If it fails, Old Labour’s return will be short-lived and most likely killed forever. The ideological stakes could not be greater. Nobody can argue anymore that voters do not have a choice in elections.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] To be fair, Brown has always pursued a redistributive policy. But rather than through an obvious tax on the wealthy, Brown pursued redistribution by “stealth," channelling money to those on lower incomes through his complex tax credits. And don't forget his tax of choice - national insurance - which he first increased in 2002, raising payments by 1 percent.

Labour and Keynesianism

Labour is to return to Keynesian economics apparently according to weekend briefings - it is to spend the country out of a recession.

However, as the Adam Smith Institute notes, Labour only seems to have understood one half of what John Maynard Keynes advocated.

It is true that he said governments should increase spending in a downturn to help stimulate demand in the economy. However, he also used to advocate saving money in the good years so that money could be spent in the bad.

Gordon Brown's economics involves high public borrowing and spending in the good and bad years.

The result? The highest debt in the world and obscene burdens to be borne by future generations.

UPDATE: Andrew Neil has an excellent post about the marginal effects Keynesian economics has had historically with helping revive an economy during a downturn and cut unemployment. It failed when FDR tried it and most recently when the Japanese have tried it in the 1990s. It will fail again when Labour tries to increase spending and bring forward its big capital investment projects. What this country needs is tax cuts!

Osborne's new quango to tackle Brown's profligate spending

A few thoughts about George Osborne’s plan to create a new quango called the ‘Office for Budget Regulation' (OBR) if the Conservatives win power. It was the first of the Conservative financial reforms to be announced at the weekend. The role of the new office would be to ensure government does not break certain spending or borrowing limits, as part of a new “Debt Responsibility Mechanism.” It would have a remit of forecasting the public finances and saying whether current trends are in line with the desired path. The idea is new in the UK although other European countries have similar ‘Offices’ in place and in the US there is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).


George Osborne has said: “We will call time on Gordon Brown's age of financial irresponsibility and put in place an independent system that will allow a referee, if you like, to show a yellow card to a Chancellor and Prime Minister if they are stepping out of line.”

So, why has Osborne done it, how will it work and are there any problems?

• It aids the Conservative narrative that Brown has been an irresponsible, profligate spender and borrower who encouraged an irresponsible decade of unsustainable growth on the back of unprecedented levels of public and household debt. The Shadow Chancellor used his Conference speech yesterday to talk about the OBR and give an ‘honest’ assessment of the economic situation saying all the money had been spent and the “cupboard was bare.” This of course he blamed on the profligacy of Gordon Brown. Osborne said there was only one Golden Rule in politics: “Never trust a Labour government with the public finances.”


• It shows the Conservatives as the party of Prudence and Stability. Brown once had these two to himself but has jilted them both. His fiscal rules are now worthless and prudence was left behind in 1999 when Brown chose to no longer stick to Tory spending plans and began turning on the spending taps (he turned them on full in 2001).


• As Fraser Nelson from the Spectator has pointed out, it should act as handcuffs for a future Labour government who, in theory, would be reprimanded by the OBR if they ever tried to spend so much money and build up so much debt again. But as Nelson points out, this is slightly defeatist as it anticipates a future Labour government. That said, it is also pragmatic and if successful would be a thorn in any future Labour ‘tax and spend’ government. I see this (and the two points above) as the main reasons for the creation of the OBR. However, there are two possible flaws. One is that the Prime Minister will no doubt appoint the Chairman of the OBR. A future Labour PM could appoint as Chairman someone who is comfortable with a loose fiscal policy (i.e. tax and spend), though if the Tories appoint a Chairman on a long term it would make it harder for Labour to replace the incumbent Chairman. Second, a future Labour PM could just abolish the OBR claiming it was a waste of money. Whether it would be politically possible to do either would depend on how successful, trusted and established the OBR and its Chairman had become and therefore the criticism the media would level Labour’s way if they proposed abolishing it. It would also depend on whether ‘tax and spend’ was a toxic issue in the future. If it was, it is unlikely Labour would propose abolishing the OBR for fear of becoming unelectable.


• It will go some way towards convincing the electorate that a Conservative government will keep its promises to keep spending and debt at sustainable levels. However, it is a sad indictment of politics today that the Conservative Party – traditionally seen as the low tax and spend party – would not be trusted to deliver just that if it featured as a manifesto commitment. This makes me think this is more about constraining Labour and making them look bad than keeping Conservative spending under control.


• It may help placate those Conservatives who are pushing for tax cuts to be offered upfront. If they see the OBR as a credible tool in bringing down public spending (a good in itself for those on the Right as it will signal smaller government) they may also feel, in time, that tax cuts would be able to follow as a result.


• It will help the Conservatives cut spending and provide some political cover for the Tories from Labour attacks that they were cutting essential public services – a favourite line of the Left whenever cuts in public spending are proposed (as if all public spending goes on front line services!)


• Although some have compared the proposed OBR with Labour’s decision to grant the Bank of England independence over setting interest rates, the two are not comparable. Short of rescinding the Bank’s independence, the Chancellor cannot alter the interest rate decision taken by the MPC (though he does set the inflation target). With the OBR, its Chairman will only have an advisory role and will not recommend tax or spending changes. Prime Ministers and Chancellors will be able to ignore the OBR’s advice, though crucially the PM and/or Chancellor will have to come before Parliament to explain why they disagree. This way the government still keeps control but has a ‘spending conscience’ on its shoulder. David Cameron claims it will be a “rod for our own backs” though Peter Riddell of the Times sees it more of a “system of traffic lights” similar to the Bank of England's published Inflation Report before independence in 1997. Nevertheless, so long as the OBR is made credible, any differences between it and the government of the day would be heavily reported on by the media which could help keep a check on government spending and debt, though this would be dependent on the government which first created the OBR not undermining it straight away, which should be possible as it would be a Conservative government.


• Rather than Brown’s current fiscal rules (Golden Rule and Sustainable Investment Rule) which were backwards looking, could be revised (and thus were undermined), and had more relevance as anchors in prosperous times, the proposed OBR is meant to form part of a forward-looking framework for public finances, overseeing a falling proportion of debt and a balanced current budget. As Peter Riddell points out, instead of an upper limit set on spending and borrowing (Brown’s fiscal rules), the focus under the Tories would be on direction: downwards. It is hoped that this could make a real difference although there currently is a lack of detail about timing, and how long it will take to achieve such fiscal prudence.

P.S. Sorry for the absence of posts the last couple of days - i've had a busy few days!

Labour would be making a mistake with an anti-Toff electoral strategy

Two slides from Ipsos MORI below indicate that Labour would be making a mistake if it tried to make capital from David Cameron's priviledged background.

The first slide features the question: What people dislike about Cameron / Brown. One of the answers is 'too posh'. But only 5 percent of those surveyed said they disliked Cameron for being too posh. Interestingly, Brown also scored exactly the same!

And the second slide asks: What kind of leader would you prefer? The overwhelming majority (71 percent) say they want someone better qualified than themselves in terms of background and experience as opposed to 24 percent who say they want someone similar to them in terms of background and experience.

The two slides seem to indicate that the electorate is not perplexed by the 'class' of its leaders. The class warriors like the Ed Balls's of this world ought to think again if they wish to make Cameron's background a feature of the next general election.

As the Crewe and Nantwich by-election showed us, old-style class politics has had its day.

Ipsos MORI - 'The Verdict on Brown'

I’ve just come into contact with Ipsos MORI’s Party Conferences Briefing entitled ‘The verdict on Brown’.

It is an interesting slide-show document that provides an overview of where the parties and leaders stand PRIOR to the Labour and Tory party conferences.

The key messages from MORI are:

• David Cameron and the Conservative Party are still making real headway against Gordon Brown, with more than half the public agreeing that the Conservative Party is ready to govern.
• Cameron has struck a note with the populace, with two-thirds (63 percent) agreeing with his assertion that “British society is broken,” and half believing that “David Cameron represents modern Britain.”
• The Tories are now seen as better than Labour on having the best team of leaders, understanding the economic problems facing Britain and having the better policies on family issues.
• The Tories are also seen as having better policies than Labour on all key issues to voting except healthcare and education (but fewer voters now feel these matter in deciding who runs Britain).
• In contrast 44 percent say there is nothing they like about Gordon Brown and 69 percent are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as PM.
• However, half (51 percent) do agree Brown is going a reasonable job in difficult circumstances.
• Brown’s ratings are now where Major’s were after Black Wednesday – the Conservatives never recovered from this point and remained around 13 points behind in the polls for the best part of a decade.

What the MORI findings show is that far from Cameron's and the Conservative Party's poll ratings being simply a function of Brown's and Labour's unpopularity, the Tory leader has been able to make positive headway of his own - particularly with his messages about the 'broken society' and Cameron looks like he has successfully tapped into the zeitgeist of the 'modern', much as Blair once did, and this has contrasted badly with Brown, a man in his mid-fifties who has been in office for 11 long years.

It will be interesting to view the weekend opinion polls to see whether Brown's 'relaunch' conference speech (how many relaunches has this man had - was that his 102nd?) has helped his dire personal ratings, humanising him, and whether that in turn gives Labour a much needed fillip in the polls.

More to follow later on specific slides...