PMQs - The Fallout

Ruth Kelly: "My stomach turned listening to the debate. This is a very serious tragedy... I thought the tone adopted by the Conservative leader was inappropriate."

Chair of the Children Schools and Families Select Committee Barry Sheerman on Cameron: "It was purely party political; it was the leader of a party who says 'how can we get the most attention in the headlines today'."

I don’t understand the criticism from Labour MPs. They have criticised Cameron’s tone and said he was being party political. But his tone was fine until he was accused by Brown of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue. His tone then changed understandably. As for the charge that he was being party political, Cameron said nothing about Haringey council being run by council. Cameron’s very reasonable substantive point, which he repeated several times, was simply that Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department, should not be allowed to investigate the failings of her own department because clearly she is not independent. The fact that the Prime Minister could not agree just goes to show that Brown is always a factional, partisan leader who constantly makes political calculations. He could not bring himself to criticise a Labour council. But this is bigger than which party runs which council. I repeat what I said in my last post, if Tony Blair was PM this would not have happened. Once Brown is forced to depart from his script the empathy runs out and then we see his ugly political side come out.

Labour and Gordon Brown should be ashamed of themselves. Despite what Kelly and Sheerman et al say, Cameron can hold his head up high. Can they?

PMQs - Callous PM & Labour Party

PMQs was an extraordinary and riveting affair today. Most would have expected the economy to dominate today as David Cameron had the news that unemployment is forecast to hit 2 million by Christmas and the Bank of England has predicted the economy will contract by 2 percent, to go on. Brown and Labour no doubt were also looking forward to the economy being brought up after the Governor of the Bank of England today gave tentative support to a fiscal stimulus package proposed by the government.

However, that is not what happened. Cameron intended to go on the economy but first wanted to raise the horrific case of poor Baby P, a 17 month old baby boy, who had been repeatedly tortured and then murdered by his mother and two men (one of which was the mother's boyfriend). Baby P had head injuries, a broken back, nine fractured ribs, fingernails and a toenail missing, a severe mouth injury, a ripped ear and extensive bruising on his body. He was found dead in his blood spattered cot. The three despicable people have now been convicted (though not sentenced yet). Prosecuting QC Sally O’Neill told how a family friend revealed the depth of the abuse as the child was used like a punchbag. She said the stepdad would “pick him up by his throat, punch him and spin him around on the computer chair until he fell off.” What is truly shocking is that on Baby P's final day alive, August 2, police told his mother that they would take no further action over suspicions she had assaulted him.

Cameron understandably wanted to know why Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department was being allowed to investigate her own department. Let us also remember this is the same Haringey Children's Services department which had failed to protect Victoria Climbié 8 years ago.

The PM responded with his usual prevarication, giving a dry response focusing on process and procedure. He even talked about executive summaries! But unsurprisingly, Brown did not answer the question.

Cameron asked again. And again no answer from Brown.

Cameron had meant to go on to his set of economic questions by this point but he was incensed by Brown's response. He said he had asked a straightforward question and had received no answer. The Labour MPs were loudly barracking the Tory leader at this point and the Speaker was forced to intervene and tell them to be quiet on what was a very serious matter. Cameron became angry and quite emotional and laid into the Labour Party. He detailed the horrific nature of the case and the abject failure of the social services. He asked his question for a third time but said he did not expect an answer from Brown.

The PM went back to his pre-prepared point about the Laming report and the national inquiry being conducted by Lord Laming. But then Brown made a grotesque error. Always the factional, partisan politician, he accused David Cameron of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue!

The Conservative benches went mad but not as mad as Cameron who went apoplectic with rage and rightly so. Brown had made an outrageous suggestion. Cameron said the PM had made a cheap point after he had asked some very reasonable questions. He asked Brown to withdraw the attack.

Brown withdraw any remark? You must be kidding! To do that he would have to admit to making a mistake and an error of judgement which Brown with his huge chip on his shoulder and character flaw just simply cannot do. So with no sense of the trouble he was in, Brown just said there was common ground and again pointed to the steps he was going to take.

Cameron was not going to let this lie. He said Brown had accused him of party politics. Cameron said he had intentionally not mentioned that Labour ran Haringey Council and nor had he done so at the time of the Victoria Climbié inquiry. He asked again for the PM to please withdraw the comment.

The PM had lost the plot and just said that the whole House would want to be united. It was a bit late for that Gordon after your shameful antics!

Cameron, in his last intervention, said in a resigned, and disappointed tone that Brown won't withdraw the remark. He said he had only been trying to raise the point made by Brown's own Children's minister that people should not investigate their own conduct.

The PM merely said there would be an independent investigation and immediate action.

PMQs today has shown Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in damning light. Their behaviour was shameful and extremely callous given what was being discussed was the tragic, and avoidable death, of a 17 month old baby boy.

Brown looked evasive, shaky and cold hearted. He looked like he was trying to score points. The PM is politically tone deaf. He comes across as inhuman because he completely lacks empathy.

In contrast, Cameron was genuinely passionate and humane. This was not synthetic rage. He had said at the very beginning of his exchange with Brown that he had intended to go on the economy afterwards but he was so taken aback by Brown's response that he could not let it drop.

At this point it is worth mentioning Nick Robinson who, along with Brown and Labour, did not cover himself in glory. The BBC's political editor was on the Daily Politics show and he took the very cynical view that Cameron's decision to use all 6 questions was a combination of genuine disgust at the PM and political calculation that he couldn't believe his luck as it meant he did not have to go on the economy. He also tried to defend the Labour benches saying they were fired up to attack Cameron on the economy. I would say that such comments are not very becoming of Robinson and quite frankly indefensible. Even Jon Cruddas (Labour) and Charles Kennedy (Lib Dem) - both in the studio - did not make such crass comments. In fact they gave dignified responses which reflected well on both of them.

Had Cameron faced Tony Blair at the dispatch box today, PMQs would have been an entirely different affair. Blair always had a knack of being able to judge the political mood and he would have shown the requisite empathy that the situation deserved rather than badly miscalculating and turning an issue that ought to have unified the House into a bad tempered political affair.

I'd also say that the Speaker, Michael Martin, who has had his detractors of late - me included - performed excellently today, as he has of late. He had to intervene several times during the Brown/Cameron exchange and it was clear to me that he judged the public mood much better than Brown and reprimanded the Labour MPs for their barracking on the sensitive issue. Credit is given when it's due. Well done Mr Martin!

PMQs Ratings

The only one that matters:

Brown - 0/10 - The Prime Minister and the Labour Party were an absolute disgrace today!!!

Brown attacks tax cuts & spending... in 1997

Just read an interesting post over on the FT's Westminster blog. Worth a read.

I wrote in my last post that new Gordon is reckless and has essentially jetisoned his prudent past while Cameron was acting like Gordon of old.

The FT blog has unearthed an HM Treasury document written by Chancellor Brown in 1997 about the lessons of the previous economic cycle. He makes the case for difficult decisions, warning against kneejerk tax cuts and increases in public spending, and concludes that it is important to adopt a prudent approach and wrote: "Therefore a lesson from past mistakes is that policy makers should err on the side of caution.”

If that wasn't ironic enough given Brown's impending 'kitchen sink' approach to economic management, Brown also warns against "a lack of constancy" with fiscal rules! Hilarious!

So Gordon Brown's political transformation seems complete. He has gone from Prudent Gordon to Reckless Gordon.

The tax cut battleground

Cameron has outlined a national insurance tax break for companies as an incentive to take on staff. It would be funded from unemployment benefit savings. In other words, companies would receive a proportion of the benefit payment in the form of a tax break. Cameron said it costs the taxpayer over £8,000 every time someone takes unemployment benefit and his proposal would see approximately £2,500 of that sum used to fund a cut in the amount of NI paid by businesses. The Conservatives say their plan would create 350,000 jobs and cut the tax burden on companies by £2.6 billion.

Cameron described his announcement this morning as a "budget submission," rather than a future policy pledge for an incoming Tory government, to help alleviate unemployment which he hoped Brown would accept and Darling would implement next week in the Pre-Budget Report.

Brown has already disappointed Cameron though by rejecting it as a "one-off initiative," said the figures "simply do not add up" and said "serious policy" was needed for "serious times." The government line continues to be that the Conservatives have an incoherent economic strategy.

Moreover, as Guido has pointed out, it is more of a tax credit than a tax cut. He said that although it was more welcome help for small businesses, the problem with it was that the £2,500 tax credit was only for new created jobs and did not apply to companies that were thinking of laying off workers to cut costs. In other words, it might help small businesses, if implemented, who want to grow and recruit staff - thus cutting unemployment; but will do nothing for those who want to retain staff but cannot afford to do so - thus doing nothing to prevent unemployment.

One must conclude that this is another welcome proposal but nothing revolutionary and once again small in scope. It thus can be added to other initiatives announced by the Tories on council tax, NI and VAT.

It will undoubtedly disappoint those who wanted to see something more substantial.

If Cameron is moving towards acknowledging that monetary policy alone is going to be insufficient to get us out of recession, "fiscal stimulus," as the PM puts it, will be necessary. So again we are back to two choices. Increased public spending or cut taxes. A Keynesian spending splurge will not work; it is far too slow. So we are left with tax cuts as even Brown seems to have come to admit.

Three more questions arise:

1) What taxes to cut? 2) By how much? and 3) How to pay?

1) WHAT TAXES TO CUT? The Conservatives have thus far focused most of their attention on measures to help small businesses (council tax pledge being the exception). They reason that it is SMEs that are the driving force of the economy so that by keeping them going, the economy will be stronger.

The Lib Dems (and possibly Labour - we'll see possibly next week) have argued that income tax should be cut to help stimulate demand. The Lib Dems, for example, have said they would cut the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 16% thus helping low and middle income earners.

Ordinarily I would be all for a cut in income tax but there is a problem with it. For it to have the desired effect, the government would need to ensure that people spent the extra money they were being allowed to keep. However, given the constant flow of bad economic news, it is quite probable that a majority of people would try and pocket the tax cut, saving the money in anticipation of worse times ahead. I can't see how the government can compel people to spend the money from the tax cut given the fear being whipped up by the media.

Nevertheless, in an ideal world a combination of the Conservative and Lib Dem approach - measures to help business and a cut in income tax would probably be the best option to help alleviate the effects of the recession and help stimulate demand.

But that leads us on to 2) BY HOW MUCH? How large should the tax cut be? The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said that a tax cut would need to be in the region of £15 billion to have any effect.

The Conservatives are wedded to their 'fiscal responsibility' approach, which Rachel Sylvester in the Times today has called the 'housewife strategy' (households are having to tighten their belts and make sacrifices, so should government - it is no time to get another unaffordable credit card). He can't claim that the cupboard is bare to then suddenly magic up £15 billion worth of tax cuts. So if we really are entering the ‘tax cut war’ between the parties, the Conservatives will lose in the battle of who can promise to cut tax the most. Cameron will be trumped by both the Lib Dems and Labour which is a surprising position for a Tory leader to be in. Yet, ‘sound money’ is also a strong Conservative principle. Cameron is taking a punt that the British people will reward him for his pledge not to saddle future generations with large debts and high taxes. He is essentially saying that Gordon might have left Prudence at the alter, but she's dating Dave now. In contrast, Brown is saying to hell with Prudence, in 'unique' times like these, he needs Miss Profligate Spendthrift on his arm.

This leads us to the last question: 3) HOW TO PAY? This is the clear dividing line between Brown and Cameron. Brown is willing to borrow to cut taxes while Cameron is behaving like the Brown of old saying there should be no unfunded tax cuts. Brown is hoping that the British people will let him borrow and spend and ignore the fact that for decades he has been accusing the Tories of offering unfunded tax cuts but is now proposing to do just that himself. Cameron is hoping that the British people, and the media in particular, will not let Brown get away with it and instead will reward, prudent Cameron, the responsible steward of the economy. Cameron is setting himself out as responsible and therefore Brown as irresponsible.

There is of course more scope for Cameron to offer ‘funded’ tax cuts but he seems unwilling to go down that route, to the dismay of many Conservatives. He could pledge to cut public spending but Cameron would probably argue that cutting spending at such a time would not be ‘responsible’ as it would cut demand in a recession. However, many on the right disagree, including Nick Clegg, and say that public spending has increased by vast amounts over the last eight years or so, a significant proportion of which is wasted and spent inefficiently. But Cameron will know from his experience of the 2005 general election working for Michael Howard that a policy of tax cuts funded by pledges to cut government waste has not proved successful. Cameron might also be fearful of opening up another unnecessary front in which he is open to attacks from Brown that he is cutting vital frontline services – whether true or not. We all know that Brown doesn’t let truth and honesty get in his way. But nonetheless, if Cameron wanted to be bolder, there clearly is scope to offer funded tax cuts – though it is true that cutting waste is often easier said than done.

This is a ‘game’ of high stakes. Whoever wins the battle of borrow and spend vs. fiscal responsibility could very well have the keys for Number 10 in 2010. Cameron's approach is sensible, though not flashy, will help minimise the effects during the recession and will significantly reduce the hurt after the recession and place Britain in good shape globally ahead of the upturn. Brown's approach is likely to prove bold and brash, may very well have a greater effect during the recession (though this is not guaranteed as it could hurt the value of pound sterling, for example), but its recklessness will prove damaging after the recession as the costs of his borrow and spend policy are borne by us all through higher taxes and/or significant cuts in public spending. This could leave Britain behind the curve internationally in trying to benefit from any economic upturn.

What seems clear, however, is that Brown looks like throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at this recession in the hope that it wins him another term in office after 2010. Brown is obviously in power so we will get what he wants and Cameron can only warn, criticise and set-out what he would do differently. Unfortunately for us, that means we will ultimately suffer the consequences and if Cameron does win the next general elections he will be left picking up the pieces of an economic wreckage caused by a reckless driver by the name of Gordon Brown.

UPDATE: Adam Boulton makes a good point I meant to include. He's written: "The challenge for the Tories will be whether they hold their nerve and oppose hand backs which are likely to appeal to hard-pressed voters and businesses." Will shall see...

UPDATE 2: Been thinking... If Brown does indeed offer unfunded tax cuts Cameron needs to hit home the message hard that we will all pay for it through higher taxes. Labour may offer short-term gain, but it will end in long-term pain!

Joker Brown

Following on from Joker Darling, we now have Joker Brown currently giving his press conference...

Nick Robinson: Can you be straight with the electorate that taxes will have to rise after the recession?

Gordon Brown: I'm always honest with the British people...

I laughed out loud when he said this - clearly another deadpan comedian in government!

But I'm sorry Gordon, always honest did you say?

So...

When you called off the election a year ago and claimed that the polls had nothing to do with the decision, were you being honest?

When you delivered your last Budget as Chancellor - the tax con Budget - was that being honest with the British people (cutting the basic rate of income tax but abolishing the 10p tax rate)?

Was claiming that nobody was worse off after the abolition of the 10p tax rate being honest?

And is your repeated claim that Britain has one of the lowest national debts being honest when you refuse to accept ONS figures and refuse to add PFI liabilities, bank nationalisations and unfunded public pension liabilities to the total? You add all of those Gord and our national debt skyrockets to above 100 percent of GDP. And why are you abolishing your much vaunted fiscal rules - the bedrock of your economic policy on which you built your economic credibility - if your management of our debt has been so good?

Clearly Gordon, mendacity, rather than honesty, is your strong point!!!

Brown is the only one enjoying the recession!

ConservativeHome have produced this pretty good effort showing how much Gordon Brown is enjoying all the doom and gloom of recession. It shows the direct link between the economic news getting worse and Brown revelling in it. It also includes the damming clip of Brown responding to a phone ringing by joking that it was another bank that had gone under.

Also found another video on YouTube that makes a similar point to the one by ConservativeHome above:

Labour holds Glenrothes - why the surprise?

To listen to the BBC, Labour's victory in the Glenrothes by-election yesterday was a huge surprise. To be fair to the BBC, they weren't the only ones to expect a SNP victory. The betting markets thought an SNP victory was on the cards - as did the SNP it must be said. It was also strange to see how the media shifted their predictions. Initially, they expected an SNP victory - ever since the by-election was first announced. However, by the weekend, the media said it was going to be a close result but Labour had the edge. As this week progressed however Labour were sounding more pessimistic while the SNP more optimistic so the media changed their predictions once again. But as Guido has pointed out, the PoliticsHome PHI 100 showed there was a sharp divide between what the media thought (SNP win) and what politicians thought (Labour hold).

The fact that Labour retained the seat came as no surprise to me at all - though the scale of their victory did, I must admit.

Had this by-election taken place a couple of months ago - or put it another way, had we not gone through the financial crisis - and Labour had still won I would have been just as surprised as the reporters and commentators of the BBC.

However, the financial crisis did intervene and helped improve the Prime Minister's standing and in doing so raised expectations - mine at any rate. Throw into the mix that Labour were defending a 10,644 majority in a traditional Labour seat which neighboured the Prime Minister's own constituency as well as the fact that Gordon 'McCavity' Brown campaigned twice in Glenrothes breaking convention that Prime Ministers do not campaign in by-elections, all pointed to a narrow Labour win to me, countering the normal trend that government's lose mid-term by-elections, particularly those run by Gordon Brown. The fact that McCavity showed his face in Glenrothes - not once, but twice - gave me confidence in a Labour victory. If Brown thought Labour were going to lose he would have been on the other side of the world!

Nevertheless, one should not understate that this is an excellent result for Labour and Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister's position has always been safe since the onset of the financial crisis - Labour would never make the mistake of being accused of putting party before country - so the result of this by-election mattered little in this respect. However, it is still an important result. Labour suffered a swing of 4.96% to the SNP but still comfortably retained the seat with a 6,737 majority which was a huge surprise and also very impressive given that this by-election took place mid-way through this Parliament, 11 years intro a Labour government, and at the beginning of a recession. The result will strengthen the Prime Minister's authority as Labour is already spinning it was a vote of confidence in Gordon Brown (I wonder whether they would have said the opposite had Labour been defeated?). Finally, the win for Labour plays nicely into the current media narrative that 'Brown is back' and helps reinforce the impression that the momentum is with Brown and Labour (as opposed to with Salmond and Cameron).

So how much credit can Brown take for the victory? One must concede that he deserves some credit because he has helped create an environment conducive for the victory. He has upped his game, and has won plaudits for the way he handled the financial crisis. His team of spinners have done very well in convincing the media our Dear Leader has been the saviour of the banking system and the world and this has translated into improvements in Labour's standings in the poll. Brown has been transformed from a defeated man walking to his electoral death who nobody was listening to anymore, to invigorated Gordon who has bounced back, is comfortable and enjoying himself, and is at the top of his game. The media have been instrumental in constructing this new narrative the past couple of months. This may very well have encouraged voters to reconsider Brown and Labour and not write them off like they were doing just a couple of months ago under the weight of a string of bad news.

However, as Professor John Curtice has argued, the result should largely be seen in the context of a unique set of local circumstances. Labour had learned from its past mistakes of fighting the SNP. They learned that campaigning against independence is insufficient. In Glenrothes, Labour changed tack and campaigned as an opposition - the SNP candidate Peter Grant is the Leader of the local council and was forced by the Labour Party to spend much of the campaign having to defend the SNP's record at both a local and national level; the particular issue of charges for homecare clearly damaging the SNP's chances. This proved to be a clever and astute move by Labour. However, what it also means is that one should be cautious in extrapolating too much from this result other than it helps feed the media's 'Brown bounce' narrative.

What of the Tories and Lib Dems? In what many thought was a tight two-horse race, these two parties saw their support squeezed and they suffered badly accordingly. Both the Tory and Lib Dem candidates lost their deposits after failing to win 5% of the vote. The only 'triumph' for the Conservatives was that they beat the Lib Dems to finish third but that is a pretty feeble consolation. The Tory revival under David Cameron continues to stop at Hadrian's Wall. The Lib Dems would have been disappointed to again finish 4th in a Scottish by-election and would be particularly perturbed to see their share of the vote fall 10% from the 2005 general election. Some are suggesting that there policy of spending cuts and tax cuts played badly in Glenrothes in contrast to Labour's pledge to increase spending on public services. This could be true in work-shy Scotland but if I was Clegg I wouldn't get rid of his policy just yet. But he does need to find some way of countering Brown's attempts at distorting their policy. Linking to Obama as Clegg did at PMQs on Wednesday might help.

PMQs - Leaders desperate to link to Obama

PMQs today was understandably overshadowed by all the coverage of the US Presidential Election. It also came as no surprise that all three party leaders sought to cash in on Senator Obama’s victory – all trying to associate themselves with the popular President Elect.

Cameron used Obama’s victory to throw Gordon Brown's conference slogan that "it's no time for a novice" back at him. He asked the prime minister whether his congratulatory message to the President Elect included the phrase "this is no time for a novice?" Brown grinned at this as he had expected Cameron to deploy the line. Accordingly the PM was prepared and hit back with another of his conference lines that "serious times need serious people." Brown has been spinning ever since the Labour Conference that this is no time for a novice and that his experience is what the country needs. But Obama's victory has given Cameron the greatest retort given the President-elects popularity. Cameron can now point across the Atlantic – and he did - and say Obama does not have any executive experience but that does not rule him out of the job of being the “world’s most powerful man.” Moreover, Obama's time for a change message and decision to blame Bush (and by implication McCain) for the economic problems are themes that Cameron has, and will continue to run with. If Americans thought it was time to throw out the old and in with the new, why not the British. David Cameron and the Conservative Party clearly think that Obama's victory is good news for them. Not so, says the Prime Minister and Labour Party. They have interpreted Obama’s victory as great news for them. His victory does not mean it is time for a change or that the electorate should embrace the untried and untested, it means instead that the progressive politics of the centre left have just been endorsed by the American electorate and Labour offers just this type of politics, such as a Keynesian spending splurge, the Prime Minister pointed out. This provided the perfect opening for the Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg, who has been calling for tax cuts for low and middle income earners. If, Clegg asked, the progressive policies of Gordon Brown and Barack Obama were so similar then why was the Prime Minister not calling for similar tax cuts? This was Clegg’s way of linking the Lib Dems to Obama’s victory. Brown responded that the big difference was that the President Elect was not calling for £20 billion worth of spending cuts like the Lib Dems. (This is actually not true – it is a misrepresentation of Lib Dem policy - but the Prime Minister does not let truth get in the way of his answers).

Other than the leaders giving their own interpretations of the significance of Obama’s victory on British politics, the leaders did discuss other issues. David Cameron and Gordon Brown clashed over the level of Britain's personal and public debt whereas Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown clashed on tax and spend policy.

David Cameron accused the government of leading the UK into a longer recession than other major economies because of the extent of borrowing. Cameron opened the rowdy exchange by noting that: "This week the European Commission said that Britain is facing a deeper recession next year than the United States, than Japan or than any major EU economy. The Prime Minister kept telling us that Britain was better prepared to face the recession, in fact we are the worst prepared. Why was he wrong?" he asked. The Prime Minister noted this was the only time Cameron had quoted the European Commission! He insisted that combined debt was lower than in comparable countries and government borrowing smaller as a share of GDP than in 1997. Brown told him that: "The reasons why we are better prepared than other countries is that for years we have had low interest rates, we are now getting inflation down and it will come down in the next year, we have high levels of employment, higher than almost every other major industrial country, and we can come through this. At the same time, corporate balance sheets are strong, outside the financial sector," he added.

But Cameron came back saying the PM cannot hide from this. He asked: "If we are better prepared, why is our recession forecast to be deeper?” Cameron said for years Brown had read out lists of countries we were safer than. Now Britain was safer than just two countries - Estonia and Latvia. They escaped grip of Stalin, we're still in it, Cameron quipped. The Prime Minister replied that it was because the economy had benefited from "10 years of economic growth, 10 years of stability, [and] 10 years where three million jobs have been created." He added that several EU economies had been in negative growth in the second quarter of this year, whereas Britain was not.

The Tory leader then asked whether: "One of the reasons why our recession is predicted to be deeper is that we have got such high levels of personal debt?" Cameron claimed the UK has the "highest level of household debt of any major economy." Cameron told Brown that he could not build a new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt. The PM said France’s debt was 55.5 percent while Germany’s was 56.1 percent. He said Cameron had to look at personal and public debt together and that was what he would do.

Cameron said the IMF had warned Brown about debt levels before. He started to read a quote from Brown taken from the 1995 Brown Labour conference but was cut off by Labour jeers. The Speaker hilariously intervened getting in on the fun by telling Labour MPs: “I want to hear what was said at Labour party conference as I'm not allowed to be there!” Cameron continued with his Brown quote saying the PM had said in 1995: "because I care we will not build a new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt." Cameron then asked when will there be an enquiry into the failure of our regulatory system as the new Treasury minister, Lord (Paul) Myners, had called for? The Prime Minister said Myners had said no such thing. He said Cameron was showing himself to be a novice in procedure.

Cameron quoted Lord Myners agreeing with a fellow peer in the House of Lords that such an enquiry was necessary. Cameron finished by saying that the PM was demonstrating that he cannot provide the change people want. He said today the US had voted for change and asked how much longer do we have to put up with more of the same? Brown said the reason people voted for change is that they wanted progressive politics - all policies opposed by the Conservatives. Tory party policies were rejected in the US & UK. The PM finished by saying it was a truly historic occasion in the US but this was met by chants of ‘change’ from the Conservative benches.

Nick Clegg congratulated Obama and wished him luck as he said the hopes and expectations to change the world were immense. He said the central policy of Obama was to cut low and middle-income taxes. Why would the PM not follow suit? Brown said the American electorate had not voted for Lib Dem policies as Clegg claimed.

Clegg accused Brown of copying the Tories by offering to give more money to millionaires. He called on the Prime Minister to put more money into the pockets of low income right now. The Prime Minister said tax and spending policy must add up. He said that if Clegg was going to oppose then he was out of touch with British people.

PMQs Ratings

Verdict: Score Draw

Gordon Brown - 7/10
David Cameron - 7/10
Nick Clegg - 7/10

More thoughts on US Presidential election

Labour is spinning that Obama's victory is good for them because of their progressive politics.

Lib Dems are spinning that his victory is good for them because he has promised tax cuts for the 'poor'.

I think these are pretty thin reasons to celebrate.

In terms of which party Obama's victory helps most, it has to be the Conservatives. Brown has been spinning ever since the Labour Conference that this is no time for a novice and that his experience is what the country needs. But Obama's victory gives Cameron the greatest retort given the President-elects popularity. Cameron can now point across the pond and say Obama doesn't have any executive experience but that didn't rule him out of the job. Moreover, Obama's time for a change message and decision to blame Bush (and by implication McCain) for the economic problems are themes that Cameron has, and will continue to run with. If Americans thought it was time to throw out the old and in with the new, why not the British. Obama's victory is good news for David Cameron and the Conservatives.

Other thoughts... This is a good day for pro-Americans. No longer will the anti-American Europeans, those snobbish liberals, be able to sneer at America calling it a backward, racist country. The election of a (half) Black African American has put paid to that. How enlightened are Europeans? How many black Prime Ministers, Presidents, and leaders do you see in Europe? For that matter, how many Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's are there in Europe? The American Dream is alive and well!

Last point... Turnout for the US elections was only 64 percent which is surprisingly low. I had expected turnout to be in the 70s given all the excitement about the election.

Why did John McCain lose the election?

For me it came down to three primary reasons:

1) The Economy - You can clearly see in the polls that as soon as the financial crisis hit, Obama's poll ratings went steadily up, while McCain's went down. The Republican's had had the White House for 8 years and this had happened on their watch. Events went against McCain. His strong suit was not the economy but foreign policy and national security. These issues were pushed to the back ground. Obama is no king on the economy but his message of change resonated and the economic downturn helped him. It's ironic that the effect the economy has had on this election. A) It seems to be helping Gordon Brown (why i don't know) but it hurt McCain and the Republicans; and B) had the Democrats and GOP known that the economy would play centre stage surely the Presidential battle would have been between Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney? It would have been interesting to see how that played out.

2) George Bush - Obama did a good job of linking McCain to Bush despite the fact that the two men often bitterly disagreed with one another. McCain didn't do a good enough job of distancing himself. Despite being a maverick and having a deserved reputation for reaching across the floor working with the likes of Ted Kennedy, McCain struggled to de-tar himself from the unpopular Bush-Republican brush. This hurt him bad.

3) Sarah Palin - A criticism of the McCain campaign was that we did not see enough of the 'real John McCain'. He had denounced the Republican Fundamentalist Right and yet ended up turning to them during his campaign when he hired former Bush aides but none more so when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. I think this was a mistake but in defence of McCain, despite the fact that he was a maverick with bipartisan credentials, his message of change - in what undoubtedly was a change election whichever way it went - was never going to trump Obama's who had the advantage of being Democrat and physically embodied 'change'. I would argue that it was the failure of the 'real John McCain' that forced him to get in bed with 'devil'. One can still argue that he was wrong to do so, but he needed to change things and also needed to do something to get the Republican base excited about his candidacy. Hence the disaster of Sarah Palin. Yes, she did indeed invigorate the Republican base who had been distinctly lukewarm about McCain's candidacy but it came at a cost - he ended up alienating all the independents he used to attract. Furthermore, whoever thought that choosing a women would appeal to disaffected Hilary Clinton supporters was a moron. More charitably, she may have been chosen to indicate change (first female VP) and reinforce McCain's ant-establishment, anti-Washington message. Either way, i think it's fair to say the choice of Palin has to be seen as a mistake.

These are my top three reasons why McCain lost. There are other important reasons of course. One important reason was the huge support Obama had within the media which meant he got a soft ride, not just against McCain, but also against Hilary Clinton. Another reason was that Obama declined to accept Federal Funding, despite saying he would do so, which meant that he was able to vastly out-fundraise McCain which in turn meant that he could out-spend him. This meant that Obama could dominate McCain with his TV election ads; he could open far more campaign offices in each state than McCain; this far superior organisation was critically important in the ‘get the vote out’ drives; and finally, it meant Obama was able to inject funds into ‘safe’ Republican states, forcing McCain to use his limited finances to shore-up support in states he normally would not have needed to work too hard to keep.

In was always going to be a tough ask for McCain and so it proved.

Obama wins... let the disappointment begin!

As expected Senator Barrack Obama has won the US Presidential election.

But sorry to be a party pooper, but given the extraordinarily high expectations that have been built up during the campaign, a President Obama will surely only disappoint.

It was always likely to be a Democrat year (spare a thought for Hilary Clinton - she must be gutted as 2008 was supposed to be her year), but Obama's victory comes at a time of huge difficulties. He has already indicated that one term might not be enough. In his in tray will of course be the economy. Talk seems to have been on some kind of Franklin D Roosevelt/Keynesian plan, spending money on America's infrastructure and creating jobs. But FDR's public works programme intended to lift America out of the Great Depression financed by federal borrowing did not help. As Andrew Neil has noted, although it did wonders for America's morale (and helped get FDR re-elected three times!) it's effect on the economy and unemployment was marginal. US dole queues only started to plummet when Roosevelt went on to a war economy footing as Hitler's War raged in Europe and he knew America could not forever avoid engagement in it.

Other issues in the in-tray are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Despite all the talk of pulling troops out of Iraq at the beginning of his campaign, Obama is not going to immediately pull out troops. Withdrawal will not be immediate and will be dependent on the realities on the ground. As for Afghanistan and Pakistan he faces huge problems. The European love affair with Obama will be sorely tested by the new President's foreign policy aimed at these two countries. Obama will want the Europeans to commit more troops to the NATO effort in Afghanistan but he will soon find out that Europe is weak and despite all the platitudes they will once again fail to deliver. I can also see the Europeans (and the rest of the world) falling out with Obama as US foreign policy fails to take the radical departure from the second term of the Bush Presidency they expect. Joy will turn to disappointment.

Furthermore, Obama also has to deal with Congress. It looks unlikely that the Democrats will win the magic 60 Senators they need in the Senate to prevent Republicans using the filibuster to talk out legislation. This might bode ill for his plans to radically reform health care in the United States. Nevertheless, the Democrats will dominate Congress - both the Senate and the House of Reps. But this might not be the advantage it seems. He will have to balance the conflicting demands of the hard and soft Left. Furthermore, have a Democratic Congress might impede his efforts to win a second term - if disappointment doesn't do that first. American's do not traditionally like one party dominating the Presidency and Congress for too long, preferring balance. This could offer the Republicans a way back in 2012 (so long as they get their house in order and under no circumstances adopt Sarah Palin as their Presidential nominee!!!). Finally, despite all his best intentions, Obama could be derailed by the one thing that afflicts all leaders... events dear boy, events!

That said, Obama has a huge mandate and has the enormous power of executive privilege. It is imperative that he hits the ground running and uses the goodwill he obviously will have at home and abroad to achieve as much as he can within his first 100 days. A couple of things I'd expect him to do to help extend this goodwill will be to announce the closure of Guantanamo Bay and also repudiate the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes. (Talking of which, President Bush has only 3 months or so left of his own Presidency. Much work is left to be done. He had better get cracking if he's to launch those tactical nukes at Iran and North Korea before he has to retire to his Texas ranch! Joke!)

Labour's irresponsible tax cuts

It is being widely reported that in Alistair Darling's Pre-Budget Report (expected in the next couple of weeks) he will announce tax cuts - funded by borrowing. The government will argue it is another step they are taking to help people through a recession. However, implicit in their plan - as political as ever from our Dear Leader - is that they hope it puts the Conservatives in a bind. This is because Osborne is likely to reject the tax cuts as irresponsible, because they are funded by government borrowing, but this will then leave the Tories out of touch with the electorate who want tax cuts and will also foster disunity within the Conservative Party where many MPs and activists want tax cuts offered.

ConservativeHome has an excellent post on this today. They have been broadly supportive of Osborne's attempts to articulate a credible Conservative policy position on the economy - as was i yesterday - but now argue, faced with this new threat from Brown, that "the Tories need a responsible tax cut plan to beat Labour's irresponsible tax cut plan." ConservativeHome argues that "If Labour intend to finance their tax plan with extra borrowing we should put forward our own tax relief plan and it should be funded by tighter control of public spending," and they conclude that "The Tory tax cut plan does not need to be as big as Labour's" but that the Tories should remember "You don't beat something with nothing."

I agree with ConservativeHome that the party's 'fiscally conservative/responsible' stance, in other words, the country should live within its means, is one that could resonate with voters but that there is real danger with the government's tax cut approach. If it is funded by borrowing then it should be condemned as irresponsible. But i am not convinced that the Tories should respond to the government's political games with tax cuts of their own.

One question i have is how big is this tax cut from Labour actually going to be? The government seems to be promising more government spending and now tax cuts. It is all adding up. It is unlikely that the tax cuts will be huge in scope. But I'd expect they will, nevertheless, try to be as eye-catching as possible - possibly something that helps individuals and families (though Brown has already had to borrow (£2.7 billion to make up for his 10p tax rate cock-up).

So, what should Cameron/Osborne do about it?

1) Do nothing - Brand the tax cut as irresponsible and desperate. Government has lost all credibility on the economy and is set us up for further ruin etc etc

2) Offer modest tax cuts paid for through pledges to cut government waste (always easier to say than do)

3) Offer substantial tax cuts paid for via cuts in public spending or increased borrowing.

To my mind, only options 1) and 2) are serious contenders. Option 3) just wouldn't fit the Conservative's 'fiscal responsibility' agenda.

Another dilemma also presents itself. If the Tory leadership decides to offer tax cuts, do they:

1) Wait until Darling announces his, try and trump him, but risk Labour saying they are making the running and the Tories are copying them - the opposite of 12 months ago.

OR

2) Pre-emptive strike on tax cuts to say the Tories are making the running, but risk being trumped and derided for being panicked into the move. There is also the risk that Labour is just flushing out the Tories and won't in fact offer tax cuts.

The more i think about it, the more convinced i am that the Conservatives should not respond to Brown's politically calculated tax cut ploy. The Conservatives are rightly positioning themselves as the 'responsible' party in sharp contrast to Brown who has borrowed, taxed and spent and got us into the mess only now to offer more borrowing, spending and another cynical tax cut (remember the 'Tax Con' Budget and the 10p rate of income tax anyone?) to get us out of it.

If the Conservatives are spooked into responding all they will be doing is showing that Brown is setting the agenda and they are merely jumping through his hoops. Osborne and Cameron need to stick to their agenda. I'd doubt Labour's tax cuts would be substantial - if they materialise at all - and the Conservatives have already offered modest tax cuts, including pledging not to to raise corporation tax on small businesses as the government plans.

I also doubt whether Brown would win much media support for his type of irresponsible tax cut. Headlines such as "Spend, spend, spend" were also met with critical editorials denouncing higher spending funded by yet more borrowing. I'd expect the newspapers to be as critical, if not more, of a cynical move by Brown to outflank the Tories on tax funded by more borrowing.

As a final point, I'd remind readers that whenever Brown tries to play political games, such as the 10p tax fiasco and last years Pre-Budget Report with inheritance tax, he always ends up...

In the Brown!!!

Another misleading 'poll' headline

What is it with newspapers giving totally misleading headlines following an opinion poll? I've blogged about this before.

Today we've seen the Telegraph lead on its front page with the headline: "Credit crunch slashes Tory poll lead." The Telegraph uses the pollster YouGov. The impression the headline gives is that the Conservative lead has indeed dramatically fallen. However, this has not happened.

The poll results are:

Conservatives - 42%

Labour - 33%

Lib Dems - 15%

According to the Telegraph, this represents a narrowing of the Tory lead from 14 points to 'just' 9 points, with the Tories down 3 and Labour up 2.

However, this is because the Telegraph contrasted the results not with the last YouGov poll but with the last Telegraph YouGov poll (4 October). All newspapers do this with their poll results.

It is totally misleading!

Had the Telegraph contrasted the latest YouGov results with the last YouGov poll it would be the Mirror YouGov poll (20 October) and the headline would have been completely different because the changes were Conservatives - no change; and Labour - minus 1. So the headline should have been: "Tories increase lead back to double figures" or "Tory lead holds steady" or even "Labour advance halted." It most certainly should NOT be "Credit crunch slashes Tory poll lead"!!!

Another annoying thing the newspapers do with polling, while I'm getting this off my chest, is not even accept the last polling result of their sister newspaper. For example, both the Independent and the Independent on Sunday (IoS) use ComRes. One would have thought that when comparing the latest ComRes Poll with the last one, the Independent and IoS would refer to each other's polls - after all their owners are the same even if they have different editors. Don't be stupid, that would eliminate the ability to have grotesque headlines that distort the political reality.

It's about time this was sorted out!

Osborne's plan - 'fiscal responsibility'

George Osborne has just given an excellent speech at the LSE on the economy. The theme of the speech was 'Conservative fiscal responsibility'. It was a speech that comprehensively demolished Brown and Darling's plans for a Keynesian spending splurge and then proceeded to clearly, and reassuringly, outline the steps he would take if in office.

It was so good to see Osborne have the intellectual confidence to take the fight to Labour and show their 1970s throwback policies are intellectually bankrupt. Margaret Thatcher did so in the 1980s and was so successful that Blair and Brown had to accept her economic thinking - rhetorically if not always in practice. But as Osborne pointed out in his speech, Brown has now given up on the rhetoric of sound public finances.

Osborne rightly said that Keynesian demand management had comprehensively failed in the 1970s. He said that big spending projects would not be finished in time to give any benefit and said the government had a lousy track record of completing big capital expenditure projects on time and on budget e.g. the schools building programme. He also invoked the experience of Japan. Between 1992 and 2002, Japan tried the Keynesian approach. The result after those 10 years was a debt burden which had increased by 56% and an economy which had only grown by 9%. What is more, the country was left with lots of white elephants after the ill-fated spending splurge.

The shadow Chancellor invoked former Chancellor Nigel Lawson in explaining his thinking on economic management. Lawson had said in his 1984 Mais Lecture that it is the job of monetary policy, not fiscal policy, to manage demand. The responsibility of fiscal policy is sound public finances. Hear Hear!

This had been the accepted economic strategy of successful economies for two decades. Even Brown said in his 1997 Labour Conference Speech that he had learned the mistakes of the past that governments could not spend there way out of recession. It is a shame the Prime Minister is returning to his old Labour, socialist roots!

Talking of Lawson, he popped up Wednesday at a House of Lords economic seminar and made the point that interest rates must be slashed but the Treasury should refrain from cutting taxes or increasing spending in the face of the coming recession.

Back to Osborne... he said that borrowing of course increased during a recession as the automatic stabilisers kicked in. It is the cost of recession... Brown's recession. It is an overdraft, not a plan for recovery. Cameron made this point the other day and Brown deliberately used the point out of context at PMQs, repeatedly saying that Cameron was in favour of borrowing and thus spending when Osborne was not, thus trying to suggest Tory economic policy was in disarray. Pathetic if that's all our Prime Minister can come up with!!!

Returning to his twin themes of "Conservative fiscal responsibility" and "fixing the roof when the sun was shining" Osborne said that the year before the 1990s recession, the Conservative government had a small surplus of 0.2% of GDP. However, a year before this recession, the Labour government had a deficit of 2.6% of GDP. Brown comprehensively failed to put contingency plans in place for a downturn, as the IFS said when Brown handed over the reins of the Treasury to Darling.

Osborne made the point that increasing spending is not cost free. It makes it harder for the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to cut interest rates as it leads to inflation. Increased spending funded by increased borrowing also ultimately leads to increased taxes or cuts in public spending so that the debt can be paid back. Fiscal loosening and increasing the size of Britain's deficit will not work to help a recession and more than that it will undermine the subsequent recovery by destabilising the system.

The shadow Chancellor then set out the Conservative's alternative plan to get the country out of recession which can be summed up as 'fiscal responsibility'. Cameron referred to this in his Conference speech when he said he was a 'fiscal conservative'. I have been critical of Conservative economic policy recently because i was concerned that the Conservatives had nothing to say about the economy other than that it was all Brown's fault. I argued that this was not enough especially as the other parties were offering alternatives - Labour spending and Lib Dem tax cuts - from what i saw as the do-nothing status quo advocated by the Tories.

I don't mind admitting that Osborne's speech today and Lawson's comments Wednesday have reassured me that current Conservative policy is not a do-nothing strategy as i unfairly characterised it. It is strategy that will put the country on the soundest possible footing and recognises that government action for its own sake is not what is required. A strategy of 'fiscal responsibility recognises the realities we face and seeks to put them right in a way that is best not only for the present but also for Britain's long term recovery and does nothing to jeopardise either. It is a responsible and sustainable approach which will not burden future generations with mountain's of debt. I was frustrated with the Conservative's Party's inability to articulate what it would do differently and had argued that the Tories should offer tax cuts to help the economy. However, Lord Lawson, a pro-tax cutter himself, argues that "by having big cyclical tax cuts now you would weakening your weapons for the future." Consequently, the fiscally responsible approach outlined by Osborne has won me round.

Osborne said that his approach would be 1) Let monetary policy work; 2) Do not make the Bank of England's task harder - by this he means by increasing spending which would heighten inflationary pressures thus making it more difficult to cut interest rates; 3) Timely, responsible, targeted fiscal measures to help families and companies through the difficulties of recession; 4) a new fiscal framework (the government has abandoned its fiscal rules and has not replaced them) which will see a balanced budget by the end of the economic cycle policed by an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility; 5) Prepare economy for recovery by addressing the structural and geographical imbalance in the British economy. UK's growth (75%) was far too narrowly confined to just three sectors - housing, finance, and retail - which has meant Britain is especially vulnerable in a downturn.

For too long the parties have appeared too similar. No longer. The economy has finally provided clear dividing lines between Labour and the Conservatives.

As Osborne said: "So there's the choice in British politics: irresponsible borrowing now and higher taxes later under Labour; or the responsible Conservative plan. Let the Bank of England cut interest rates now and lay the ground for lower taxes later."

UPDATE: Angela Eagle is just on the BBC claiming Osborne is planning on cutting spending. Hello? Did you listen to the speech? What a pathetic response from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. Is that all she can do - fall back on tired stereotypes. And why did the BBC interviewer not slap her down?

Donate and save a life

I've just signed up to become a UK Transplant Donor. I had seen an article that triggered my move and I thought why not blog about it. After all, when we're all pushing up the daisies, what use will we have for our own organs? Moreover, you may one day depend on someone else's generosity...

Today more than 9,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant that could save or dramatically improve their life. Most are waiting for a kidney, others for a heart, lung or liver transplant. But less than 3,000 transplants are carried out each year.

You no longer need to hold a donor card. What is important is that you register and get on the NHS Organ Donor Register. To sign up, click here.

Only 25% of the UK population have signed the register. Do some good and sign up today.

VAT and Brown doing favours for chums

The Chancellor announced today that he will waive VAT on the sale of the new X-Factor Help For Heroes single (cover version of Mariah Carey's Hero by the X-Factor finalists), by making an exceptional one-off charitable donation equivalent to the sum of the VAT receipts collected on sales of the single.

This is good news of course. Help For Heroes provides vital care for men and women wounded in the line of service.

I know Brown waived VAT for the 2004 Band Aid single (worthwhile cause) and is doing the same for Help for Heroes (again, another worthwile cause), but why is the government still forcing charities to pay VAT in the first place?

And why has Help for Heroes come in for special treatment when others are passed by? Is it because Gordon wants to look popular (thus only 'rewards' charities with huge appeal) or does it have anything to do with the fact that Brown is chums with Piers Morgan who's also currently advising him?!!!

Weren't the fiscal rules meant to be forever?

Last night Alistair Darling killed off Gordon Brown's much trumpeted fiscal rules in his Mais lecture (though failed to outline what will go in their place). The Chancellor said last night: “To apply the fiscal rules in a rigid manner today would be perverse.” The basic argument of the government now is that times have changed and therefore so should the fiscal rules. Darling made this point yesterday also: "It is natural that the conduct of policy should evolve. Just as markets change, so should policy."

Hang on a minute... as George Osborne has noted, wasn't the whole point of the fiscal rules that they were designed explicitly to take account of the economic cycle?

Didn't Gordon say:

"The new ambition for our country is long-term economic strength and stability based on an unshakeable commitment to prudent monetary and fiscal rules." (Financial Statement - 17 March 1998)

"Our fiscal rules are set not for a year or even two years, but for the entire economic cycle... at all times—now and in the future—we will never compromise our commitment to meet our fiscal rules and disciplines" (Budget Statement - 17 April 2002)

"Our monetary and fiscal foundation, which is based on the independence of the Bank of England, imposes a symmetrical target for inflation, requires debt at low levels, holds to tough fiscal rules over the economic cycle and is thus designed not just for times of high growth, but for a global contraction with all its attendant difficulties." (Pre-Budget Report - 27 November 2002)

"As with monetary policy, so our fiscal policy is designed to help sustain growth at every stage in the economic cycle. Our fiscal rules are set for the long term and based on deliberately cautious assumptions, including for revenues... Our commitment to meeting these fiscal rules is not just for this year and this economic cycle, but for the long term... " (Pre-Budget Report - 27 November 2002)

"I have said that our fiscal framework is designed not only so that we make the right decisions when the world economy is growing, but so that it is robust so that at all times we meet our fiscal rules. An alternative approach has been put: that, instead of our holding firm to this long-term course, this stage of the economic cycle would be the time to cut spending and borrowing. I have examined such an approach. It would lead directly to depressed demand, rising unemployment, and the old familiar boom-and-bust approach." (Pre-Budget Report - 27 November 2002)

"Looking forward, while vigilant to the global economic cycle, the challenge is to strengthen the British model for stability, and our objective must be to lock in that stability—not just for a year or two, or for an economic cycle, but for a generation." (Financial Statement - 17 March 2004)

Gordon on the fiscal rules' importance to govt's economic competence:

He described the rules as “the basis on which I think the public has seen this government as competent." (2003)

Gordon's not so psychic powers:

"There were many who opposed our decision to make the Bank of England independent, others who opposed the tough controls on borrowing and spending, and many also who opposed our new fiscal rules and disciplines. There were some in this House who predicted that our policies would bring recession." (Budget Statement - 7 March 2001)

"Those in this House who have forecast recession and those who have called our public spending plans unaffordable have been consistently wrong." (Financial Statement - 16 March 2005)

Gordon's Budgets and fiscal rules:

The number of times he has repeatedly referred to his fiscal rules in Budget Statements indicates the importance he attached to them... before they collapsed and had to be abolished.

2007 Budget - 9 mentions
2006 Budget - 16 mentions
2005 Budget - 6 mentions
2004 Budget - 19 mentions
2003 Budget - 8 mentions
2002 Budget - 8 mentions
2001 Budget - 8 mentions
2000 Budget - 10 mentions
1999 Budget - 6 mentions

My my Gordon. You really must be careful what you say in the future! Such careless talk will cost your political career!!!

Judging Brown by his own words, the death of the fiscal rules is nothing short of a total humiliation for him and signals the end to any claim Brown may still have for sound economic management and economic competence!