The impact of the former chancellor's book on his party pales into insignificance given the current dangers of the austerity consensus
Perhaps I was unduly influenced by re-reading John Le Carr�'s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy on holiday; but when I returned to London to hear that Alistair Darling had published a book whose revelations were a gift to the Conservatives, the thought occurred that this could be a sinister plot by extreme rightwing elements in the security services.
In the case of the quintessentially decent and honourable Darling, this is obviously far-fetched. But younger readers might be interested to know that maverick elements in the security services did their best to destabilise Harold Wilson, Labour leader in the 1960s and 1970s.
As it turns out, some of the more far-fetched advance leaks from the former chancellor's book were, well, far-fetched. But there is no doubt about his anger ? this seems to be a case of "equally in sorrow and in anger" ? and the short-term disruptive impact is obvious, just when it seems to me that shadow chancellor Ed Balls has had George Osborne on the run.
In the long run, however, I expect the fuss to die down. Feuds of this sort go with the Labour party's territory, although in the past there was usually a decent interval before former ministers vented their wrath. As senior Tories know, what will matter at the next election is the state of the economy, and there are gnawing doubts as to whether the Osborne "strategy" is going to deliver the goods.
Meanwhile, the coverage of the Darling book is a classic example of the modern tendency to paint public figures in stark colours, paying insufficient attention to the balance of good and bad points, to say nothing of the evidence which does not fit the story.
Thus, Darling makes it clear that he knew his appointment as chancellor was a "caretaking" arrangement, so there should have been nothing surprising about the prime minister's desire to reshuffle the cabinet, whether or not this was sensible. Again, Darling can fairly criticise Gordon Brown for all sorts of things, but it seems to be the view of other world leaders that Brown rose to the occasion when it came to that G20 rescue package.
Darling makes much of disagreements with his interfering PM over the budget of 2009: "Gordon and I were unable to agree about growth forecasts and strategy; our disagreement can be boiled down to investment in the economy versus the need to cut borrowing." Yet he refers with apparent approval to the message he received at around the same time from Labour's pollster, Philip Gould, that the voters wanted Labour "to take measures to restart growth, for example, through investment in the economy". (My italics.)
I propose this week to pass over the private grief involved in relations between Darling and the governor of the Bank of England. Darling certainly does not reserve his ire for members of his own party. Of particular interest is his view that the behaviour of our present chancellor, George Osborne, was both "foolish" and "dangerous" in the run-up to the Labour government's recapitalisation of the banks. Darling deserves credit for his role in this rescue operation, but he believes Osborne should not have done his best to spoil the dramatic effect of the recapitalisation announcement by effectively leaking conversations that were market-sensitive and confidential.
But "Here we are," as Harold Macmillan once said, "and the question is, where do we go from here?"
Nowhere, it seem, if Osborne and the German paymasters (or not) of the eurozone have their way. The programme is even more austere at a time when we are all mired in what is effectively a prolonged recession. It almost beggars belief that the "growth plan" espoused by the chancellor and economists who wrote to the Financial Times last week focuses on a cut in the top rate of tax. At a time when we are most certainly not all in this together, this is planned penury with a vengeance.
One of the signatories to the FT letter, DeAnne Julius, was not at her best when trying to justify this on the Today programme. Her main argument seemed to be that the top rate ought to come down now because high taxes caused a lot of trouble in the 1970s. Well, apart from the fact that were many other factors contributed to the problems of the 1970s ? such as two oil crises and rip-roaring inflation ? there is a world of difference between a 50p top rate and the 83% (98% on investment income), which were the top marginal rates for most of the 1970s.
Roy Jenkins ? chancellor from 1967 to 1970 ? was of the view that the top rate should be below 50%, and perhaps 45% would, in due course, look and feel a lot less unattractive ? although you can be sure that certain lobbies would be trying to get it down towards zero.
But the political insensitivity of a reduction ought to restrain even this coalition. Meanwhile the estimated �2.7bn yield is not chickenfeed. Without it this government would no doubt impose even more penury. As for the "incentive" effect of a cut in the top rate of tax, I am reminded of the Michael Frayn character who says words to the effect "you mean I can earn more money for the same amount of work? Sure, I'll work harder."
Let us not forget: the banking system was itself bankrupt, and it was rescued by taxpayers' money ? the kind of money that would not even be there if lobbies such as the Republican Tea Party had their way. Which brings us to the Vickers report on the banks. The banks have done their lobbying, and the signs are that Osborne wishes to kick proposals for serious reforms into touch. The chancellor should call the banks' bluff. But has he the guts?
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/11/alistair-darlings-anger-hardly-seems-to-matter
Taxonomy Dimitar Berbatov Strictly Come Dancing Peter Crouch Craig Bellamy JS Bach
No comments:
Post a Comment