Pink nonsense

It looks like Gordon Brown broke into The Financial Times last night and wrote its second leader – which is a summary of all Labour’s clichéd attack points, strikingly unworthy of the newspaper’s normally excellent comment pages. It reads like Brown’s more awkward moments in PMQs.  Here are a few examples.

 “The Tories have given the impression they are opposed to the abolition of the 10p tax rate, without pledging to reinstate it. They are against raising vehicle excise duty on older cars without saying what they would do to plug the gap in tax receipts.”

Demanding the Tories propose a specific tax hike for every tax they propose to cut is a Labour tactic and it is strange to see the FT joining in. The Tories could, for example, plan a wholesale review of income tax raising the threshold and dealing with the 10p problem that way. But if they said so now, Brown would nick the idea.
 
And the “gap” due to Vehicle Excise Duty which the FT so worries about is £735m (Table 2.1, pdf) The FT of all newspapers should know this is hardly significant when considered in the context of £620bn state spending: the Tories do not need to say now how this would be filled in a Budget where £3bn is a rounding error.
 
Next, the FT praises Brown.

“The Brown government has taken firm decisions on a range of issues – such as the need to develop nuclear energy, the need to expand London’s Heathrow airport and the need to streamline planning laws.” 

This was literally Brown’s attack line in the PMQs before last – and even then it was risible. The Brown government is known by everyone – especially amongst the business community whom the FT is supposed to represent – for its inability to take firm decisions. Nuclear energy was a no-brainer. Heathrow was not a firm decision. And as for planning laws being an example of decisive Labour government, I quote the House of Commons briefing note (pdf).

“The current proposals are the third to come from the Government within the space of seven years. One set of proposals was put forward in 2001 and dropped after consultation in 2002. A second set formed the basis of part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The concerns that led to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 were very similar to those leading to the present Bill.”

In the end, as per usual a weak Prime Minister was bullied by rebels into a bill perforated with concessions. Back to the FT:-

“Mr Cameron has rightly said he wants to tackle global challenges, such as climate change and migration. To succeed, he must work closely with the European Union. This will be difficult if he is also pandering to the Eurosceptic right of his party by pledging to pull out of the EU’s main centre-right grouping.” 

Huh? The EU will tackle climate change? It’ll set carbon targets, which its member states will miss, but neither the FT nor anyone else can point to a shred of evidence suggesting this will decelerate climate change by anything other than a negligible amount. And meanwhile it will do plenty of harm to companies, whose interests the FT is supposed to represent. And as for migration, what on earth does this have to do with the EU? Taking control of immigration – and deporting A2 nationals like Italy has done – means defying the EU. Not working with it. Let’s not forget if we’d taken the FT’s advice we’d be in the Eurozone. It is strange to see the FT describing Cameron’s limited Euroscepticism as a “pandering” to the right of the party – rather than aligning his party with the mainstream of British public opinion.
 
Perhaps it wasn’t Mr Brown who wrote this. Perhaps someone from The Guardian, or fresh from university, has just started as an FT leader writer. Because the newspapers business readership would have been shaking their heads at its credulous approach to “decisive” Brown, knowing – as they will – his indecision over capital gains tax, non-domicile taxation and everything else. There are plenty criticisms business can make of the Tories, but from the other direction – lack of backbone when dealing with Brussels, for example, or the absence of a clear commitment to cut taxes. But Brown’s line of attack doesn’t work in the chamber, nor does it work in the pink ‘un. It should know better.