The IFS cannot weigh

In a queue for an expensive lung operation, it would be 'unfair' to put a penniless, jobless and incorrigible chain-smoker ahead of a hard-working young mother who had never smoked - although on the IFS calculation the decision would be 'progressive' because it redistributes income from a richer to a poorer one writes Matthew Parris in his Times column.

“Fairness” is not a morally neutral term, but depends on our idea of deserving. What we think people do or don’t deserve depends on our own ethical framework. Such judgement require us to weigh conflicting claims in the scales of justice. Which way the scales tip depends on how much weight you accord to what you place in them. The IFS cannot help us with that, for though it can count, it cannot weigh. How much weight you accord is a moral question, whose answer depends entirely on your own values. And values differ.

Well worth a read.

Tribalism, hatred & Labour

'George Osborne has just gambled your future on an extreme economic theory that has failed whenever and wherever it has been tried' writes Johann Hari in today's Independent. 'The Bullingdon boys want to finish what Thatcher began' is Seumas Milne's verdict while Polly Toynbee rages yet again 'The glee club on the government benches could hardly contain their delight'. Next we'll have the 'don't dare to be old, don't dare to be ill' speech and all the other ideologically driven false rhetoric that the left has pedalled for years, as if schools, hospitals and welfare did not exist before 1997, and all we need is perpetual Labour government.

I think we all understand that Labour committed itself to delivering £83bn of public expenditure cuts over the next four years - the largest program of cuts since the 1920's. Having left office in May bequeathing the largest budget deficit in our history, Labour additionally committed us to a doubling of the national debt - the total of all borrowings owed by this country - to over £1.4 trillion by the end of this parliament in 2015. That's what 'halving the deficit' - not eliminating it - actually means. The other half continues to grow. What a legacy for 13 years of Labour government.

Now you could be forgiven for thinking that such cuts will produce the greatest social catastrophe in our history. The truth however, is just not so. Total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP will fall. But only back to levels last seen in ...2007. Just three years ago.

I have to say that back in the day - the 'colder and crueller country' of 2007 as Johann Hari might call it - I didn't notice the civil war now being forecast on our streets as our welfare state had been 'dismantled' (as Seumas Milne says). I didn't notice the massed rallies of trade union protesters as Blair, Brown and Labour 'slashed and burned' (as Ed's Miliband and Balls put it) the welfare state to a level that was unacceptable for a decent and compassionate society.

The truth is that even with the reductions in public expenditure bequeathed by Labour, valued front line services - hospitals, schools etc - are being protected, whilst the essential reforms to public service delivery that Brown and Labour ducked, are now being undertaken by the most radical government of the last 100 years.

Like any government they will get things wrong. They will make mistakes. The last Labour government certainly did. But they deserve better than this torrent of 'emotion and prejudice' that is tribal hatred. The nasty party is still alive and well. It is called Labour.

Managing expectations

What a truly extraordinary performance in managing expectations from the Coalition government.

Labour completely wrong-footed after months of dire warnings of the greatest cuts for a century. Alan Johnson looking as if he delivered the wrong script. Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander desperately defending - yes defending Labour's toxic legacy - not attacking the cuts of more than £80bn in addition to those already announced in the Coalition's emergency budget in July.

And having done so, able to claim that at an overall reduction of 19%, is even less than Labour proposed cutting front line services in their election manifesto. Quite extraordinary.

And to think they called him 'boy George' for his naivety. How times change.

Listen children...

35 of the country's most influential and important businessmen running the largest companies in the land come out to support George Osborne's deficit cuts two days before being announced. Totally planned, choreographed and PR'd by Conservative Central Office. Do we really need to be treated like children?

Politics, tribalism & coalition

'Britain's political tribes are determined as much by emotion and prejudice as any absolute sets of policy' writes Julian Glover in tomorrow's Guardian. In a thoughtful piece which demands reading, he suggests 'the old world has been blown inside out. the people who never had power suddenly have lots of it, and those who assumed it was theirs to keep can only complain'.

And how they do.

'This mindset does not judge the coalition for its actions but condemns (where have you heard that before?) the fact that it exists. The fury - far beyond the scale of anything the LibDems expected - is rooted in a hostility to pluralism that regards Conservatism as something approaching an evil, and any LibDem associated with it an unnatural compromise. Presumably, the only acceptable outcome would be ceaseless Labour rule'.

'Riled, Lib Dems are making a poor job of defending themselves. They are embarrassed to speak confidently – not so much because of the deal they did, but because they never presented themselves as deal-makers. Instead, they presented themselves as tellers of fantastical truths, signing pledges on tuition fees the leadership never thought they'd need to return to. That was the worst of the Lib Dems: indulging an unworkable policy that amounted to an unaffordable middle-class subsidy dressed up as principle.'


'Oppositionalist purists will rant against the compromises of power. Nobody knows better than the LibDems how easy that is to do. But they've taken the decision to stop copping out. The neurotic rage of those who still want to is entirely predictable.' Brilliant.

The danger of irrelevance

What a contrast on today's Andrew Marr show between the way he interviewed Alan Johnson and George Osborne - Shadow and Chancellor respectively. The former sounded like a fireside chat between two luvvies whilst Osborne got the full Marr treatment. Not that the response was anything but a confident and comprehensive narrative to this weeks CSR - but I guess you'd expect that.

Looks like the BBC has decided that Labour's increasing irrelevance in economic policy should bring them an easy ride.

Katharine Birbalsingh

Disappointed to read that Katharine Birbalsingh has lost her teaching post for addressing the Conservative conference on the failings of our educational system. I wish her well and know she will find a better post in time.

Her Executive Headteacher Irene Bishop however, should be suspended immediately whilst her role in this sorry saga is investigated. My guess - and it is no more - is that her role has been entirely politically motivated. If this were so, Education Secretary Michael Gove, should remove her and not allow her near another child again.

That our educational system is broken and in need of fundamental repair can no longer be in doubt. Passing the new educational bill within weeks of taking government speaks volumes. Education is about opportunity. Without fear or favour. Not holding children back or consigning them to a life without hope. Dinosaurs like Irene Bishop have no place in the future education of our children.

Coalition, compromise & wish-lists

Interesting discussion on the Guardian's Politics Weekly podcast today - given that coalition government is likely to become more common under AV and other more proportional systems, should party manifesto's be merely wish-lists? To be used only to select policies that will withstand the compromises inherent in coalition politics?

PMQ's

So looking forward to Ed Miliband's first PMQ's this afternoon - one of the great theatrical rituals in politics. And one that terrified Tony Blair, despite consistently being one of its greatest performers.

David Blackburn writes an excellent preview in Spectator blogs, but I feel Miliband will need to strike a much more original line to stand out and appear with any gravitas.

Gender agenda

Louise Bagshawe - MP for Corby - arguing the coalition's case for gender balance in cuts on radio 4 this morning shows how ridiculous this agenda has become. Siting the equality act introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, her opponent asks what impact assessments were undertaken to see how the emergency budget would affect women. As if any such assessment were carried out by the Machiavellian Gordon Brown when he abolished the 10p tax band so as to wrong-foot the opposition.

Like the act requiring the government to halve the budget deficit over its lifetime - something Mr Balls now appears to have forgotten - the equality act is yet another of Labour's amusing tactical agenda's designed to impede government. Whatever happened to Nick Clegg's great reform bill?

Shadow boxing

Ed Miliband was scared of his shadow - or at least the notion of making either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper his Shadow Chancellor. So the timid new Labour leader fluffed his first big call and played safe with Alan Johnson.

Writes Kevin Maguire in today's Mirror.

A few more tax iniquities

I just heard the end of Any Questions on radio 4 and one caller struck me as interesting.

She pointed out that under the normal  tax system a single earner on £60,000 would have a large proportion of their income taxed at the higher rate, 40% tax band. Whilst two earners both on £30,000 (and therefore jointly earning £60,000) would both be taxed at the standard 20% rate of tax.

Havn't heard any Mumsnet users complaining about that...

Brooks on Miliband

I hadn't noticed quite how close Wallace was to Ed Miliband - despite his conference speech - until I saw this Brooks cartoon today. Brilliant.

The wisdom of Brittan

"There is indeed not all that much urgency to cut the deficit, when economic recovery is far from assured and output is well below optimal capacity rates. But government expenditure is probably too bloated and needs to be curbed on its own merits or rather demerits. The logic of this position is that expenditure curbs should be offset by tax cuts."

Samuel Brittan writing in todays FT.

The universalism of welfare

Now Liberal Conspiracy are piling in on the child benefit cuts:

Thus the Tories get the best of both worlds: they get to look tough but fair, while actually doing something that profoundly undermines fairness and the entire Beveridge/Attlee agenda. Truly a masterstroke.

and...

Lefties/greenies etc need to stop gloating on about how the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot and about those poor stay-at-home Mums, and start talking simply about defending the principle of welfare state universalism.

So the principle of universalism in benefits 'needs to be defended', and stopping such benefits for the wealthiest of our society 'profoundly undermines fairness'.

So where's the morality in that?

Osborne plays Brown

Interesting piece from James Forsyth in this weeks Spectator on the loss in Child Benefit for higher rate tax payers - accessed via ipad, so no link.

Titled 'If Cameron is heir to Blair, Osborne is heir to Brown' it looks at the tactical nature of George Osborne suggesting that the Child Benefit move was a tactical attempt to wrong-foot Labour - straight out of the Gordon Brown political guide.

If they accept that people earning over £44,000 should shoulder more responsibility, they are accepting an end to universal benefits and the enormous client base built up over 13 years of Labour government. If they object and defend the 15%  most wealthy, they become morally indefensible.

Teaching Unions Kill Innovation

"the (teaching) unions constitute an inflexible brake which is "killing" the innovation necessary to transform children's lives, and they "cover up" for failing teachers" says Geoffrey Canada in a remarkable speech to the Conservative conference in Birmingham yesterday.

Read the details from Allegra Stratton in today's Guardian.

The Roaring Silence

Notice the roaring silence from the left over the withdrawal of child benefit for higher rate tax payers. And how many tears does David Davis think we should shed for people earning over £44,000 losing their child benefit? Then we have Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC suggesting it's the Conservatives equivalent of the 10p tax disaster.

Oh no it isn't. Why exactly is taking an average of £1770 (assuming 2.2 children) from people earning over £44,000 (that's 4%) the same as doubling - yes doubling - the tax take (that would be 100%) from the poorest people in our society earning less than £15,000 per year?

I do not know if the amount raised by this measure is essential to pay down the deficit left by Labour. But I do know that people earning over £44,000 are exactly the ones that need to be paying it. Not the poor.

IDS at #cpc10

Iain Duncan Smith addressed the Conservative conference this afternoon on welfare reform. The Comprehensive Spending Review is still some weeks away, so this was a largely perfunctory speech without much detail. Personally I'm rather glad since in previous years the nature of his work with the Centre for Social Justice has regularly reduced me to tears.

His work though, is just one of the pillars of major reform being undertaken by this extraordinarily radical government - free schools, GP commissioning, AV, fully elected house of lords, police commissioners - the list goes on. But IDS's reforms of the welfare system are at the centre of what Conservatives understand as addressing the

causes of poverty - welfare dependency, educational failure, indebtedness, addiction and family breakdown. This coalition is undertaking the biggest reform of the welfare system for a generation. And at its heart is the belief that work must always pay better than welfare. If you want the slogan, 'changing lives through work'.

Describing this as 'our contract to the unemployed', IDS described remaining out of work as no longer an option, whilst committing the government to full provision of all necessary support to the most vulnerable who are unable to work - 'our contract with the disabled'. 'I will always fight for fairness' he declared, but fairness is a two way process. This he declared as 'our contract with the British taxpayer'.

He also suggested that yesterday's announcement on child benefit being withdrawn for those earning more than £44,000 per year was just one of the necessary measures to ensure that the deficit is reduced, and that if we fail to reduce that deficit, it is the poorest in our society that will suffer the most, '...leaving so many people trapped beyond hope, beyond aspiration'.

He ended with the words that on the 6th May, 'the British people honoured us. Now we must honour them.'

Child Benefit

Pretty pedestrian speech from George Osborne this morning finishing with that terrible slogan 'Together in the National Interest'. Whoever thought that up?

But one small issue around child benefit that I heard raised at Liberal Conspiracy suggesting that its an attack on women can be put to bed.
Listening to George Osborne on the Today program, he explained that child benefit would be claimed back through the tax system from anyone earning over £44,000pa. Not from their partner.

Red Ed

Great piece in todays Sun newspaper on the Red Ed name going global:

"Ed Miliband was "Red Ed" round the globe yesterday as the world's media adopted The Sun's nickname for him.   But by last night it had gone global as TV presenters and journalists translated the phrase into their own language and used it to describe Red Ed's position in post-New Labour British politics. In France he was Ed Le Rouge, Der Rote Ed in Germany and Ed El Rojo in Spain. Italy's famous La Repubblica newspaper reported on the Labour conference under the headline: "Ed Il Rosso." Diario de Noticias in Portugal told how the Labour leader is "Ed vermelho". In Greece respected broadsheet Ta Nea had picked up the Kokkivou Evt - Red Ed - tag too. Even in Serbia, Blic newspaper reported "Crveni Ed" had disowned mentor Gordon Brown"

Priceless.

Nick Boles on immigration

Have you noticed how John Redwood always seems to post his blog hours before any reasonable person gets out of bed? Well this mornings post (6.52am since you ask) makes interesting reading.

It reviews 'Which way up' by Nick Boles producing some interesting proposals on the limits of social policy towards immigrants, including

1. A cap on non-EU immigrants of between 20,000 & 50,000 per year.
2. A surety deposit from all non-EU immigrants repaid once taxes have been paid for a number of years or forfeited for any legal offences or if no taxes have been paid.
3. For EU migrants the UK should enforce the Directive which only requires a member state to allow free movement for the purpose of residence supported by work income or independent means. "Whenever a migrant from within the EU applies to a central or local government authority for benefits or housing or part of the NHS for non-emergency healthcare, that authority should be required to check whether the individual in question has a job or sufficient funds to support themselves in the UK. If they don't, they should be told to leave the country..."
4. No-one should be eligible for social housing until they have lived here for five years.

Interesting stuff - especially after this weeks speech from Ed Miliband on how Labour got immigration so wrong.

The indulgence of David Miliband

With the massed ranks of the British media completely taken in, David Miliband quits the Labour front bench to give his brother a 'clean field' for the future. The truth is that you will never again see a more egotistical, self-centred 72 hours in British politics.

Having lost a democratic ballot for leader of the party on Saturday, David Miliband totally overshadow's his brothers inauguration and first speech to the party with his apparent indecision over whether to stand for Labour's shadow cabinet.

He then claims that this decision is putting his party first. It is quite unbelievable that experienced hacks like Nick Robinson and Adam Boulton are taken in by this blatant self-indulgence.

The wisdom of crowds

Three comments picked from Peter Oborne's piece 'Behind the Coalition's agreeable chatter, the real battle is beginning':

1. Balls' economic 'ability' is being hyped in precisely the same way Brown's was; he may well have a degree of erudition, but he is wrong about the road to recovery. He was entirely wrong about education and the Secret Family Courts, and was a negligent washout as Children's Minister. And he is almost universally loathed within the Labour ranks. (Hence the likelihood that he will come last in the leadership contest). John Ward.
2. "Balls insists that the Coalition has got the timing and nature of its cuts hopelessly wrong. He supports this thesis with an impressive array of economic reasoning and historical examples" says Peter Oborne.
   
   Nonsense. Balls's "historical examples" (1981 and 1931) show either a deep ignorance of economic history or a willful attempt to mislead. The statements he makes about both of these eras are factually untrue (for example, he claims that the Tories raised interest rates in 1981 and caused a recession - in fact, they cut interest rates and the economy grew from mid-1981). Balls's reasoning is only impressive if you forget to check out his 'facts'. HJ777 
3. Labour are desperate for a voice and your plan (Mr Oborne) is spot on. Get Ed Balls on the front bench attacking Cameron and Osbourne knowing full well he is up to his neck in s*** with the last lot. Perfect ammunition for Cameron. Nothing he says will have any credibility. This will be funny to watch. Panlid

Peter Oborne on coalition

Excellent piece from Peter Oborne in tomorrows Telegraph including the thoughts:

• ...the Coalition has pulled off a remarkable feat. It is simultaneously playing the role of Government and Opposition.
• ...the only thing that matters is the economic contest between Ed Balls and George Osborne. Only one of them can be proved right – and it will be winner take all.

Well worth a read.