We probably all have a piece of law which we believe to be stupid, or unnecessary, or both. And then there are laws which serve no useful purpose except to cause trouble for someone, some time, some place.
Enter George Osborne, who has the idea that you can have legislation which limits the freedom of not only himself, but any future occupant of his current position, to act as they see fit, applying the philosophy that they have a mandate for. He doesn't want to raise taxes, so he proposes to pass legislation preventing certain taxes or levies to be increased. He doesn't believe in debt-based government spending, so he seeks legislation preventing a future government from running a deficit except under certain unusual circumstances.
It's almost as though he doesn't trust himself.
But really, all he is doing is creating a pointless legislative stick to beat his opponents with. In a future election, he can tell the public that it is impossible for opponents to do certain things because they will be in breach of the surplus rule, or because they'll need to raise taxes that can't be increased. It is, if you like, the politics of the kindergarten.
And yet, it is astonishingly stupid for three reasons - there are probably more, but I'm in a hurry;
- Any incoming government can simply repeal it. If they want to be bound by it, they will behave accordingly. If not, they won't. So, wasting Parliamentary time on a piece of vanity legislation is really unhelpful, especially when your party has things it would really like to do.
- It gives the impression that your Party's future is more important than that of the country. Such a cynical move does not go unnoticed by your enemies, and even your current friends, and it does give this observer, at least, a reminder of your perceived arrogance.
- It takes away a whole clutch of your economic tools voluntarily. You might want to do something unexpected, or events elsewhere may force your hand. Do you really want to make yourself a liar? Are you seriously giving your opponents the means to bring your trustworthiness into question?
Frankly, if the Lords has a chance to play with it, they should. It is anti-democratic, foolish and unnecessary, and is the sign of a man who confuses smugness for competence, and has an opinion of his genius which is far outweighed by the evidence.
2 comments:
Thing is, you could have said the same things about giving control of interest rates to the Bank of England, and that has lasted. Yes, technically these things can be repealled; but there is a hysteresis in politics.
That said, it is almost certainly mainly a (brilliant) short-term political move to force Labour to either abstain or vote for, thus alienating their hard-left base, or vote against, thus cementing them in the minds of the electorate as the party that must never again be given charge of the money taps as they intend to turn them on full blast.
That's a fair point, in that giving power over interest rates does limit your options, contracting out that particular lever, if you like. But the reverse of that was that you obliged the Bank of England to work towards a set of defined targets, which you, the Chancellor, designate.
And yes, it's great short term politics, if you see running the country as being some reality game. But is short term politics really worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Yes, attack Labour on their record - there's plenty of vulnerability there. But childish games with the economy? I think not.
Post a Comment