Is being beastly to Gordon really a good idea?

If playing the man and not the ball is a sign of weakness, then Conservative Central Office must be a pretty desperate place. The latest set of Conservative posters, featuring Gordon Brown and a variety of statements blaming him for the state of the economy risk inviting the question "And what are you going to do about it?".

And, unlike the famous 'Labour Isn't Working' poster, there is a rather thin set of policies on offer this time. It just seems like a collection of cheap shots for, let us be honest, there is no evidence to suggest that Gordon Brown doesn't have the nation's interests at heart. I accept that such a view isn't an easy sell, especially with the rather more vitriolic elements amongst Conservative supporters, but it's the policies that have failed, not the man.

All that such a campaign does is stiffen resolve amongst Labour activists, alienate waverers and convince those who were leaning away from the Conservatives that they are right to do so. Politicians and political parties have a very poor reputation for honesty and decency, and such a negative campaign does little to change that.

All in all, it looks like the first signs of panic, and reminds you of the bad old Tories of yesteryear. Given how unkind social history has been to them as individuals, had I been their advertising consultant, I might have sought to avoid stirring up those memories...

Thoughts from the Train: when a confidential helpline stops being confidential...

I may post something on the bullying allegations made against Gordon Brown at some point, although given how much has already been said, one does wonder how much value can be added. However, my thoughts have strayed to something which is more a question of ethics, i.e. how much damage has been done to the National Bullying Helpline by this spat?

Firstly, I don't buy the fact that Christine Pratt is a Conservative stooge. The idea that someone should set up an organisation in the hope that, one day, they might get some dirt on political opponents is too repellent to even think about. And to be honest, even if she is a Conservative, that really shouldn't be the issue.

No, the concern I have is over her judgement. She may have been incensed over Lord Mandelson's denial of the bullying charges, but that does not excuse contacting the local radio station in the way that she did, calling for Gordon Brown to effectively confess that the charge was accurate. You could, and I would, argue that such a comment was just bullying of a more subtle kind. Had she stuck to stating that bullying in the workplace is a problem for the organisation and calling for Gus O'Donnell to investigate the allegations as head of the Civil Service, she would have done her job as an advocate for proper action on bullying.

Unfortunately, having pointed the finger at Gordon, she didn't stop there. By stating that members of staff at 10 Downing Street had called her helpline, she opened Pandora's box. Yes, you can't suggest that she has broken the covenant of confidentiality between her callers and her organisation, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the hunt will be on to see who they were.

If 10 Downing Street is as dysfunctional as is suggested, they will want to find out, and over a two-year period, the list of potential callers is a limited one. Meanwhile, the press, in search of the next story, will be doing the same. Freedom of Information request, anybody? And if I was one of those callers, who had rung in confidence, I wouldn't have very much right now, even more so if I was still working there.

So, if Christine Pratt happens to be reading this...

con·fi·den·tial  (knf-dnshl)

adj.

1. Done or communicated in confidence; secret.

2. Entrusted with the confidence of another: a confidential secretary.

3. Denoting confidence or intimacy: a confidential tone of voice.

4. Containing information, the unauthorized disclosure of which poses a threat to national security.

There's a kind of irony about the last of those, isn't there?...

Cameron and Osborne: small boys acting up...

Our Conservative friends are becoming increasingly upset with the way things are developing. Their lead in the polls is ebbing away, their Shadow Chancellor is looking increasingly vulnerable and they have little to say in terms of what to do next. Their response? Repeated claims that Gordon Brown isn't answering David Cameron's questions...

Now I would be one of the last to suggest that Gordon is inclined to provide direct answers to direct questions. However, it might help if he was asked some. David's tendancy to harp back to events past merely exposes the fact that he has nothing salient to add to the debate on our economic future. He knows that Gordon is hardly going to admit to mistakes, yet he insists on attempting to provoke one. Now one may well have legitimate doubts about the management of the British economy by Gordon, and now Alastair, but one can hardly look seriously to a political party who merely parrot what Vince Cable was saying five years ago.

So, a word to the wise for the Conservatives. Stop trying to score debating points as though you're still in the Oxford Union, ask the question, and then critique the answer outside afterwards. That way, you can ask more questions about more Labour failings. Or, if that's too much like hard work, you could leave holding them to account to the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Nationalists, the DUP et al. Maybe, just maybe, we, the public, might learn something...

The 10p debacle - why the bleeding won't stop

It's all become like passing the scene of an accident on a motorway. As people drive by, they can't help but slow down to look at the grisly sight of wreckage and perhaps the odd smear of blood. Voyeuristic, I know, but human nonetheless.

Alastair Darling, having been given one of the worst 'hospital passes' of recent years, understandably concluded that silence was the best approach to dealing with his inheritance from Gordon, and it would probably have worked but for the misfortune that at least one opposition party was on the ball. The calculation wasn't difficult to do, but the fact is that either it wasn't done by the Government or, worse, it was and they ignored it. It does, I admit, puzzle me that there was silence from the Labour benches, but they probably took their eyes off the ball celebrating the reduction in the basic rate of tax to 20%.

And so the demands for a fix, and a quick one at that. Worse still, the Conservatives were allowed to claim that they were standing up for the disadvantaged. Chutzpah, I admit, but a fine example of the art of opposition.

I have to admit that the solution is a pretty elegant one. By reducing the threshold for the 40% rate band by £1200, higher rate taxpayers do not benefit, whilst most of those who had lost out are compensated in full. There are some additional beneficiaries, like myself, who earn between £18,500 and £40,000, who benefited from the reduction in the basic rate and now benefit from the enhanced personal allowance but we won't complain.

The downside is that we have a government that is on the run, and everyone knows it. £2.7 billion to fix what might charitably be described as a mistake is not a promising start in rebuilding economic credibility and the package has an impact in future years in terms of income tax take. Of course, the Chancellor might be planning to claw it back, for example by not increasing allowances or rate bands with inflation next year, but everyone will be watching now, and such slight of hand will be harder to get away with. Besides, if we shout loudly enough, it will probably be overturned anyway.

The Conservatives and ourselves will be pecking away at the weaknesses in Labour's taxation strategy, knowing that in an increasingly complex tax system, the scope for unintended consequences grows almost exponentially. It isn't even necessary to offer a concrete alternative, as very few people will understand the concepts requiring grasp. On the other hand, cries of unfairness will have Labour's Treasury team running for the hills.

Finally, there is the question of the additional borrowing. There is now very limited manoeuvre in terms of borrowing is concerned if the various 'golden rules' are to be adhered to and, in a recession, an inability to pump-prime the economy could bring dire consequences for jobs and for those juggling large mortgages and other debt.

Credibility, once lost, is often elusive to those trying to recapture it. For the time being, Alastair resembles someone trying to catch an elephant with a butterfly net. And time, my friends, is not on his side...

Confused of South London writes...

I've spent an evening watching a politician talk about liberty, responsibility and fairness. All things that a Liberal Democrat would applaud, you might think, and you would indeed be right. The only catch is, the politician in question is the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and kind of my boss), the Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP, PC.

He made all of the right noises in terms of principles, and you can see how many Liberal Democrats tend towards a preference towards Labour as opposed to the Conservatives. Unfortunately, and I do mean that, I find myself wondering how a desire for liberty can be squared with support for the abolition of jury trials, ID cards, holding possible terror suspects for ninety days without charge, greater centralization of power and more besides. And how do you encourage people to take more responsibility for themselves in an increasingly coercive, nanny state? And as for fairness, what a remarkably woolly word that is. Does anyone expect a politician to call for less fairness? Fairness for who? Fairness how?

To give Gordon credit, his references covered most of the great political theoreticians of the past three hundred years, poets, writers, economists and the effect was marvelous. Yet look more closely, and it was a blur of concepts without substance. I still find myself wondering what he actually stands for, apart from not being Tony Blair.

An opportunity lost, Gordon, an opportunity lost...