Mossack Fonseca said it has operated “beyond reproach” for 40 years and has never been acused or charged with criminal wrong-doing.
Does this not sound like “we never got caught”?
Politics and Economics
Welfare Cuts Credibility
The Osbourne budget and the subsequent resignation of IDS t only threaten the governments claim that we are all in it together, much more seriously they raise questions about their economic competence. In November much was made of the discovery of a spare £27bn forecast over the 5 years of the parliament. In truth this is less than 1% of the expenditure over that period and it is a brave person in any business that thinks their figures are correct to +/- 1% over one year much less 5.
If Mr Osbourne had said at the time this was nothing but rounding and not something to be taken account of in the calculations he could legitimately have taken the same line now when the same calculations mean that instead of a £27bn benefit we have a £29bn deficit.
Critically, all this means that the Chancellor now has a £13bn hole in 2019/20 fiscal target of budget surplus. He has however more than made up the £13bn hole. But how has he done it? According to Paul Johnson, “More than half
of it is purely temporary – shifting tax revenues into that year and shifting
capital spending out. The target would not be forecast to be met without
both this shuffling of money between years and a wholly unspecified
spending cut of £3.5 billion on top of the specific cuts announced in
November.” In other words the figures have been made to fit the policy.
Nothing illustrates the approach of the Chancellor more than his repeated claim that he would never make the figures fit the policy as he delivers a budget which requires the figures to fit the policy. To be fair the fiddling did not look to the short term political advantage for the Tory Party it was more about long term career advantage of Mr Osbourne.
The charge the budget process is driven more by political considerations than National interest has carried little weight when it came from the Labour Party. When it comes from within the cabinet it is a different issue. There is a crack here which has the potential to undermine the key claim of the Conservatives, that they are better at managing the economy. Labour should seize the opportunity.
In full: Iain Duncan Smith resignation letter – BBC News
In full: Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation letter.
Source: In full: Iain Duncan Smith resignation letter – BBC News
Politics never fails to surprise. Yesterday my view of IDC was of someone wholly committed to cutting the costs of welfare in line with the Osbourne obsession with deficit reduction. A part of the inner group who were set on the reduction in the scale and role of the state. It goes to show that from a distance and from outside the machinery of government it is difficult to discern the subtleties of individual politicians positions.
His letter aside from the formal platitudes, is as heartfelt as Geoffrey Howe’s comments about being sent into bat when your captain had broken your bat before the match. You really do get the feeling this is a man whose intentions were honourable, whether you agreed with them or not. He genuinely wanted a system which provided a “generous safety net” but also incentives to work. Most people agree with that broad picture but, perhaps because of the constant compromises that had to be made to meet the demands of austerity, felt its implementation was not consistent with the vision. More and more it simply looked like cost cutting.
Clearly this eventually got to IDC and led to his willingness to question not just the need for the specific cuts but rather George Osborne’s whole approach to economic management. His view that the “fiscal self imposed restraints” were more “political” than “in the national economic interest”.
His criticism is not just of Osbourne however. His concern goes to the strategic framework of the Prime Ministers administration. The ideological rhetoric that “we are all in it together” is starting to dissolve and IDC’s resignation may be seen as a key moment in the beginning of that process.
The Tory’s risk tearing themselves apart. It will be fascinating to see what the Sunday papers say and whether the character assassination of IDC starts in earnest. No doubt Osbourne is winding that up right now. However, if he has any sense Cameron may want to try to avoid this. IDC has a lot of support and under attack some of that support will be just as vicious as the government machine can be.
Going forward it is difficult to see a happy scenario for this administration. If Messrs Cameron and Osbourne manage to win the referendum there will be a lot of very unhappy MP’s and constituency party members and it will be an impressive piece of leadership to avoid the party expending an immense amount of energy on internal squabbling. If they lose they will have to go. Of more concern this whole mess may actually help the no campaign.
Mr Osbourne delivered this budget with his usual panache. Despite having failed, two out of his three self imposed tests and clearly having to “fix the figures to meet the policy” for his final test in 2019/20 he presented the budget as part of a triumphant programme of successful economic progress.
For many there has been a disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality for some time. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne are past masters at saying one thing and doing another (supporting hard working families by removing tax credits, supporting the environment by reducing renewable energy subsidies). In this budget that disconnect has been revealed from the inside.
Mr Osbourne’s rhetoric about his success sounds more and more like the claim that “the DLS sale must end on Monday”. Stated with great conviction and fanfare, but basically not true.
Ironically IDC may have done more to protect the welfare system by his resignation than he ever did in office. However, and whilst it pains me to say it, I have revised my view of his motives. I think he genuinely was trying to improve the welfare system and it may be the case that with a less ideological chancellor he could have delivered the transformation of welfare that is needed. That job could never be done on the cheap and it wont be. A modern state is expensive but I suspect the alternative is ultimately more expensive.
In Harms Way
In the current debate about whether or not to bomb Syria, beyond the substantive issue, much has been made about the issue of leadership and particularly the way the Leader of the Opposition tried and failed to whip his party on the vote. His actions have been contrasted with the decisive leadership shown by the Prime Minister.
However on the issue of Syria I am not sure the Prime Minister has exercised the leadership one might want on an issue of this magnitude and urgency.
Everyone seems to agree that the first duty of government is to provide an effective defence of the country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his top priority in government is the protection of UK citizens. Their physical safety trumps even the obsessive objective of dealing with the deficit.
When considering ways in which to maintain the security of the nation recourse to military action has to be a final resort. Putting our armed forces in harms way is something no Prime Minister should undertake lightly. Indeed Mr Cameron has made this point many times over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister must be convinced that there is a clear and substantial threat to the country that must be dealt with. What is more a threat which cannot be dealt with in any other way than by taking military action.
Given all this you might have thought the Prime Minister would want to act with all urgency to protect the citizens of the UK. Take the issue to Parliament as soon as possible. But no, he did not want to take the matter to Parliament until he was absolutely certain of a majority. But that begs the question what would he have done if no majority looked likely or indeed if he had lost the vote.
No one seems to have questioned why, once he was convinced of the threat, he did not go immediately to the House of Commons to press for the to extension of the war into Syria. Further, if he lost the vote why would he not go to the country. If the threat is grave enough to put soldiers in harms way then should it not be the first first duty of the Prime Minister to secure action as soon as possible.
It could well be said by supporters of the war “Well he got there in the end”. His delay was a carefully devised strategy to get the support he needed and now we have commenced the bombing he wanted. It feels however a bit like an exercise of leading from behind. Wait until the case is won and then go and make it.
I can’t help thinking the Prime Ministers’ very commendable commitment not to put troops in harms way is underpinned by an equally strong commitment not to put his job in harms way either. Even if he believes the country faces a clear and present danger.
northerncomment 