Pink nonsense
The Skimmer 8:04pmIt 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.
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 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.”
“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:-
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.“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.”
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.
Previous
Tanuki
July 5th, 2008 8:39pm Report this commentThe idea of "tackling climate change" is as flawed as the idea of "tackling wednesdays". THe climate has always changed and will continue to do so, whether there are humans on the planet or not.
When a politician mentions 'climate change' hang on to your wallet, since the opportunity for increased taxation is what's truly in his mind.
Anan
July 5th, 2008 8:46pm Report this commentOf course brown is pro-Nuclear. His brother is the head of the British Nuclear Energy.
Hazel Blears' brain cell
July 5th, 2008 8:52pm Report this commentAm I on drugs or another planet?
Ian C
July 5th, 2008 9:32pm Report this commentWhat's amazing, Tanuki, is that the FT doesn't get this when 99.9% of its readers will.
Ray
July 5th, 2008 9:55pm Report this commentAnd here was me thinking you needed brains to read the FT.
wonderfulforhisage
July 5th, 2008 10:50pm Report this commentClimate Change used to be known as Global Warming. Then the 'Warming' bit became an embarrassment when the Global bit started to cool.
So, the spin doctors were called in. And it came to pass that said spin docs advised the substitution of 'change' for 'warming' and 'climate' for 'global'.
And that, dearly beloved, is how the elephant got it's trunk.
Sorry, I'll write that again. And that, dearly beloved, is how 'Global Warming' became 'Climate Change'.
Charlie T
July 5th, 2008 11:28pm Report this commentIsnt the FT just a low rent version of The Economist? The rag that is for bien-pensants what laminated idiot cards are for call centre cold callers.
perdix
July 6th, 2008 12:07am Report this commentI have previously complained to the FT about their "teenage scribblers". Seems they are still there.
Chris
July 6th, 2008 12:10am Report this commentI pay to read the FT. I only look at ranting drivel like this when it's free. The writer's conceit is amusing - like a chimpanzee trying to hold a tea party.
Eye Sye
July 6th, 2008 12:41am Report this commentGet it right, anan - Brown's brother John is communications director of EDF Energy. Which might conceivably stand to benefit from this Anglo-French entente nuclear he has organised. Pure coincidence, of course.
Fergus Pickering
July 6th, 2008 4:11am Report this commentBut the FT editorials have been lefty crap for years, have they not? No change there.
Oscar India
July 6th, 2008 8:23am Report this commentThis follows an interesting piece by Guido yesterday - http://www.order-order.com/2008/07/pink-un-euromania-is-unhinged.html -
Someone, somewhere at the FT needs to wipe the flies from their editorial windscreen.
Ann
July 6th, 2008 10:09am Report this commentExpanding Heathrow is such a fundamentally stupid idea, no wonder McPinnochio is in favour.
To the usual climate change bleaters here, especially soi-disant 'Wonderful', all one can say is: none of you understands science.
MartSharm
July 6th, 2008 10:22am Report this commentNice piece by The Skimmer. Not seen that name before at the Coffee House, looking forward to seeing it again soon.
MartSharm
July 6th, 2008 10:25am Report this commentThe piece has now been taken down. An example of NuLab hacks hacking?
Ed
July 6th, 2008 10:26am Report this commentThere has not been enough questions asked why Mr Brown allowed Westinghouse be sold, cheaply at that.
So, Mr Brown, given that you advocate nuclear energy and Westinghouse is a nuclear reactor builder (one of the best), why did you sell Westinghouse? Were you having another 'gold' moment?
Rex Burr
July 6th, 2008 11:27am Report this commentIf, as they tell us, the world has reached 'peak oil', and demand in the east is increasing I assume availability will now begin to tail off.
The hydrogen economy, which will be necessary to keep us flying as we are is a very long way off.
What is the urgency of Heathrow expansion?
Faceless Bureaucrat
July 6th, 2008 12:03pm Report this commentAs has been mentioned elsewhere on the blogosphere, no wonder so may formerly staunch FT readers are abandoning it for the more astute Wall Street Journal...
Anan
July 6th, 2008 1:28pm Report this commentThe Skimmer has been a regular contributor since before your time on this website, Mart.
Athesius the Faclitator
July 6th, 2008 1:54pm Report this commentThe FT has been "pants" for years. When pragmatism is required to form an opinion they seem to throw it out the window simply because the editor gets dinner with Gordon or Tony. Thats no way to run a newspaper.
TGF UKIP
July 6th, 2008 2:20pm Report this commentThe Skimmer seems to think all this unusual for the FT - it ain't. After taking the FT daily for over 20 years I decamped in 2006 being unable to accept any more of its metropolitan left, arch europhile spin.
And I still maintain that it's principal political commentator "Malcolm Rutherford" was a pseudonym for Alastair Campbell.
James
July 6th, 2008 10:35pm Report this commentLest we forget, Andrew Balls, Ed's brother was for quite some time an FT leader writer, and may well still be one.
Tim Calvert
July 6th, 2008 11:38pm Report this commentI won't hear a word against the FT. As a speculator, I have made good money trading on their editorial market views. When they say buy, sell - it nearly always works.
Tim Calvert
July 6th, 2008 11:47pm Report this commentPS
Lex is not as reliable, although it has a magnificent record of being whipsawed on FTSE100.
You have to wait for the magisterial authority of their leader writer before you can be confident of going the other way
Back to top