And another thing…

HOW SHOULD  a modern, left-of-centre political party which has been in power for more than 12 years respond to the growing gap between rich and poor?

“Tax the rich” is the obvious knee-jerk reaction from some. And they will have their chance to press home their case once Harriet Harman’s report on inequality is published in the new year.

The logic seems to be this: Labour’s eschewing of traditional Labour tax-and-spend policies has led to the current disparity between the lowest and the highest paid; soaking the rich would therefore, of itself, make Labour popular enough to win a fourth general election as well as narrowing the incomes gap.

Except that this analysis seems to overlook the fact that Labour won the last three general elections with a commitment not to reintroduce punitive tax rates. Are the electorate really turning to David Cameron because they believe he will tax them more?

And there is absolutely no point at all in taxing the highest earners more unless you intend to do something positive for the lowest paid with the revenue raised. Sure, reducing the incomes of the rich would, at a stroke, reduce income equality. Even if you just banked whatever tax you raised and didn’t use it for anything, income inequality would be reduced because you’ve reduced the incomes of those at the higher end of the income scale. Job done?

Well, no, obviously. Such a move would stink. There is nothing intrinsically good or moral in taxing for its own sake. If, on the other hand, extra tax revenues were used to achieve something – raising tax thresholds for the lowest paid, for instance – then that would be worth looking at. The only problem is: how much extra tax would you have to raise to make any meaningful impact on thresholds? Top rate tax rises bring diminishing returns, so there’s no bottomless pit of readies in that direction.

What, other than tax thresholds, are the mechanisms for raising the poorest up? We know how to bring the richest down, but once we’ve done that, how do we use that money raised to benefit the poorest? Increasing benefits? In general, no. Keeping people and families on benefit is a sure-fire way to entrench real, absolute and relative poverty. Increase tax credits? Fine, but apart from the pension credit, tax credits are mainly aimed at making work pay. I’m not aware of any evidence that low tax credit rates are responsible for low take-up of paid employment.

There are certainly plenty of areas of social policy which could do with the extra money, but none of them would directly or easily close the incomes gap.

Tony Blair and – let’s not forget – Gordon Brown put a great deal of effort into reinventing Labour as a low tax party. As a result, we won three general elections in a  row, and as a result of that, we introduced the minimum wage, tax credits and the New Deal, raising nearly a million pensioners and 600,000 children above the poverty line.

So why has incomes equality increased? And is it the inevitable consequence of a booming economy, as the UK’s was until the global recession started to bite?

More to the point, does anyone seriously believe that if the Tories instead of Labour had been in power since 1997, incomes equality would have been narrower than they are today? Without the minimum wage and tax credits it would surely have been even greater.

The Tories, of course, will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of this debate within the party, and praying that we come down unequivocally on the “soak the rich” side of the argument.

Personally, I’d rather we stay in government.

HARRIET’S brief period in charge of the country seems to have been more successful than even she coud have hoped, if yesterday’s headline in The Daily Mail is anything to go by:

So was the description of Labour’s deputy leader as “Deputy PM” a mistake, wishful thinking (on the Mail’s part), or just an attempt to rile Peter Mandelson? I think we should be told.

THOSE rushing to the defence of our forthright Leader of the House might want to consider if they’re really doing Harriet any favours.

Following Harriet’s comments at the weekend that all boys are rubbish, Kira Cochrane at The Guardian has mounted a staunch defence of her and her views. But the sting in the tail is this correction at the end (click to enlarge):

Hmm. Not sure if Harriet would agree with that last bit…

BEING a Member of Parliament is, or ought to be, a full-time job.

Constituents should be able to expect their MP’s full and undivided attention, which could not be guaranteed if the MP in question is also a director of a company or a barrister.

The Prime Minister is obviously aware of concerns in this area, which is why he has asked the Committee for Standards in Public Life to include the issue of MPs’ second jobs in its more specific inquiry into MPs’ expenses.

But I’m not at all sure it’s a good idea to conflate the two issues, and even less sure that we should place any formal restrictions on second jobs. Yes, MPs should restrict themselves to being an MP. But I have a problem with any authority, whether the House itself or some committee of the great and the good, seeking to define the duties or the job description of MPs. Once it’s decided that no MP can take a second job, will the next step be an obligation to hold a minimum number of constituency surgeries per month? Or to undertake visits to a minimum per centage of schools and old folks’ homes in the constituency every year?

These things are important, of course. But surely it’s up to an MP’s constituents to decide whether or not they’re happy with their MP’s performance? Our electorates are, after all, our employers, and their judgment should never be superceded by the judgment of another authority.

Moreover, who is to decide the definition of a “second job”? For two years I was a transport minister and a Member of Parliament. Obviously MPs have to take up ministerial posts, but does that mean that only MPs taking up private sector jobs are to face restrictions? I know from experience that even a junior minister’s duties take up a huge amount of time during the week, more time, I suspect, than is taken up by those MPs with second jobs as directors or lawyers.

And does occasional, or even regular, writing for newspapers count as a second job? Or writing a blog? What about TV appearances for which an MP is paid (something I’ve yet to experience, incidentally)?

William Hague’s outside earnings are usually cited as justification for restricting MPs’ activities. Hague combines his duties as constituency representative for Richmond in Yorkshire with a high-profile job as Shadow Foreign Secretary, on top of which he earns a ton of cash for public speaking and other activities.

And?

If his constituents are happy with their MP, and if David Cameron is satisfied with his performance in the Shadow Cabinet, then what’s the problem? Apart from envy, of course.

MPs’ expenses and allowances need sorting out once and for all, so that we can raise politicians’ reputations to the traditional level of public esteem (contempt) from the current level (hatred bordering on violence).

But I fear that by seeking to include members’ outside interests in the inquiry, we’re just muddying the waters, not to mention reigniting that futile, pointless and (for Labour) self-defeating activity known as class war. Yes, it would be fun to watch Cameron trying to wriggle his and his Shadow Cabinet colleagues’ way out of an impossible dilemma: should they support the populist position of banning themselves from extra-parliamentary work and risk the consequent resignations and division, or should they stand their (unpopular) ground and be seen as self-serving and aloof by the wider electorate in the crucial run-up to a general election?

But I think the country, and parliament, would quickly come to regret a move motivated by such sectarian interests.

JUST read this brilliant Twitter from Stuart King, our candidate in Putney, who’s attending a conference which was addressed by Harriet:

At the conference Harriet talked about “scars on her back”. The palintypist referred to the “scouse on her back” – Tony Woodley?

No further comment would be appropriate at this time.

I WAS asked, on The Westminster Hour last night, about Harriet’s plans to legislate to force Sir Fred “the Shred” Goodwin to hand back his pension.

I replied that my “New Labour conscience” (no, seriously — I actually said that) made me very uneasy about legislating in response to public concern over an individual who of course should never have received such an obscene amount from an institution he almost led to destruction, but who has nevertheless received the package legally.

If Goodwin hands it back himself, or if there is some legal reason why isn’t entitled to it, fair enough. But what good would it do to change the law to deprive him of it against his will? How many hours of parliament’s time would be spent on it? What actual good would it do, apart from the schadenfreude many of us would enjoy for a few fleeting seconds before the media nominated their next hate figure?

Most worryingly, what kind of precedent would it set for any government to legislate to target an individual for accepting a generous pension package from his private employer?

Anyway, if the Telegraph is correct (and what a fine newspaper it is — always spot-on in its analysis), then Number 10 agrees with me.

Listen to last night’s Westminster Hour here.

ALTHOUGH absent from the Commons during yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, I can understand the hyperventilating and hysteria that followed Gordon’s “I saved the world” slip of the tongue.

And no-one believes it was anything other than a slip of the tongue. All this nonsense about it revealing GB’s real thoughts is infantile twaddle.

And let’s face it – now and again, all senior politicians inadvertently say things they don’t mean: didn’t David Cameron say recently that he was a supporter of the NHS? (Boom, boom! I’m here all week – try the veal…)

Meanwhile, check out the front page of the new issue of Total Politics magazine, due out next week. Top shelf material, from the look of the cover.

I’M A BIT suspicious of the spin the Tories have managed to attach to the so-called “leaked” email sent by mistake to Philip Hammond MP’s office by Harriet Harman.

According to Iain Dale, Harriet says in the memo: “the meeting will discuss considerations in advance of the Speakers (sic) statement on Police action and Parliament.”

The duplicitous bastards! How dare they discuss considerations in advance of the Speakers (sic) statement? They might as well be ordering the tanks into New Palace Yard…
And from this, Iain concludes: “What is improper is for Harriet Harman to call a meeting seeking to influence the content of that Statement by the Speaker…”

Why hasn’t the part of the memo declaring the government’s intent to “influence” the Speaker’s statement been revealed? I agree that such an attempt would be wrong, although I would expect the Speaker’s office to seek advice from the Leader of the House in any event.

In fact, all this hysteria looks completely unjustified when you consider this agenda attached to the memo, which, to Iain’s credit, he has published himself:

I wonder which parts of this the Tories disagree with?

This is all part of a very dangerous Tory strategy to persuade the public that Damien Green was arrested because he was the recipient of government leaks – in other words, for political reasons. Iain repeats this tonight. Do-Nothing did the same yesterday.

It’s a clever strategy, though lacking in all principle. It is utterly cynical and dishonest, and therefore entirely expected of the Tory Party.

Incidentally, Hammond has form when it comes to deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what Labour MPs say for his political advantage.

I WAS on holiday while the TUC conference was happening, so never got the chance to comment on the silly reaction to Harriet Harman’s speech.

All she said was that the she wanted everyone to “get a fair crack of the whip” whatever their “socio-economic class”; “Equality matters more than ever” and “is necessary for individuals, a peaceful society and a strong economy”.

Pretty much like saying you’re in favour of motherhood and apple pie. But how do the Tories react?

Trying to focus on issues of class and background is “outdated and distracts from the real issues”, according to Theresa May, who seems to think HH has single-handedly restarted the class war.

Why are the Tories so dismissive of helping people, regardless of “socio-economic class”? Maybe they haven’t changed as much as ‘Dave’ likes to claim.

WHILE voting continues for Total Politics’ Top Political Blogs, it seems I’ve done unexpectedly well in another vote.

The results of the 2008 Witanagemot Club Political Blogging Awards have placed me second – just behind John Redwood – in the Best Blog by a Politician category and third in the Best Labour Party-supporting Blog category. I also scored well in the Best New Blog category, pipping Harriet Harman to second place.

Not that I care for such trifling baubles, of course. I seek not the adulation of the masses, merely the truths eternal… oh, who am I kidding? I’m a politician – of course I want votes…