Gordon Brown’s trick – or treat – budget?

Budget Day is a curious thing. It’s pure theatre – a parliamentary set-piece that is treated with reverence by media and politicos alike. Today’s was no exception, especially as it was almost certainly Gordon Brown’s last before he moves next door.

The odd thing about budgets – the UK government variety at least – is that the initial reviews are often wildly wrong. Blame the theatre – it’s as if only a third of Shakespeare’s Hamlet was actually performed on first night, with the rest of the play emerging in instalments over the following months. The famous example is Nigel Lawson’s 1988 budget, which cut the top rate of income tax to 40p. Lawson was applauded as a visionary, reforming chancellor. But within months the budget had fuelled an inflationary boom that led to bust. (Remember double mortgage tax relief?) Two years later, mortgage rates hit 15.4 percent and Lawson’s reputation was battered.

Today’s budget cut the basic rate of tax by 2p to 20p – a move guaranteed to hit the headlines. But I wasn’t the only one not to notice that Brown had also abolished the 10p tax rate, which will hit people on lower incomes. A strange move by a Labour chancellor. And one that confirms that budgets are about tricking as well as treating.

Almost everyone watching today’s budget will have judged Gordon Brown as prime minister-in-waiting as well as chancellor. The headlines in recent weeks have been about the Conservatives opinion poll lead over Labour – and how a Brown premiership would actually widen the Tory lead. How Brown must be cursing his fate as Westminster’s eternal Prince of Wales, as the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland characterised him in his article today.

Is it unfair to blame Brown for Labour’s imploding poll ratings? In many ways, yes. The electorate are tired of new Labour and the tiresome quarrel between its twin leaders. But much of the malaise is down to Iraq – Blair’s latest and most disastrous war. But this does not mean that Labour will lose the next election, which will surely not take place until 2010. Three years is a long time in politics.

But shouldn’t a change of leader refresh Labour’s appeal, as John Major’s arrival at number 10 revived Tory fortunes? Not necessarily. Major was almost unknown in 1990, despite his 16 month meteoric rise as foreign secretary, chancellor and PM. Swapping Thatcher for Major felt like a change of government to many. By contrast, Brown is all too well known. So far, the public do not warm to him. They blame him as much as Tony Blair for the pathetic quarrel between the Downing Street neighbours. (David Cameron’s best line in his budget response was to mock the annual Blair-Brown conversation.) But don’t assume we know exactly what a Gordon Brown premiership might be like. It’s not impossible that Brown in power might assume a confidence and ease that we’ve not seen before. We shall see.

British Mediterranean’s ghost flights

It came as a surprise to learn in yesterday’s Sunday Times that there are daily flights between Heathrow and Cardiff. But England fans needn’t rush to book their flight for next weekend’s Wales v England rugby international in the Welsh capital: these are ghost flights, run by British Mediterranean Airways just to preserve a valuable landing slot at Heathrow. (The slot was used for a service to Tashkent that was suspended in October after civil unrest in Uzbekistan.)

This was a great scoop for the paper – a genuinely interesting story that graphically illustrates the clash between the interests of the environment and an airline’s desperation to save a landing slot worth up to £10 million. The Sunday Times says that over five months the ghost flights will have generated as much carbon dioxide as 36,000 car journeys along the M4.

Doncaster Council – how stupid can you get?

There’s strong competition for the title of the most stupid act by a council in Britain. But Doncaster Council has made a compelling claim with its attempt to stop a cafe owner using a yellow bike for advertising and deliveries. You can watch the regional BBC tv report here.

Thanks to the CTC, Britain’s national cycling organisation, for the tip-off.

Whatever happened to West Ham United?

West_hamThis is not a happy time to be a West Ham United supporter. The club looks a certainty for relegation from the Premiership. It faces FA sanctions for the way the mysterious signing of two Argentinian players was conducted – one of whom has already left the club. And it replaced the manager who secured Premiership football and an FA Cup final place with a coach who appears unable to inspire any kind of fightback.

I’m not a Hammers fan, but do feel real affection for the club. My father was born within a crowd roar of Upton Park. My aunt bought me a West Ham sports bag for my 10th birthday. I couldn’t understand why at the time – we lived in Cardiff, and I was just starting my (inevitably) bitter-sweet relationship with the Bluebirds. Over the years, though, I came to admire the way West Ham nurtured local talent and played attractive football. I mourned Trevor Brookings’ valiant but unsuccessful attempt to save the club’s place in the top flight in 2003. I was cheered by the team’s rousing first season back in the Premiership in 2005/6.

So this season’s string of disasters came as a shock. New owner Eggert Magnusson replaced manager Alan Pardew with Alan Curbishley, a man who won respect for over-achieving with Charlton but whose teams mysteriously fade in the second half of the season. Hardly a man to win a New Year relegation struggle. Pardew then became the new Charlton manager and inflicted a 4-0 defeat on his old club.

Bring back Trevor Brooking I say…   

Who is Patrick Mercer?

The BBC reports that Conservative leader David Cameron has fired his security spokesman Patrick Mercer for making "unacceptable" remarks about ethnic minorities in the armed forces.

I suspect Cameron made the right decision. But am I the only person who had never heard of Patrick Mercer before today? It suggests that he’d never said anything of interest before!

Cash for honours: free press 1-0 Attorney General

Little did I suspect when I wrote about the cash for peerages injunction on Saturday that the Attorney General would cave in just days later. Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, put it well in his article today.

End of the peer show?

MPs today sent a clear signal to the Government that only an elected House of Lords is acceptable in 21st century Britain. (See BBC report.) Let’s hope Blair and Brown take note.

It is extraordinary that in 2007 we still have hereditary peers, bishops and Government cronies sitting in our legislature. True, it’s not a subject that gets the pulse racing (in my law student days I saw Lords reform described as a subject for a wet Sunday afternoon). But this is important. The way we are governed helps define the type of country we are. It also determines how much legitimacy we have in defending democracy and justice in other nations.

It’s pleasing to see Conservative commentators such as Iain Dale supporting change. This should not be a left-right battle.

A glimpse of the moon eclipse

Last night’s eclipse of the moon (see this BBC report) was beautiful.

Here are a few photos I took. Sorry they’re fuzzy – they’re taken on my digital compact camera as I didn’t have have any film for my old SLR.

Eclipse_moon_03_march_2007 Eclipse_moon_2

Nick Robinson: no blog comments please, lawyers on the loose

Nick Robinson’s BBC politics blog last night underlined the complications bloggers face when commenting on a police investigation or court case. He was writing just after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction stopping the BBC broadcasting an item about the cash for peerages investigation – see BBC news story.

This is a sensitive area. The law sets limits on what can be said about criminal investigations and proceedings in order to ensure anyone prosecuted has a fair trial. In the past, the laws of contempt of court represented a gag on free speech. Injunctions could be granted even when no legal proceedings – criminal charges or trials – were under way. In the 1970s, the Sunday Times took Britain to the European Court of Human Rights after it was found in contempt for publishing articles exposing the scandal of Thalidomide, the drug that caused deformities in babies whose mothers had taken the drug while pregnant. The case forced Britain to change its contempt laws to protect freedom of speech, while still defending the integrity of justice.

The cash for questions investigation has been controversial. It’s hardly surprising: the shadow of alleged corruption hangs over the Prime Minister. Those involved have protested against dawn raids and arrests. It’s absolutely right that reporting complies with the contempt laws. But the rise of the blogosphere has clouded matters. Nick Robinson has come under fire for closing his blog to comments about the injunction – and even Conservative blogger Iain Dale is moderating comments on the subject. yet you can bet that thousands of other bloggers are showing no such restraint. The internet has made it harder than ever for governments to use the contempt laws to restrict comment. But we cannot assume this is always a good thing. The principle of the law of contempt is a good one: the right to a fair trial is a crucial one, to be defended as vigorously as the right of free speech. The question is how to balance the two.

The saga raises once again Britain’s failure to separate the executive (government) and the judiciary. The Attorney General is a politician, a member of the government. But he also has a judicial role and is supposed to act in the public interest. The cash for peerages case shows yet again that he cannot fulfil both roles. It’s time to set the attorney general free.

Do you remember Kevin Beattie?

When I saw a feature in today’s Daily Telegraph about 1970s football star Kevin Beattie, I experienced a rush of nostalgia. It reminded me of long-ago days collecting football cards featuring stars such as Beattie, Peter Lorimer and Trevor Cherry.

The profile describes the hardships Beattie has suffered since injury forced him to retire from the game aged 27. He suffers from arthritis and is a full-time carer for his wife Maggie, who has multiple sclerosis. "Maggie, bless her, never complains so why should I feel any anger at how life turned out?" he says. The lavishly-paid Arsenal and Chelsea stars who disgraced themselves in the brawl at last weekend’s Carling Cup final in Cardiff could learn a lot from Kevin Beattie’s example.