02 November 2017
A Long Time In Politics
Keeping the real issues at the top.
By John Watson
A well-worn quotation it may be, but there is a good reason for that. Prime Minister Harold MacMillan’s reply to the question of what he most feared, “Events, dear boy, events,” sums up the position of every political leader. It is the unexpected, coming out of nowhere, which knocks the most carefully laid plans off course.
This week it is the Parliamentary sex scandal. We comment elsewhere (The Lens on the Week) on some of the difficulties to which that is likely to give rise but who, two weeks ago, could possibly have foreseen it? Now it seems destined to rip through Parliament as did the expenses scandal before it, breaking reputations and bringing down respected figures, even perhaps ministers. It is not quite such a bizarre course of events as the destabilisation of the Australian government because some of their MPs turn out to have dual nationality, but it runs it a close second. There are some things which even the most vigilant government cannot prepare against.
The sex scandal is, of course, only one of the twists and turns which make the last week in politics seem longer than usual (try the developing crisis in Catalonia for another). But in the end when the Oxford History of England catches up with the events of 2017, it will be no more than a footnote. The pivotal points remain as before. What will Mrs May pay in order to move the Brexit negotiations forward, and can Philip Hammond afford to loosen some of the strings of austerity?
In a way these issues are linked in that both of them turn on spending money and raise the question of how much there is to spend. In the first though the issue is primarily one of cosmetics and timing. No one really thinks that the €20 billion contribution to committed expenditure will be the only payment which we make when we leave the EU. Talk in the rumour mill is of a total of €40 billion, or even €60 billion. The difficulty is that although if this sort of bill came with a satisfactory trade deal the public would probably accept it (could there be a clearer case of essential capital expenditure?), as a precondition to talks it is less palatable and would certainly not pass the hawk-eyed scrutiny of the more aggressive Brexitiosi.
Whether Mrs May can quietly indicate a figure and make it conditional on a trade agreement is difficult to gauge and, although it would probably be the sensible place to go commercially, would involve the EU softening its red line conditions for the beginning of trade talks. Who knows how this could be fudged? Discussions about trade which were not formal trade negotiations against a proposed figure which was not formally being offered. It would mean a little duplicity on both sides but that is how the best diplomacy works.
The question of austerity is probably a more difficult one, and one with which Mr Hammond will come face-to-face in his autumn budget. Last year’s figures are a bit better than expected but everyone seems to agree that there are threatening clouds on the horizon. It is likely that the Bank will raise interest rates so there will be additional payments on government debt. There could well be a mark down in GDP which would increase the sensitive debt/GDP ratio. It seems likely that if Mr Hammond is to increase public sector pay, taxes will have to creep up. That will involve moving some of the national cake from the taxpayer to state employees – never a popular reallocation in the Conservative party but then they won’t like the idea of losing the next election either.
According to the Policy Editor of The Times, ministers have now conceded that the vote on the Brexit deal will not be a simple question of “take it or leave it” but rather a detailed vote on the different aspects of the proposed agreement. If that is right – and it has suggested that it will be announced shortly – it will surely make little difference. Once the deal has been negotiated, everyone will be well aware that either it will go through as it is or it will fall. However much Parliament might be given the technical right to vote on various issues there will be little reality behind that. An MP who is in favour of the deal but votes it down on a single aspect is unlikely to get much sympathy from electors. Perhaps then this change will be a non-event in Harold Macmillan’s terms and not something which the government need worry too much about. But it focuses the mind on something more general. It is important that the Brexit deal is regarded as the best that can be done by all the major parties. When (and I suppose one should say “if”) we get to the trade talks, anything the government can do to promote a cross party approach will be valuable. General public support for any deal which is struck would be the best way of moving forward to a new future.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
