Green light for fuel U-turn

The cheering from the Conservative back benches when the Chancellor announced his change of heart on the proposed fuel tax increase this week was pure theatre. Only in Westminster would a panto-baddie be clapped for deciding not to take sweets from the kids after all. To his credit though, George Osborne went firmly onto the front foot, a deft move when simultaneously back-tracking. Without the intended 3p increase, he said; “fuel duty will be 10p a litre lower than planned by the last Labour government.”  Grasping the moral high-ground, or simply clutching at straws, it’s still a welcome break to anyone with a set of car keys. However, stating that the move would “fuel our recovery” may be a claim too far from the Chancellor. Not actively making something less likely could only be deemed encouragement through highly creative interpretation.

In contrast to an ensemble performance in the Commons, where the Chancellor relished the well-meant mumbling from a supporting cast of backbench Conservatives, when it came to defending the U-turn at the hands of Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, Economic Secretary to the Treasury Chloe Smith was sent in alone. Only the day before, the Transport Minister Justine Greening had been pressing the case for the impending fuel tax increase, and now the Economic Secretary looked like she’d learnt of the U-turn in the taxi to the studio. Although some Paxman post-mortems can be surgical, this had all the finesse of a carpet beater, and Ms Smith had been hung out to dry.

A surprise to some it seems, yet after pasties, charities and caravans, the change of plan is not unprecedented, and follows intense cross-party pressure on No.11. The shadow chancellor Ed Balls had called for the rethink in an article in the Sun the same morning, saying “the government should be giving our economy a boost…not clobbering families, businesses and pensioners.” After the announcement, whilst welcoming the about-face on fuel duty, he added; “will he now also do a U-turn on the millionaire’s tax and rescind the granny-tax rise?” Don’t hold your breath, the lost fuel duty revenue alone amounts to around £550 million. Although it’s claimed the spare cash will come from underspends in other government departments, we are unlikely to learn which lucky budgets will be burgled before the Autumn, presumably  as the Treasury checks for loose change down the back of the Chesterfields.

Childcare: Cameron to check out Swedish models?

A government commission on childcare is being set up to investigate possible ways to ease prices and increase places, as many working parents, yours truly included, have found themselves spending more on nannies or nurseries than they do on their mortgage.  When both partners share the bread-winning duties, associated childcare costs can typically top £5,000 per annum, even for part-time provision, and you can treble that in the capital, says the Childcare Trust in a recent report.

Lead by Children’s Minister Sarah Teather, the commission will look at the potential for making the school day longer, focusing on the issue of expanding “wrap-around care”. Ms Teather explains this to be both breakfast and after-school clubs, provided by schools on their own initiative, or “working with private sector providers or voluntary sector groups”. Additional aims of the commission include a general  examination of the effectiveness of government support, and any scope for cutting red tape that increases cost but not quality.

Alongside such cost-cutting measures considered, may come a loosening of related legislation. Currently, childcare providers working with the under -fives, need to maintain a ratio of one adult to three children. Conservative back-bencher Liz Truss has been arguing for an increase in that ratio to one for every five. Now, mercifully, my childcare commitments have so far been solely of an amateur nature. However, I find it alarming enough to return from an unscheduled nappy refurbishment to find the older sibling casually juggling cutlery, or dining on play-dough, let alone what toxic tasks another three of them might have undertaken. But I’m all for balancing the budget.  

By all means allow our child-minders another two charges, just first explain why that encourages them to cut costs down for the rest of us. Our bailed-out banks fail to pass on the bargain base-rates, and OPEC omits to increase oil production despite the punitive price of petrol. If there is a model for sharing the benefits of government intervention and easing market conditions, then it’s certainly not set in stone, or even plasticine.

Foremost in the great and mighty minds involved in the study, we are told, will be learning from some excellent examples of childcare amongst our European cousins. Now, the Swedes must have developed vertigo from the pedestal they’ve been put on, when it comes to state-sponsored pre-school provision, so I predict glowing overtures towards the Swedish system, which is to be rightly applauded. However, any attempt to duplicate the Scandinavian blueprint would be to run a Formula One team on a Sunday league budget. The Swedes pay higher taxes, they didn’t invade Iraq, they have 500 troops in Afghanistan to our 9500, and they don’t have nuclear weapons, let alone a plan to replace Trident. For some inane reason they have placed nurturing the next generation over foreign interventionism and cold-war paranoia, which leaves a lot more cash for crayons. The more fool them!

Diplomacy in the Dug-Outs of Euro 2012

With Euro 2012 beginning, the off-pitch political posturing now sees UK government ministers boycotting England’s group games in protest at “selective justice” and “the rule of law” in Ukraine, the increasingly controversial co-host of the tournament. The comments relate principally to the case of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, jailed for seven years for supposed abuse of office, a conviction the EU have condemned. Tymoshenko spent 20 days on hunger strike, and was tortured and beaten, according to her family. The 51 year old, who lost the disputed 2010 election, is one of several opposition politicians to have been arrested in a move that is widely considered to be politically motivated.

 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is certain to have much more leg-room in his VIP box for the football than first thought. German Chancellor Angel Merkel made her intentions clear last month, stating that unless human rights improved in the country, she and her cabinet would stay away. The French followed suit, as did the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso. In fact, the British boycott is significantly less bold than that of many neighbours, and late in coming. The official statement also cites the “minister’s busy schedules” as a reason for non-attendance, hardly the rhetoric of political hard-ball. In addition, only the group games are mentioned. This may be in rueful recognition of previous doleful displays in major competitions however. The possible lack of an English presence after the pool matches may be more about performance than politics.

 A Foreign Office spokesman has been quoted as saying that potential ministerial attendance at the quarter final stage and beyond is being kept “under review”. No doubt. If Roy Hodgson’s men manage the unimaginable, and force their way into the final, it would present the Prime Minster with an awkward diplomatic dilemma. No politician would wish to pass up the potential of surfing some sport-induced patriotism, with all the photo opportunities that provides. Yet abandoning the principals which prevented your previous attendance means moral masochism, and an open goal for the opposition.

 Added to this political hot potato are the not-unfounded fears from travelling fans and footballers alike about racist abuse at the Euros, coupled with concerns over potential strong-arm tactics from the patrols of riot police being prepped for the occasion. Former Labour Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe feels the British government boycott could further fuel anti-English feeling amongst supporters at the tournament, whilst fans fear a backlash from Ukrainian and Polish police.

 All in all, the Prime Minister might be forgiven for privately hoping the three Lions limp home with wounded pride and empty paws. Against the backdrop of a back-firing budget, the post-match post-mortems might provide a welcome distraction. Even the Coalition can’t be called to account for a lack of midfield imagination and failure to capitalise on set-piece situations.  

You Are Who You stand behind.

Loyalty is a rare and precious commodity, like a flat stomach after forty, and just as hard to regain when it’s gone. Retailers have long since sussed the need for enticing our continuous commitment to them, with loyalty cards, Nectar points, and air miles. It’s a tricky task to even grab a cappuccino without being “incentivised” into patronising the same place when your caffeine level next crashes.

 But is this simply a one-sided relationship? Is repeat custom conditional on a complimentary coffee? One size does not necessarily fit all. Savings and service are certainly a selling point, but branding is about more than just not losing livestock. In amongst the desperate pre-Christmas discounts, during last year’s December gift gathering, I clocked one shop distinctly devoid of red-sticker reductions and seasonal under-selling.“Superdry” is apparently a fashion favourite of David Beckham, amongst others, and their distressed-look designs don’t seem to suffer the ignominy of discounts, because they don’t need to. Punters were parting with hard won wages willingly, buying into the brand without a bargain bin in the building.

 The lure of the label is intrinsically linked to identity. We are what we eat, but also what we sport and support. Car stickers constantly catalogue our allegiances to clubs and causes. Be it the National Trust, Nottingham Forest, or Say No to GMOs, some of us are so keen to state our support, we sing it out to those we’ve not even met yet, whether this may mitigate the chance of such a meeting or not.

 This week the Prime Minister reaffirmed his support for his Culture Secretary, despite Jeremy Hunt’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry indicating that his office had close and continued contact with News Corps during the bartering over the BskyB bid. Vince Cable was removed from his quasi-judicial role in the process, when unguarded comments revealed his personal bias, only to be replaced by Mr Hunt, whose pro-Murdoch position is a matter of public record. Yet Mr Cameron is satisfied the Culture Secretary “acted properly”. Why? Because he said he did. Oh, that’s okay then. I presume Mr Hunt submitted a note from his mum as evidence and was closely monitored to check he wasn’t crossing his fingers.

 Labour insists the Culture Secretary broke the ministerial code and misled parliament. By only sending him to Lord Leveson however, the Prime Minister perhaps felt that would not be discovered. No harm in standing behind someone if you’ve made certain they can’t fall over.

 However, the Telegraph reports the chairman of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) warning that the initiation of an investigation into breaches of the ministerial code do not need a nod from the PM. Mr Cameron has used more robust rhetoric in defence of Mr Hunt, than he did for the now arrested Andy Coulson. But before you nail your colours to the mast, better check which way the wind is blowing, because the forecast still looks decidedly changeable.