The Economist turns on Labour

Brown accused of waging "class war"

6a00d83451b31c69e20120a74275eb970b-500wi

The Economist cast its vote for Labour at the last two elections, but judging by this week's cover it'll be backing the Tories in 2010.

The accompanying leader declares:

Britain has much experience of class politics, and none of it has been good. Class politics makes for bad economics: the state swells, public money gets wasted and entrepreneurs grow nervous. And it makes for a sad country, too: divisions deepen, suspicion flourishes and the social contract frays. When the time comes to judge the parties' electoral strategies, voters should remember that.

"Class war" was once a term reserved for epic battles such as those between Margaret Thacher and the NUM, but apparently now the charge can be made on the basis of a single quip by Gordon Brown at PMQs.

That Brown's satirical remark (he joked that the Tories' tax policies had been "dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton") sparked such a media storm shows how little we've been exposed to genuine class politics in recent years.

It's disappointing to see a supposedly liberal title such as the Economist ignore the Tories' far more outrageous plans for inheritance tax. The magazine chides Labour for its decision to shelve an increase in the inheritance-tax threshold and ignores the entrepreneurial and meritocratic case for the tax.

For a refreshing argument from the right in favour of inheritance tax, read Irwin Stelzer's essay in this week's magazine.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.