Will the public accept there has been a U-turn?

It's hard to judge the impact of the 10p "climbdown" beyond defusing the immediate revolt.

Times Political Editor Phil Webster offers this view which looks at the impact inside Westminster: "It shows Labour MPs that they can get their way if they shout loud enough. Mr Brown succumbed, mainly to the press, over capital gains tax and non-doms. But here, he gave in to his party because it was telling him it did not like what he had done. Will those same MPs now scent that when it comes to rebellions Mr Brown can be a bit of a pushover?"

There is the BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson view which looks beyond the political square mile: "Before everyone starts to write the prime minister's obituary remember that the public care much less about U-turns than the political classes; voters care whether what's done is right or wrong, not whether it's different from what was promised before."

Then there is one more question: how far will the public believe there has been a full U-turn. They quickly grasped the problem - scrapping the 10p rate is a straightforward enough notion to comprehend. But the solution looks (and is) fiddly, and Gordon Brown is relying on Labour MPs "selling" it as a climbdown to constituents.

The compensation will come through the benefits system, using "direct payments" or the winter fuel allowance system. This isn't an easy fix to explain and compensation will arrive months after the additional tax was deducted. This still means while some workers wont lose out over the full year, they may be worse off at certain points along the way.

Meanwhile the opposition will undoubtedly try and muddy the waters and claim the u-turn is "unravelling" and "spin". Today's changes got Brown through PMQs, but will it get him through next Thursday?

Comments

[Wilfred]

I think Nick Robinson has it right. Assuming that 10p was a real issue for a slice of the public (as opposed to a Cameroonian jape that entertained the Westminster village), then the U-turn will be greatly appreciated by the people affected.

In fact, Cameron may have misjudged this by over-egging the 10p issue. What he's done is to remind the public that Labour as a party really does care about the lower paid. He's allowed Brown to now dominate the agenda, and given him an opportunity to go into some detail about the complexities of the tax credit apparatus. This was clear at PMQs today, where Cameron repeatedly focussed only on issues of personality and process (ie tittle-tattle and froth) while Brown hammered out the same message that Labour cares for the poor. The fact that Brown had to be dragged back to a clearer statement of this position by his party puts local Labour politicians into a stronger position for the local elections. All in all, Labour supporters should sincerely thank Cameron for his opportunism this time.

[Richard]

Oh dear Wilfred, you just don't get it. The whole point is that Brown has shown yet again that he is just not up to the job of being PM, that he was a lousy Chancellor who could not do maths and that it is time Labour were booted into oblivion!

[Wilfred]

There you go, Richard, just like Cameron at PMQs, talking about personalities and indulging in wishful thinking, instead of grappling with policies and issues that affect real people outside Westminster. Your selective memory is astounding. To pretend that Brown was a lousy Chancellor, when no doubt you have benefited personally from 11 years of economic growth, is ungratefulness taken to extremes.

[Richard]

Hi Wilfred - Brown was a lousy Chancellor because he ran a public spending binge and deficit when he should have been paying off the national debt to save some much needed revenue for a rainy day (and boy is it pouring out there!). The years of growth were to an extent an illusion fueled by easy credit and the Government spending binge.
Brown sold our gold reserves at rock bottom prices.
Brown wrecked our personal pensions by removing corporation tax relief from the pension funds.
Brown was a lucky Chancellor who had a great inheritance from Ken Clarke, but then proceeded to squander it - it took a while for the pigeons to come home to roost though, since the world economy was going through a purple patch on the back of Chinese sweat shops.

[Wilfred]

Richard: is that it? Selling gold and slicing a bit of fat off your private pension fund is the total charge sheet against Brown? In fact in the 2001 Budget he repaid a record-level £34bn of national debt, no doubt helped by the earlier gold sale. The reduced interest payments on the repaid debt are conveniently forgotten by conservative propagandists obsessing about the gold sale. What you call "a public spending binge" is actually the business of government, and well appreciated by the general public as funding and investment in schools and hospitals.

[Tony]

Well it's easy to guess which side of the political divide Wilfred and Richard come from.

However, Wilfred I think you are missing a very big point here. There is no doubt that the credit crunch is having a very big affect on the real economy - the housing market is suffering, and we are treated to predictions of slow down on the high street almost on a dialy basis.

The good news is that unemployment is ot as yet on the increase. However, that will only continue to be the case if people carry on spending. Unfortunatley the only way that will happen is of people have confidence - and that, I am afraid comes in part from the government.

Can you honestly say that this cabinet - ANYONE in teh cabinet - gives us confidence? I am afraid that yesterday's PMQ's only reinforced the image of a government and party in cynical turmoil.

We could debate the relevance of 10p tax rates, estimates of deficits, big govt. versus small govt, or anything else for a long time, but the real question right now is do the current government have ANY idea how to get us out of this mess?

[Richard]

Hi Wilfred, You have missed the point yet again. Brown only managed to pay off a chunk of the national debt in 2001 because he conned the mobile phone operators into bidding billions for the worthless (as it turns out) 3G licenses. Fine! The gold sale had nothing to do with it - it was a straightforward and calamitous loss of value.
Anyway, you ignore my point about increasing public spending and borrowing to unsustainable levels - somethings we shall pay dearly for in the coming months!