Interview with Non-existent Government Advisor

Blogger: Occasionally this blog welcomes guest experts to discus the matters of the day. Today we welcome Professor Dave Dump. Professor Dump is widely respected as a leading expert on political theory and is much sought-after as a government political advisor. He is a newspaper columnist, podcaster, influencer and broadcaster. Professor Dump, welcome.

Professor: I'm not an influencer. I have some influence. There's a difference

Blogger: Professor Dump, we wanted to talk to you about Chancellor Rachel Reeve's screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments.

Professor: Yes.

Blogger: Yes what?

Professor: Yes, you can talk to me.

Blogger: I see. It's going to be like that is it?

Professor: Yes.

Blogger: So, what do you make of the U-turn.

Professor: It wasn't.

Blogger: It wasn't?

Professor: That's what I said.

Blogger: What do you think of the government's decision to change the threshold for winter fuel payments so that pensioners with an income of less than £35,000 receive it?

Professor: See, that wasn't so bad was it? First piece of political advice is to make sure you are not accidentally accepting the premise of a question when you answer it. It was not a screeching U-turn. It was a tweak. It was genius.

Blogger: Genius?

Professor: Indeed. For several reasons but chiefly because for the whole of its first year the government has had a big row, on its own terms, about an area of policy it is determined to get right. Furthermore it has been accused by the blue-top newspapers of moving too far to the right and so it can satisfy them by moving left. Genius.

Blogger: So, if the government are not portraying it as a screeching U-turn, what is it?

Professor: Very good question...

Blogger: Isn't that what people say when they need time to think?

Professor: No, that's 'I'm very glad you asked me that'. Thank you for giving me double time to think. What the government spokesperson will say in those circumstances is 'To be clear...' they inherited a mess and had to move really quickly to calm the markets before setting out on the agenda their huge majority - oops, I mean the public's overwhelming mandate - had given them.

Blogger: Isn't that just a fudge for 'We got it wrong'?

Professor: Anyone embarking on a project wants three things. High quality, speedy completion and cheap price.

Blogger: And...?

Professor: You can only ever have two. Which two do you want?

Blogger: So, to use your illustration, which two did the government choose?

Professor: None of them, but nobody noticed. They opted to make such a catastrophically stupid decision that everyone piled in and got distracted from all the other things they set about in their first year. Then, in apparent response to criticism but actually as a cunning plan, they moved the threshold up but probably a bit too far. It's a clever move to give it to almost everyone and then claim it back in taxation from those who exceed the threshold. If they make pensioners wealthier in the next three years then they can move it back down again, a little, in their penultimate budget. It would be good to keep opposition eyes on this, minor, problem and make it sound big. Many pensioners felt awkward getting a winter fuel allowance.

Blogger: Wow. You could make black sound white.

Professor: No problem. Have you seen the Nigerian national football team's away kit?

Blogger: That's irrelevant isn't it?

Professor: Oh yes. But broadcasters on live interviews hate silence and no-one will notice that quickly.

Blogger: So is there a political master-plan?

Professor: I believe so. It will be long-term and costly. People are talking about leaving the Labour Party one year after a landslide election victory that promised to make a difference in five years. Not only do people want high-quality, cheap and speedy; they will moan about whichever one they don't get even if they knew that would be the case from the beginning. Currently Labour is happy for people to say they're leaving because that is meaningless after 20% of a Parliament. They are hoping, and it's tough because long-term infrastructure projects take more than five years, but they are hoping that enough looks better for them to get re-elected. Also, what you would do if you were stupid and what you would do if your were a genius pretending to be stupid are the same thing.

Some of the big infrastructure projects will be well underway and any opposition will have to say if they will cancel them. If they cancel them they will leave trouble for the country's financial credibility. If they agree to keep them the people will consider it worth trying for the same lot again because they thought of the ideas in the first place.

They've gone for expensive and high quality.

Blogger: What could possibly go wrong?

Professor: Events, dear boy, events. Brexit was always proper stoopid not tactically deliberately stupid, but it was a bit unlucky to have to implement it during a plague and a war. What was stupid is that no-one realised, or said, that it was absolutely reliant on everything else staying the same, to have any chance of working. Nothing ever stays the same. This has been genius politics so far, and has dealt with the first crisis (riots) very well. It is handling the US crisis reasonably well. There will be a crisis that no-one has thought of yet. Then we'll see.

Blogger: Thank you very much Professor Dump. More guest interviewees when we can think of them.