I am not making this up. There is a government recipe for chicken drumsticks. It is personally endorsed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
Preheat your oven to 190C, remove the skin from the drumsticks and brush oil over them to stop them sticking. Then place the drumsticks in an oven-proof dish and roast for 30 minutes. Check that the chicken is cooked completely by piercing the thickest part with a clean knife. The chicken is cooked when the juices run clear. Well done.
This invaluable culinary advice comes from a new government picnic cookbook, designed, as Ed Balls has helpfully explained, to stop people serving soggy sandwiches.
As a matter of national importance, consumers must be advised on the constituent parts of tastier alfresco snacks. It turns out that, despite everything, Mr Balls thinks that there are other things, apart from revenge, that are best eaten cold.
Gordon Brown's suggestion that the choice at the next election is between Tory cuts and Labour investment is preposterous. It is a direct lie (not a word that should be resorted to often in political discourse, but needs must) to suggest that Labour would carry on increasing spending if it won the general election. It is a wilful distortion to claim that the Conservatives have announced different spending totals to Labour. The underlying intellectual error is that everything the State pays for at present, it should go on paying for, and that, therefore, all cuts will have to come out of desperately needed services. Free cookbook, anyone?
Which poses the question: how can Labour press on with such a plainly misguided campaign?
It is worth noting that many Labour people are struggling. Alistair Darling and the Chief Secretary Liam Byrne have looked incredibly uncomfortable fronting the whole thing. David Miliband's contribution has been anaemic. And a feeling that he couldn't go on spouting nonsense like this was an important reason why James Purnell resigned. But Gordon Brown and Ed “try my tasty potato salad” Balls feel no such qualms. It is, of course, possible to advance an unflattering theory about this, related to character. I would like to try something else. I want to advance my 1992 theory of Gordon Brown and the Brownites.
Here it is. The central ideas that make up Gordon Brown's policy, political strategy and day-to-day tactics were all developed between 1992 and 1994. He hasn't had an important idea since. Nor has he discarded an important idea since then, remaining doggedly faithful to every last one. And these notions, the bedrock of everything he does, were developed as a response to the two big political events of 1992 - the victory of Bill Clinton and, more centrally, the defeat of Neil Kinnock by John Major. There you have it - my 1992 theory.
It has real explanatory power. For instance, the theory explains the increasing difference between Tony Blair and Mr Brown towards the end of the former's time in office. It wasn't that Mr Blair was new Labour and Brown old Labour. It is that Mr Brown clung on to the original new Labour programme - the narrow set of policies mainly borrowed from the Clinton campaign - while Mr Blair started to go beyond new Labour as he realised that its founding policies weren't delivering.
It explains, too, why Mr Brown seemed to be a man of ideas but didn't have any when he became Prime Minister. He'd used them up. By the time he moved into No10, 1992 was 15 years ago.
But its explanatory power has never been stronger than in explaining Labour's current, apparently eccentric, campaign. There are three lessons that the 1992 campaign has taught Mr Brown that he is now trying to turn to his advantage.
The first is that John Smith's 1992 shadow budget, which laid out Labour's tax and spending figures before the general election, was a fiasco. This taught him that the biggest vulnerability for an opposition is the figures that it has to issue in a campaign. The more openly it issues these figures, the more vulnerable it is. So all of his campaigns while in office have been designed to force the Conservatives to issue something like a shadow budget. He then spends the campaign attacking their figures.
The second lesson is that the Conservative “tax bombshell” campaign - which argued that Labour's spending plans would push up taxes - was dastardly, but worked. This is their justification for spinning - I have heard Labour's hardest operators refer to it many times in their own defence - and proof that making up a figure and then pushing it and pushing it is effective politics.
The third lesson is that the real thing you are exploiting with such made up figures is not concern about the tax and spending itself, but is trust. The Conservatives won in 1992 because, even though lots of people wanted more spending on public services, they didn't trust Labour and Mr Kinnock to spend their money.
The Tory cuts versus Labour investment campaign uses all these lessons. It's an attempt to force the Tories to issue detailed figures as an answer to persistent questions; it represents the belief that barreling on with invented figures works, and that you get lost in the details; its shamelessness is justified (in the Brown mind at least) by the tax bombshell campaign; and its best hope of working is that, even if people want cuts, they are nervous of Tory cuts. They may trust David Cameron (so focus groups seem to show) but they don't fully trust the Tories.
Accept my 1992 theory and the Conservatives can repel Brown's attack. They can fight the 1992 election as Labour should have fought it. Don't get drawn into a shadow budget, it's a fool's game. Accept the need for (in the 2010 version) cuts, because people believe, they know, that they are necessary and possible.
Expose the real trick behind the bombshell. The Tories didn't mislead voters about Labour, they misled voters about themselves. Labour would have had to raise taxes, but so would the Conservatives. Mr Brown must be pressed on the cuts that he is planning.
And finally, work on trust and change. Voters didn't believe that Mr Kinnock's Labour had really changed. Repelling the Brown attack on Tory cuts means understanding that it's the Tory bit that does the damage.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk
absolutely right the tories need to keep it general, but highlight the waste of money on trivial things such as cook books, non jobs etc. their is at least 10% of the budget wasted on such nonsense.
paul gilboy, newcastle, england
Sorry. I disagree. Labour (and with them, Britain) are back to 1977, and by 2010 will have "advanced" the economy (perversely, backwards, as the economy DID go backwards between 1977 and 1979) to 1979. Are you old enough to remember what a shambles that was? However, give me Jim Callaghan any time
Gordon Brown, Gateshead, UK
The only reason Gordon Brown wants the Tories to reveal their plans is so that he can pirate them and present them as his own, as he has done so many times since took over. This is why the Tories will maintain their silence until they can present their policies prior to the actual elections.
ctms, MK, Beds
I read this very eloquant and astute article this morning, and then was amazed at how accurate it turned out to be, when today at PMQ's Brown started banging on about investment figures in 1992! Bravo!
Joe Blogger, Newport, Isle of Wight,
My Incapacity Benefit is £12.83 per day. After Council Tax, Water, Phone, Broadband, Electricity and all other intermittent payments, I am left with about £5 per day. It's my daily challenge to make this into as much pleasure as I can. I'm sure I eat better than many with more to spend.
IB Claimant, UK,
Surely in the spirit of South Park's Chef (R.I.P. Isaac Hayes) it should be Ed "suck on my chocolate salty" Balls??
Wallsy, Brisbane, Australia
Good article, thanks! Brown's inability to change is the core of his character. If he were right it would be an asset. When he's wrong, as he is now, it's a dangerous flaw. We can't spend our way out of recession because Labour emptied the coffers. We just have to take the pain and the cuts.
Paul Freeman, London, England
I'm not quite sure which part of the Conservative “tax bombshell” campaign you regard as dastardly? Labour has pushed up taxes, especially if you count the future tax take for borrowing and PFI.
Paul, Reigate,
Well, I don't know about Brown or Cameron making cuts, really we all pay back the B.o.E. “If a Central Bank is ever created in America- Through Inflation and Deflation the “Bankers” will Rob The “Americans” Thomas Jefferson Sounds so similiar to today's problems.
Scott, Swansea,
It seems after about 15 years both political parties run out of steam. We need a change. With Labour constantly finding new ways to spend our money, and create more rules, we are for ever getting closer to the ultimate totalitarian state. Hopefully one day we will get away from boom & bust.
Roland, DAGENHAM, UK
It's so depressing reading about the reality tv politics we have in this country. I wish politicians would stop wasting my time with soundbites telling me why the other person is wrong - I'll decide! Tell me what you're going to do and why it's right. Surely that's why there's less than 50% turnout!
You work for us!, London, UK
My abiding memory of Labour in opposition is them banging on about 'boom and bust' politics. What did they do once they got into power? Nice one Gordon, you created possibly the greatest boom and bust in history!
You work for us!, London, UK
gordon brown as got britain in the worst financial mess ever,and for him to say he will not make any spending cuts if labour should win next election is nothing but a out right lie,brown as all ready making spending cuts to public spending under the name of reforms,do not be fooled by brown.
thomas arthur, wallasey, uk
Nice to know there's someone in the commentariat still trying to explain the workings of Gordon Brown's brain. The rest of us have given up!
Geoffrey Walker, Bordeaux, France
Wish I had £150 a month for food. My Pensions come to £155 a week, which has to cover all my bills. Food comes out of what I have left after paying the rest. George Brown says single Pensioners can live on £130 a week, or £564 a month, yet MP's can claim £400 a month in expenses for food. Go figure!
Dragon, Windsor, England
Graham of Driffield, You manage easily on £4 per day and only eat fresh food? What 's that then, weeds?
AJ, Farnham, UK
very good artilce Daniel Finkelstein. Your working hypothesis goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives are cagey about their policies (and rightly so), and why Brown bangs on aobut tory cuts. The sad fact is we need fiscal restraint. or this county will go bankrupt.
dominique, london, UK
Labours crude tactic -see ad by Google below -portray Cameron asMr10%-less police ,less safe ,more cuts for who ? Might just work after Brown has packed huge numbers into public sector jobs and state handouts . How to counteract this is Tory challenge .
John, Ipswich, UK
Tom of Basingstoke, you need to shop somewhere else, £500 per month is ridiculous, we manage easily on about one quarter that and only eat fresh food. Your figures are as misleading as Labour's but I think yours is at least an honest mistake.
Graham, Driffield, UK
The underlying intellectual error is that everything the State pays for at present, it should go on paying for,[...]. " The question is really "why pay so much?". Cut public sector salary bill by 10% now. Its what we can afford. Keep the work the same. Look no service cuts!
Read Full Article »