For a less than glowing example of how Gordon Brown makes policy, you need look no further than his u-turn over "bin" taxes.

There is nothing wrong in principle about tearing up a policy you inherited from your predecessor. After all, since he became prime minister, Mr Brown has scrapped plans for a supercasino in Manchester, set about reclassifying cannabis after it was downgraded, and looks likely to end 24-hour drinking. All reversals that have merit.

Abandoning plans, drawn up by the green-tinged David Miliband when he was environment secretary, to charge households who fail to recycle their rubbish a little bit more for their refuse collection, is yet another break with the policies of the Blair administration. It is easy to see why Mr Brown has acted, but less easy to applaud the move.

After his dismal retreat over calling a snap election, the prime minster is on the defensive and vulnerable, especially on tax, where the Conservatives are tapping popular sentiment for cuts. Come next year’s local elections, he does not want to be portrayed by the opposition as "bin tax" as well as "bottler" Brown.

The Tories claimed rubbish charges - actually a system of financial incentives already used in other European countries and designed to reward households that recycle - were a "hated tax on families". The Daily Mail, that barometer of middle Britain on which Mr Brown has begun to lavish considerable attention, began waging a campaign against the idea. Hey presto, the prime minister shelves it.

The problem with this decision is twofold. First, and most importantly, it raises serious questions about Mr Brown’s environmental credentials.

After investing immense political capital into the review by Sir Nicholas Stern into climate change - which called for a mix of market and fiscal measures to tackle pollution - the prime minister has displayed remarkable timidity on green taxes, leaving it to David Cameron’s Tories to forge ahead with proposals for a new tax on flights to replace air passenger duty.

He paid lip service to Stern with a draft climate change bill that will in itself do little to cut carbon emissions. And now, according to leaked Whitehall documents published in the Financial Times and the Guardian this week, his ministers want to minimise the UK’s contribution to a European Union target to source 20 per cent of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. 

By stamping on the environment department’s only strategy for tackling household waste - apparently for no more reason than it was politically expedient to do so - he has again displayed the calculating and opportunist streak for which he has been punished in the polls. It is short-sighted policymaking too.

True, the proposals were imperfect. It was still unclear how a system of incentives might work in practice, or how people might be deterred from fly-tipping: an obvious consequence of the new regime.

But the plans, if the government’s own consultation is any guide, had won considerable public support, including from local authorities. There would be no cost to the public purse, nor any increase in the  tax take. In short, ministers including Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, felt they were a modest and sensible step to encourage greener behaviour.

Until 6pm yesterday evening that was. And here is the second problem with Mr Brown’s decision. The haze and confusion surrounding it, all of Downing Street’s own making, smacked of panic and on-the-hoof policymaking: the very criticisms once levelled at the Blair government.

Inside the environment department, until late on press officers were preparing to announce today that the government would commit to changing the law to enable councils to charge people for their waste. Nothing was confirmed, officials insist on the record. Privately, they concede an announcement was imminent.

Then, at a quarter past six, up pops a reporter on the BBC to rush out news of a "delay" in the decision. Officials in Number Ten had apparently only just told their counterparts at environment of the rethink. As the minutes ticked by, it emerged that the "delay" was in fact probably permanent.

If I were Mr Benn, I would be feeling pretty embarrassed as well as annoyed, as I would be if I was Hazel Blears, the communities secretary. Her department pushed out a response to a select committee report today saying the charging idea was "fair", would have a "positive impact" and be "another tool for engaging the public in waste minimisation".

Mr Brown’s spokesman was typically po-faced in today’s briefing for lobby journalists. "Once the government is in a position to make an announcement, we will make an announcement," was all he would say. Joined up government this is not.

October 25th, 2007 in Uncategorised | Permalink