An election campaign that is too full of gimmickry

UK election campaigns always have their fair share of histrionics. Activists in chicken suits stalk their political opponents. It is momentarily big news when the prime minister forgets which claret-themed football club he is meant to support.

The shrugging British electorate knows how to ignore this or just laugh it off. What it should not forgive are the questionable policies flowing out of both party headquarters. In a tight race, the campaign promises uttered by the aspirants to Downing Street have become ever less fit for a programme of government.

Labour's idea of cutting tuition fees benefit only richer graduates, and their proposed interference in the private rental sector could exacerbate the housing crisis. Few expect their promised cap on energy prices to help households struggle with their bills.

What is more of a shock is the stream of gimmicks and poor policies coming from the Conservatives. In five years of government they conducted themselves with restraint and resolve which reassured the financial markets.

In coalition with the Liberal Democrats, they delivered the most difficult fiscal settlement in modern times. Tough spending plans were flintily adhered to. Tax policy stuck to a predictable path - an Office for Tax Simplification was set up, and the corporate tax rate is now the lowest in the G7. The deficit has come down - not as quickly as intended, but not so fast that it derailed the nascent recovery. Confidence in the Tories' ability to steer Britain towards better economic times is strong.

During a close election campaign the voters should expect a slew of crowd-pleasing offerings. But those produced by the Tory party threaten this hard-won credibility. To sell off social housing at a discount will be expensive, as is their pledge to take family homes out of inheritance tax. Neither would help Britain's housing crisis or address inequality.

But arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance. Even after five years of tough spending measures, the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise some £200bn for the exchequer would make the challenge needlessly harder.

It is unwise for the Conservatives to bind their hands, legally or otherwise, against using tax rises to close the deficit. Much of public expenditure is unavoidable or politically protected, so that ever more savings need to be found from the shrinking funds for welfare, social care justice and defence. It makes sense to leave oneself the option to turn to tax in times of adversity to smooth the path of consolidation.

The Tories are not the first to propose an act to wrap the chancellor in a straitjacket. Indeed the wittiest put-down of this sort of gimmick came from George Osborne in 2009 when he criticised the then-Labour government's Fiscal Responsibility Bill.

His words bear rereading. "Either the chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word, but hopes that they might believe in the statute book if not in him."

All we can say is: exactly. The Conservatives should trust in their own high standing and forswear such gimmickry, rather than burn up all of their carefully husbanded credibility.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation