This Autumn Statement was a study in evasion

There are two days on which the opposition can get no coverage: Budget day, and Autumn Statement day. There is nothing unfair about this. It is a defensible, indeed correct, news judgment reflecting the iron law that governments get up thinking about what they are going to do while oppositions can only think about what they are going to say. The permanent danger of opposition is of being trapped in the role of angry powerless teenager. To adapt the famous exchange with Marlon Brando in The Wild One:

“Hey Jeremy, what are you opposing?” “Whadda you got?”

Opposition for opposition’s sake guarantees only one thing—permanent opposition.

What then is the right way to respond to the Autumn Statement? First and foremost have an analysis and an argument. You cannot know all the “sparklers”—bright new ideas—and “lollipops”—giveaways—in advance, though most will have been pre-briefed. You should know what the core issues will be because they are clear—productivity, housing, infrastructure and regional economic balance. Further, you should be able to shred any proposals that come forward as they will inevitably be inadequate—and, if you have been doing your policy work, propose practical and popular policies as an alternative.

This leads to the second point. Be witty. That is the only guaranteed way to cut through the noise. The bar, as we know from watching Prime Minister’s Questions, is set pretty low. Hammond just about cleared it. Anyone who had prepared a proper writer to collaborate with—as Harriet Harman did when Ayesha Hazarika worked for her—could have had a draft full of zingers.

Third, proper preparation: a line of argument and a lot of jokes means that you can respond to any of the surprises announced. Many of them collapse within 24 hours—the trick is to spot a few weak ones and to give them an immediate kicking.

How, then, did John McDonnell do? Pretty poorly. Once again he showed that his motto is “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Housing policy was the announcement of a White Paper—that went unmocked. One item of substance in housing policy was the “abolition” of letting fees—in reality, their transfer to landlords who will in turn add it to rents. The idea was rejected a few weeks ago by housing minister Gavin Barwell for this very reason. A decent “Attack Unit” would have seen this announcement briefed and provided the Shadow Chancellor with a line allowing him to highlight the inconsistency here. Alas, a decent Attack Unit is as distant a memory as a witty Commons performance from the Labour leadership. The best joke at Philip Hammond’s expense was made by… Philip Hammond. He announced the abolition of the Autumn Statement, only to add that he was also abolishing the Spring Budget, so in future there would be… drum roll… a Spring Statement and an Autumn Budget.

All of this was, of course, a study in evasion. The Chancellor didn’t want to face up to the complete collapse of deficit elimination targets and the ballooning borrowing required because of the Brexit shock. In similar fashion John McDonnell wanted to avoid facing the truth—that after Hammond’s loosening of targets Labour had tighter spending plans and therefore is currently committed to deeper cuts than the government. Instead of rapier-like wit and a dazzling dissection of the flaws in the government’s proposals McDonnell delivered monotone miserabilism. Proof, once more, that “Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.”