Leaders: Political point-scoring leaves sour taste

The spectacle of Conservative politicians using the tragedy of the deaths of six children at the hands of their father, Mick Philpott, to justify the UK government’s controversial welfare reform programme is particularly unedifying.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, started the debate on Thursday, when he said there was a question for government, society and taxpayers about the welfare state “subsidising lifestyles like that”.

Mr Osborne was referring to Philpott living with his wife and his mistress in a three- bedroom council house with 11 of their children. Philpott received some £8,000 a year in child benefit, with the income support and wages paid to his wife and mistress going to his bank account. Yesterday, the Chancellor’s call was supported by the Prime Minister, who said the UK government wanted welfare to be there “to help people who want to work hard”, but not be “a lifestyle choice”.

The Prime Minister and Mr Osborne were careful to stress that Philpott was responsible for his shocking crimes. However, while they did not say it directly, it appears they hope voters hear something else: that the welfare state is responsible for Philpott’s lifestyle, and by unstated implication, for his monstrous actions. And that this supports their case for reform, which with its “bedroom tax” plan, has run into serious opposition.

This is dog whistle politics at its very worst – politicians seeking subliminally to convey a frankly repellent viewpoint which they hope plays to voters worst fears and prejudices – knowing that were they to state these views more openly they would, rightly, be condemned.

Let us be clear: Philpott was a violent, manipulative, controlling thug who ultimately killed six children, but his extreme behaviour and “complete lack of moral compass” were not created by the fact he could live on benefits. His horrific actions were always in frantic pursuit of his self-interest, it was not about where money or anything else he wanted was coming from or how easy it was or what stood in his way. Do we really think that he would have been a decent, law-abiding citizen if only we didn’t have a welfare state?

In these circumstances, one would hope to hear voices of reason from the opposition yet while shadow chancellor Ed Balls might have been right in accusing the government of cynicism, he was undermined by having little new or constructive to say about welfare reform.

Amid all this heat, it was refreshing to hear the sane voice of Mr Osborne’s Liberal Democrat deputy at the Treasury, Danny Alexander, rejecting the Chancellor’s comments, saying simply the Philpott case was an “individual tragedy”. Mr Alexander is right. The deaths were a terrible human tragedy. It is a sign of how low some of our politicians stoop that these poor, unfortunate children have become pawns in a deeply distasteful political game.

Justice demands Crosby loses his title

The report by the parliamentary commission on banking standards into the downfall of HBOS could not have been clearer. Senior members of the bank’s board and management team were responsible for the “catastrophic” failures at the once mighty and respected Scottish institution.

One of the three men named and shamed by report was former chief executive Sir James Crosby, who led the bank from 2001 to 2006 and, ironically, was also on the Financial Services authority regulatory body. Yes, Sir James, who was knighted in 2006 for his services to the financial sector in this country.

Yesterday, as the full impact of the commission’s damning report began to sink in, politicians began to question whether Sir James should remain a Sir. The parallels are obvious. “Sir” Fred Goodwin was reduced to plain Fred after his cavalier leadership of Royal Bank of Scotland led to it having to be effectively nationalised.

So, were Goodwin’s many failures any worse than Crosby’s? Even cursory glance at the parliamentary report would lead most reasonable people to an obvious answer: no. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest, as a number of politicians advocated yesterday, that Sir James should become humble James again.

Such a move should not be seen as vindictive. Other measures, the least of which would be for him and two others named – his successor Andy Hornby and former chairman Lord Stevenson – to be banned from practicing in the City, as the commission said.

However, if Goodwin, rightly, had his knighthood withdrawn for dishonouring the honours system, justice and fairness demands the same is meted out to Crosby.