Morning:
12°c
Have you ever heard so many euphemisms for the simple word “cut”? Downing Street has spent days and long nights trying to work out how to bring it in from the cold.
Finally, the Prime Minister managed it yesterday, pledging that he would “cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes, cut low priority budgets” — which might make us wonder why these were being funded to start with.
The day before, Lord Mandelson, without hesitation, deviation but quite a lot of repetition, stormed though an entire BBC interview without a single reference to cuts by name. It required the Prime Minister's imprimatur to become acceptable in Labour circles. In an instant, the precious dividing line with the Conservatives has been erased: we're all cutters now.
The problem lies not in the switch but in the delay. It seeks to be trusted to make tender incisions in public spending: this won't hurt a bit if you lie back and think of “values”. The Business Secretary drew up a fearsome “Demon Eyes” picture of young Conservatives “foaming at the mouth” in their wanton pursuit of economies. The message is that Labour cuts because it has to, the Tories do it because they like it — and they are in a rush to do it and endanger the recovery.
Alas, the voters are now saying consistently in polls that they trust the Opposition more than Labour to brandish the axe to best effect. That is one consequence of Messrs Cameron and Osborne moving their stance earlier, rather than the dragged-out realignment that has taken place over than the summer in the Government.
True, Lord Mandelson has won an important argument but late in the day. He was forced into the odd position yesterday of claiming that Gordon Brown's early summer peroration in the Commons about “Labour investment, Tory cuts” now has had to be taken “in context”, when what Gordon meant was perfectly clear all along because he has been saying it for months and years.
Put bluntly, voters are more worried about the £135 billion public finances deficit than about the impact of cuts. This may well change when the arguments begin in earnest about what should be chopped and who should suffer; but the election will be fought on anticipation, not results.
Still, the pressure is not only on Labour. It is, to say the least, paradoxical for Mr Cameron to cling to an inheritance tax threshold rise, benefiting well-off property owners, while announcing major incisions into spending that will impact far more widely.
Downing Street has been working on a fresh start for the autumn — to all intents and purposes the beginning of an election campaign. Really, there is little disagreement on the need to rebalance the books — except that the Conservatives are more frank in their ruthlessness and want to start earlier.
At a private dinner recently, the Business Secretary conceded that his party had been “painted into a corner” because it had appeared to be ignoring the requirement for thrift in the wake of the massive fiscal stimulus. He even looked a stray Tory activist present in the eye and added with chilly admiration: “I give you that.”
The switch of position leaves the PM freer to argue that his party retains a better sense of where priorities should lie in tough times. That, I am told, was the claim which convinced him to relinquish his Shirley Bassey memorial role as a Big Spender.
Alas, the public has moved into a mood of deep suspicion about the Government's competence. When Alistair Darling paraded Labour “values” as inherently superior last week, he was harking back to a pre‑crash, pre expenses-fiasco era, when Mr Brown could brandish his “moral compass” without causing fits of laughter.
Mandy's job, therefore, is to make the best of where Labour is now. That is not a good place, a fact confirmed by yesterday's Times poll showing that nearly half of those questioned would prefer anyone but Gordon to be leader. I asked a senior backbencher how he finds the mood among colleagues drifiting back from the sour political summer. “It's all GMG,” he says. Gordon Must Go.
So the Business Secretary's urgent task as the political autumn gets under way is to shore up the PM's position internally and help craft a more credible message to the outside world. Claiming to be a “wise spender” is about as far as Lord Mandelson can credibly go, though even that is dubious, given his protégé's record. As Chancellor, Mr Brown presided over one of the great spending rises under any modern government in New Labour's early years — with erratic results and a patchy reform record.
Now the Government has thrown overboard a pledge to extend maternity pay from nine months to a year. This has caused a serious Cabinet rift with Harriet Harman (backed by many other senior Labour women) fighting to preserve the 2005 manifesto commitment. They believe Lord Mandelson is squandering much-needed support among women. “Peter knows a lot,” says one, “but on this, we've shot ourselves in the foot — for the sake of a pretty small amount.” It's a sign of how fraught the choices now are for a Prime Minister fighting to stay in the electoral game.
Mr Brown has done one clever thing this week: in taking his new gospel straight to the TUC, he immunised himself against a Left-wing attack. Selling cuts to the unions alongside the promise of preserving jobs proved relatively easy and he did it with some conviction.
Persuading the rest that relatively minor reductions in public spending will be enough to remedy the public finances will be far harder. It's necessary surgery all right — but the outcome still looks like death by a thousand cuts.
The unexamined life is well worth living
THE Government's over-emphasis on school tests may diminish children's chances of a joyful childhood, according to Mick Waters, one of the architects of the National Curriculum. The interesting thing about his remarks, in an interview, is not just that they are true but that they were made after he left government employment. Mr Waters resigned from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority this summer after four years overseeing the National Curriculum. A pity that he did not make his objections to school tests public then.
Most teachers undoubtedly agree with Mr Waters that “children should go places, make things, build things, sing, play, look closely at their world” rather than preparing for Sats tests. His warning of “the danger that children become a currency' that can bring us scores'” rings true, given the importance that parents, school heads and ministers attach to school league tables. But it is also worth remembering why it was that they were introduced in the first place: parents previously had no real information on which to assess schools.
Yet the limitations of repeated testing are now apparent. As teaching unions have emphasised, children are now taught to the test, that is, coached to pass exams, which is something rather different from being educated. A narrow emphasis on SATS tests has been at the expense of the broad education that Mr Waters describes. The Government has reduced the numbers of tests, but they still hang heavy over 11 year-olds and some 14 year-olds.
Indeed he could have gone further: exams and coursework dominate the school lives of secondary school pupils, too. Some independent schools allow pupils to bypass GCSEs in favour of taking AS-levels early but for most children, the sequence of GCSEs, followed by AS levels followed by A-levels or diplomas is a very hard grind. We risk losing the point of education, which is to allow children to flourish and to enjoy learning for its own sake, as well as to acquire the necessary skills to equip them for work and further studies. The challenge now is to find a way to monitor schools' performance without league tables becoming an end in themselves.
Young and jobless
ONE of the features of this recession is that it has fallen particularly hard on the young. The jobless rate for those under 25 is almost one in five, according to figures out today. This is not because of fecklessness, simply that employers are unable to take on inexperienced staff. Those leaving school with no or few qualifications are twice as likely to sign on the dole as those with them.
In the circumstances, it is remarkable, as our report today makes clear, how resourceful young people can be. Many are taking low-paid jobs rather than be out of work; some, who can afford it, are working for free to gain experience. There has been unprecedented demand for university places. Certainly, internships — temporary work placements for little or no pay — are often the preserve of the well-connected but the instinct to seek work experience is right. The Government is providing additional training for young people. But as Iain Duncan Smith points out in his new report for the Tories on work and benefits, we also need to focus on ways of ensuring that young people who do find work, especially for low pay, do not become worse off by losing benefits. A generation lost to work now may never recover.
Bankers in ashes
OUR Lord took a dim view of the moneychangers in the Temple and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is similarly severe on bankers who have shown no repentance for their misdeeds. How could they repent? A barefoot pilgrimage from Threadneedle Street to St Paul's might be one option, or else sackcloth and ashes could replace pinstripes. It might do the bankers little good but it could cheer the rest of us up.
Reader views (3)
The key point is Brown had for months sat on Treasury details of cuts to be made, while repeating 'We will not cut', and accusing Conservatives of plans to cut! Dress it up anyway, it is the same, Brown told plain lies.
Now he has had to be open, sort of, it just underlines how stupid he is, as an idiot would know the truth would come out. He has revealed himself and Labour as at best incompetent, and also dishonest and immoral.
Brown reminded how McBride, Brown's 'Director of UK Strategy' was exposed ripping the moral mask off Brown's face.
Another example is Brown repeated claims Labour supports families, yet it pays welfare so couples have to live apart! Brown says nice popular soundbites and does the opposite, so they depend on Labour and must vote Labour! Is that lies, policy error, or a policy of corruption?
National governments have resigned over accusations of failure to equip armed forces properly. Labour are far worse, another soldier dies from an IED in an unsafe Viking, that were old when I used them in Norway in 1970! There are plenty of really safe anti blast vehicles that MoD could buy, like Casspir. Yet Brown boasted 'Labour provides all that was needed'! No they have not by a vast gulf. All key politicians and MOD procurement people should leave the soft safe Whitehall sofas and drive Vikings and Snatch Rovers around Helmand. The Army would soon get more helicopters and Casspirs!! Labour has lies and blood on it's hands!
- Jerry, Islington uk
Inheritance Tax is a disgrace at the current levels.
Why on earth should hard working people pay 40% tax to the government on assets that have already been taxed?
USA don't, Australia don't, New Zealand don't. Even in France it does not come in before 1,000,000 Euros.
What does it stand at now before tax? approx 375,000 GBP.
What mansion can you but for that?
What is wrong with passing on something to your children?
It is a dishonest tax on top increased Stamp Duty etc.
- Macdangler, Wimbledon SW19
It is pretty obvious to all but the most economically illiterate that you need Keynes going into a recession - to soften the blow and prevent a complete meltdown. But you need a hard dose of monetarism coming out - to restore public finances, prevent inflation and ensure that the most productive parts of the economy have the capacity to add genuine (as opposed to publicly-invented and therefore replacement) demand. The double-dip recession is sometimes caused by this necessary pulling away of the soft support of the state - just as legs are always a bit wobbly once out of plaster (but would wither away if the plaster remained on too long).
The key question is when to shift from one to the other. Too soon and the second dip could be worse than the first (a bit like the early 1980s), too late and the recession will flip into a lost decade of zero growth, high inflation and high taxes (a bit like the 1970s). Dilemmas, dilemmas but ultimately, Thatcher was right - at some point you have to balance the books and let genuine demand take root, so you may as well get on with it the moment it is obvious that a 1930s style collapse has been averted. A bit like now in fact.
- Milton-Not-Keynes, London
