Johnson's dividing lines

Sunder Katwala

Alan gave the speech this morning to the Fabians.

More from it on the Next Left blog. We hope to have a full text online soon.

Why inequality matters

JONNY

Unfortunately genial People's Bloke Johnson gives the impression of knowing buggerall about the economy.
'Novice' looks a bit too hopeful in his case.
How about total ignoramus?

Nicholas

But the message is pure bunkum and the Tories need to fight back on it, drawing the distinction between cutting vital services and cutting government waste. In order to do that I think they need some soundbites of their own on how much increase in wasteful expenditure there has been under Labour. The increased cost of government propaganda, woink(er)s, quangos and failed IT to start with.

It frustrates me that Labour are able to craft these lies and apparently get away with them.

G Butler

It seems Alan Johnson is as clueless as Brown.

Does nobody in Labour understand that the Govt. cannot carry on spending regardless ?
Labour have decimated the public finances, and are therefore directly responsible for all future spending cuts.

Mike, Brighton

There comes a point when a ship is sinking that it will go down with all hands. There is little point in changing the captain.
Would changing Captain Smith of the Titanic for his second officer at around midnight (the iceberg was struck at 23:40) have made much difference?

Why on earth should Jack Straw, Alistair Darling or Peter Mandelson resign tell Labour MPs that Brown is the naked emperor and call on them to storm the palace? Only to grasp the leadership (Mandy exempted) and then be the captain as the ship sinks horribly? What in short is in it for them? To be the leader when Labour is annihilated in an election? Doesn't sound like a winner to me.

All the noise is post-electoral Labour civil war positioning.

Bob.India

Who would be this Cabinet Minister with "standing" who would lead the charge by resigning and telling the truth? I really can't think of any with either the "bottom" or the balls to do it.

seb

It's clear, then. The thousands of quangocrats, management consultants paid to help civil servants already paid to manage, the morbidly obese public sector and those thousands of people who earn several times the average national wage doing SFA for us are "the most vulnerable in our society". You're all heart, Mr. Johnson.

The Times ran a story this week about the success the Canadian government has had in cutting its budget. Force majeure rather than politics was the impetus behind this. The UK has little choice but to learn from this and other examples.

The Bellman

"What we've got here is a - a failure to communicate..."

That's the excuse of deluded narcissists throughout history: "We're so manifestly on the side of the angels that only the bad or the stupid would object - so we just need to make our case more attractively."

So the band of nervy pygmies trying to push each other to the front of the crowd think it's as simple as which of them can make the 'Tory cuts/Labour spending' distortions sound most plausible. In other words, the job goes to the best deceitful scare-monger.

Anyway, the obvious reply to this sort of lazy boo-politics is: What's so 'hideous' about austerity, if the alternative is (a) unaffordable Statist vanity projects, quango-led reviews, and 'oversight', or (b) IMF-imposed penury; and is (c) all McSnotty's fault?

And if you can spend billions on skoolz'n'ospitalz but get no obvious improvements, why can't you cut billions with no obvious ill effects?

Liz Brown

Alan Johnson caved into the Unions over pension reform - he is most certainly NOT the best person to captain the doomed ship Titanic

Susan Hill

Johnson should get out more. A wander through the pages of Appointmentsin the Guardian might help him to see how few jobs are actually relevant to 'the most vulnerable in society.' Meanwhile, Cameron is talking about 'cutting sensitively.' Same bunk. They need to take a huge axe and swing it. I think they`d find they went through a hell of a lot of dead wood in the public sector before they drew so much as a drop of vital blood.

Ray

And which government has, perchance, forced 'austerity' upon us, Mr Johnson?

Dean

As the posts on this page vividly illustrate, most Tory supporters, when pressed about spending cuts,are unable to be specific about where the axe should fall. Instead what we observe is a facile, reflex assumption either that the whole of the public sector is a waste of money, or that there is an easy distinction to be drawn between 'good' and 'bad' public spending, and that a Tory government can be trusted to draw the line in the right place.

This sort of nonsense convinces no-one beyond the party faithful. The Tories have yet to spell out their detailed plans to restore fiscal discipline and, until they do, voters have every reason to fear that the axe will fall in the wrong places (e.g. cutbacks on drug access for cancer patients, less money for the homeless, fewer resources for the police to combat anti-social behaviour etc. etc.)

It isn't enough for the Tories to make clear that they will oppose cuts in defence spending. Defence is important, but it's not the only public good. We need to know, in much more detail, what other areas of public expenditure the Tories consider worthwhile and are willing to prioritise. Otherwise we (the voters) are simply being asked to sign a blank cheque.

Tom Pride

Mike, Brighton May 7th, 2009 12:28pm

“There comes a point when a ship is sinking that it will go down with all hands. There is little point in changing the captain. Would changing Captain Smith of the Titanic for his second officer at around midnight (the iceberg was struck at 23:40) have made much difference?”

An interesting analogy. The Titanic began going under at 2:10 am. That gave 2 hours ten minutes to resolve the problem of how do you keep 2,223 people alive in the North Atlantic until 4:10 am when the Carpathia arrived and for another 2 hours pending rescue operations, when lifeboat capacity was only 1,178 persons.

Captain Smith’s result was 706 survived, 1,517 perished. Apparently he was in a state of shock or disbelief. Another man in charge, recognising that the ship was going down and acting decisively might have got all 20 lifeboats off in good time, at full adult capacity with say five extra children per boat. That would be 1,278 leaving 945 less one 944. The ship was supposed to have 50% of the lifeboat capacity in life rafts and floats. Could these have been readied in the 2 hours available and made seaworthy for the 2 to 4 hours needed? If so that is another 589 saved with 355 left. Could the ships carpenter (if it had one) have found enough material with the buoyancy to keep 355 men out of the water for two hours in the two hours available to prepare? Say a 50% success rate for this, giving 2,044 saved and 179 lost. A change of leadership at midnight could well have resulted in a significant reduction in the loss of life.

Dorothy Wilson

And don't forget Alan Johnson is the man who caved into the unions over public sector pensions. In doing so he landed not just this generation, but the next, with a bill going into billions if not trillions.

And Labour is seriously suggesting he is the man to run an economy that is already bankrupt!

J H Holloway

Dean

'Otherwise we (the voters) are simply being asked to sign a blank cheque.'

No, sir, that's what Gordon 'keep spending' Brown is asking voters to do.

How could the Tories hope to know were to cut when they are in opposition? It'll take a good year to sort everything out - although all quangos can be killed off from day one.

David Lindsay

And the POLITICAL difference between any two of them, including Cameron, is...?

Dorothy Wilson

Dean: the highly regarded National Institute of Economic and Social Research says that, to get government finances back to a reasonable level by 2023, we have a choice. Either public sector spending is cut by £50-60bn or tax is increased by 9-10p in the pound.

To get the national debt back to 40% of GDP, the level that "prudence Brown" advocated for so long, would require an additional 15% on tax lifting the standard rate to 45%. Are you suggesting tax increases of that order are acceptable? If not what do you suggest?

In framing your answer, please remember that cutting public spending does not necessarily mean cutting essential public services. There are plenty of inessential elements within the public sector and, like the private sector, the people who work there will have to learn how to be more efficient and effective.

We really do not have any choice but to cut our clothes according to our cloth.

As for the Tories asking us to sign a blank cheque, surely it is Labour who are doing that. Look no further than Alan Johnson.

Verity

Dean, you might want to read Susan Hill's post, the second above your own.

In addition, it is not Tories who are the fascists at NICE. It's the controlling socialists. Too, you say, with no tether at all to reality, that Tory supporters "are unable to be specific about where the axe should fall."

Incorrect. We have enumerated the areas many times.

For your edification, we usually prescribe taking an axe to every quango in Britain. Also so-called advisory bodies that have neither the legitimacy of the ballot box nor the legitimacy of having taking Civil Service examinations. Ditto all the public-money supported "think tanks" and phony charities and the whole grotesquerie of Common Purpose and all its busy little minions.

Are you really, really, really suggesting that the Tories would cut back on funds for the police? Are you mad?

Your only contact with reality would appear to be that Tories would wish to cut back on funds for the homeless. Well, that would certainly get this Tory's vote.

And a massive increase in funds to round up illegal "immigrants" and every "asylum seeker" squatting in our country and pack them densely into freighters headed for Dar-es-Salaam.

Verity

In addition, Dean, your fishing expedition was extremely juvenile. Sixth form boy, are you? Fancy yourself in the debating society, eh? "... simply being asked to sign a blank cheque." What an original turn of phrase!

Ian C

"a Cabinet Minister with standing" is the ultimate contradiction in terms.

A massive magnifying glass with neon search lights would be required just to look for said Minsiter - that noone has spotted in at least 2 years!

Chuck Unsworth

I don't care how 'nice' Johnson may or may not be. How competent is he?