Alan Johnson: this time it's personal

DavidDP

So, it's to be opposition by 4-yorkshiremen-sketch is it?

Sally Chatterjee

Because he struggles to grasp the basics of economics I fear he's having to lash out in order to attract attention.

salieri

To describe criticism of Labour's record in government as "Orwellian" misinformation is in itself the most wonderful demonstration of Orwellian misinformation one could imagine.

Peter From Maidstone

It sounds unlikely that Johnson wrote the article himself.

Tiberius

Johnson (like his namesake, the mayor of London) has a problem in being taken seriously because of his history of levity. While Boris may appear to be buffoon, Al appears as a stand-up comedian from the music hall, always about to deliver (due to his former occupation) a punchline involving a gynaecologist and a letter box.

Paul Hawkins

Until our postie friend accepts that Labour had some part to play in the events of the last 13 years and that was not all good,all this emans is he is a denier with rage issues.

Maggie

If real life experience is a prerequisite for making policy or holding opinions then Alan John son doesn't qualify to speak about or do anything very much. He can't speak about education cos he hasn't had one. He can't speak about military matters cos he hasn't been in the forces. He can't speak about the economy cos he's never made any money and he despises people who have. By his criteria, he's a bit pointless except as a role model for people who write senseless articles.

GDT

Some red meat for the red masses.

Nick Wilde

So, if I understand his reasoning correctly, one cannot have a valid view nor make effective policy on something one has not experienced directly oneself. Does that mean that he is not fit to formulate policy on, say, immigration, banking reform or free schools, having had no direct experience of these things himself?

It is preaching to Labour's tribal supporters, who vote for them no matter what damage they do to the country, to have a go at middle class, white men.If Labour's argument for diversity rests with the likes of Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ed Balls, I think I prefer the alternative.

Frank P

P from M

Much midnight oil and the efforts of at least three illiterate ideologues knocked out that crap - I'll bet Postman Pat was tucked up in bed at the time.

ollie

Johnson believes he is more qualified to preach about social mobility because he came from a broken family on a council estate.

I would argue that is precisely why he is NOT qualified. Who wants a politician making policy decisions based on how large the chip on his shoulder is?

Still, I guess leaving school at 15 with no qualifications is much easier to stomach for Labour than getting a first at Oxford.

Johnson proves just how unelectable Labour have become.

les

Not remotely interested.

streborjm

Ollie

Precisely agree with your argument.

And David Davis is the exception that proves the rule.

Paul

"The government spouts the importance of aspiration and the need for social mobility, but has no real-life experience of the factors involved"

This from a former postman/Trade Unionist working for Ed "I have lots of life experience acting as Gordon Brown's sidekick" Miliband?

Jose

Well, it's pretty obvious he's not going to get anywhere by being 'Mr. Nice'....even if he is talking total rubbish! You have to remember which part of the electorate Labour is addressing! The lowest common denominator springs to mind; what a complete load of rubbish from Labour!

HK

"our objective of having half of 18-to-30-year-olds in higher education."

Is that a typo? Shouldn't the large portion of that age group who are no longer university age be working?

Woody

We haven't seen him at the despatch box yet coming under sustained questionning. Until then his minnows can write as many articles as they like.

Grumpy Optimist

As long as Labour refuse or even better fail to comprehend how damaging they have been to the economy, our finances, social cohesion, education and so on, then the longer that they will remain unelectable. Long may they continue to write this rubbish.

Chuck Unsworth

Johnson clings to the notion that in order to comment about something one must have direct personal experience of the matter.

Utterly crass. Does Johnson ever discuss football, rugby, military service, the fire brigade, etc? Has he ever played in the Premier League (of any sort, for that matter)?

What does Johnson think of Wedgwood Benn's, or Harriet Harman's speeches about the same issues? Are they debarred from speaking because of their backgrounds, their lack of personal experience? Why were these people appointed as Ministers then?

This is Johnson desperately casting around for a pebble to throw - and managing to hit his own conservatory. His argument would support the concept that he can only speak about being a postman. Perhaps that's how it should be.

lescam

"The lack of social diversity among the Lib Dems is even more pronounced than among the Tories."

This didn't stop Labour attempting to form a coalition with the Libs after the last election, in order to prevent the Tories forming one. Brown, Balls and Mandelson were all in favour.

The article sounds like sour grapes to me, and I agree with Peter from Maidstone, that it is highly unlikely that Johnson even wrote it. Does he have the literary skills? As for having "experience of life", how much experience did Blair and Brown have? A nonsensical argument.

HFC

"Us and Dems"

Should that not be 'Dems and Us'?

John Moss

Don't have the numbers to hand anymore, but the combined deficits of Brown's last six years as Chancellor were just over £200bn. Then Darling added £250bn.

So clearly, nothing to do with Labour......

TrevorsDen

Johnson has no policy other than abuse. He has no brains or intellect to espouse any policy other than abuse.

He is pathetic. The logic is that if someone has ability and success he is not in tune with the underclass labour has created and therefore not fit to govern them.
Its a pity labours understanding of their needs and aspirations was to put an extra million of them onto benefits instead of into jobs. Labours measure of 'success' is how many people it can put on benefits.

Labour's record was appalling. Any fool can spend money if he worries not where it is going to come from.
Johnson is not shadow chancellor - he is running the Ministry of Truth, busy rewriting history. Of course the BBC will not expose him - they are far to cosy for that.

Mr Hoskin you are in danger of becoming as naive in these things as Iain Dale - of course Johnson (desperate for a return to office) will spin any lie to get his way. Are you so simple minded? He is a lying socialist. Another one.

And please please please what on earth is the point of quoting the Economist - that apologist for Brown.

Victor Southern

Written for him by a minion or perhaps even a Balls.

The argument that being well-born disqualifies you from understanding the life of common folk is rather silly.

John Cartwright, Richard Cobden, John Bright, Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, John Stuart Mill and many others were born into families far from the breadline and few of them ever did any manual work.

Of course, Alan Johnson would not regard Churchill as a reformer even though he wrote and spoke extensively on such topics as well as welfare.

Johnson was talking false history as well when he spoke of Labour's target to have a half of those age 18 to 30 in higher education. One would asume that by the age of 23 or 24 most of those who had graduated would be in employment, not in still further education. The entire target was of course absurd and arbitrary. If they had spoken of having 50% of those who reach age 18 going into further education then it would have made sense since that could include vocational training. We need more motor mechanics than we do graduates in Media Studies.

dorothy wilson

Nick Wilde: "So, if I understand his reasoning correctly, one cannot have a valid view nor make effective policy on something one has not experienced directly oneself."

So how come he thinks he is qualified to hold a valid view or make policy on something as crucial as our economic situation?

Actually, for all his attempts to portray himself as Mr Nice Ordinary Guy I've always thought Johnson was a nasty piece of work.

However, it is one thing for him to put his name to an article drafted by someone else. It is another to have to justify his views verbally when there is nobody there to hold his hand.

Pity though, there will be some people - and perhaps a good many - who will be taken in.

Marcher Baron

"Johnson calls for a new mantra from his party: "Labour's record was good"."

Words fail me! This is the most blatant lie I've heard in the last 13 years - and there has been a lot of competition with Labour's endless spin! If he wants to make progress he should admit Labour made mistakes but claim that they have learned from them. That would also be untrue, but at least it would be slightly more believable.

Bloody Bill Brock

The Postman Only Knocks Twice.

philut

Have to admit that in 2005, I admired him for a few days when as trade and industry minister he said that he was going to reform public sector pensions. Then the unions played tough, he backed down all in the space of a couple days. No back bone!

Captain Christy

Never passed an exam in his life - and he wants to be in control of the country's economy. God help us !

Paddy

He's a phoney and he will be found out!

Every time he stands up to make a speech I'm reminded of Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do Have em.

Fred Taylor

Most of the posts here are appallingly snobbish and intolerant. I don't agree with a great deal of what Johnson says (and maybe he didn't write it all himself -- politicians rarely do), but he's entitled to be sharp in his arguments. It's called politics. It's called debate. If this kind of abuse is going to typify the quality of the coalition's fans' response to criticism, I give it one term, and maybe not even that. Sadly, because the government is doing some good things.

Dimoto

Gents, it's just a piece of puffery in the Statesman.
How many will bother to read it, a few hundred ?

anne allan

So, following by Alan Johnson's argument to its logical conclusion, men cannot be obstetricians or gynaecologists.