Quality | 2010.08.29
Treasury secretary Danny Alexander defends budget cuts as coalition comes under fire
In his first newspaper interview since becoming the government\'s axeman-in-chief, Danny Alexander says making tough economic decisions does not make him any less of a Liberal Democrat
On Thursday morning, Danny Alexander called a taxi to take him from his Highland home in Aviemore to the train station. During the journey, the driver turned to the politician – now chief secretary to the Treasury – and told him: "You must need skin like a rhino for your job."
From the furthest reaches of Scotland to the coastal towns of southern England, people can see that it has been a tough few months for the Liberal Democrat MP who has been catapulted into the position of the government\'s axeman-in-chief. Now, in his first newspaper interview since taking the role, Alexander explains the rationale behind what will be the harshest public spending cuts in generations.
This is the week that the tense – and perhaps angry – negotiations begin, leading to the publication in October of the comprehensive spending review that will lay out the scale of what is to come.
Just over five years ago, Alexander was a press officer at the Cairngorms National Park (something sketch writers have pointed out with glee). By July he was ordering secretaries of state – including Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith and Vince Cable – to draw up plans for cuts in departmental spending of up to 40%. Supporters say the action is unavoidable after years of indulgence by Labour ; critics claim it is an ideologically driven mission to scale back the state in a way never witnessed before.
To those who suggest he is not up to it, Alexander does not hesitate: "I know that I am – and that is all there is to it."
This week, the 38-year-old will take his seat as deputy chair in what has become known as the "star chamber" of senior ministers – the team that will start to trawl through each spending submission. Chaired by George Osborne, the committee will begin with just three other members: William Hague, Francis Maude and Oliver Letwin. Some have claimed it could represent a "chamber of horrors" as the men scour plans, challenge ministers and demand revisions.
Ministers are all desperate to protect their departments and are already battling it out in Westminster. Some have approached those in the Department for Work and Pensions, pleading with them to cut the welfare bill and free up more money for other areas. Transport, policing, prisons, school buildings and the armed forces are all in the line of fire.
As the discussions go on, the "star chamber" will expand as ministers whose plans have been signed off join it and turn their attention to their colleagues\' ideas instead.
For Alexander, it is not just about convincing the public – it is also about reassuring his increasingly restive Lib Dem party that he is not being taken prisoner by a Tory party that some see as less impassioned by the desire to protect the poor. With his party\'s first conference since the formation of the coalition upon them, the challenge for Alexander and leader Nick Clegg is to sell austerity not just as necessary, but progressive. "I worry about making sure we make the right decisions, that we make cuts with care," he says.
It is a claim that is being increasingly questioned. Last week the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies rejected government claims that the budget measures were progressive, claiming instead that they would clearly hit the poor hardest. It followed a legal challenge from the Fawcett Society amid claims that women would bear the brunt of the cuts. A stark warning was also delivered by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which wants evidence that ministers are doing everything they can to protect the most vulnerable.
Things are unlikely to improve quickly. A study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research today claims that unemployment is likely to breach 10% in half of UK regions over the next five years. The research suggests that the more affluent south, east and London are to escape the largest increases, but the outlook is bleak for weaker economies in the north, west and Northern Ireland.
And tomorrow Alexander will receive a letter – also sent to the prime minister, his deputy and chancellor – accusing the government of failing to put the one thing they claim to value most at the heart of their agenda – fairness. Among 15 eminent signatories are the heads of the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardos, TUC, Oxfam, Save the Children and the Equality Trust.
Nevertheless, Alexander insists that "fairness and social mobility" have been at the core of all discussions and will continue to be so in all future decisions.
The reality he says, more than once, is that there is no choice but to cut. "The least progressive thing is to deny there is a problem," snaps Alexander, claiming that it was Labour that created the mess and accusing the party of "hypocrisy".
"That budget deficit means we are spending £150bn more this year than we raise in taxation. It is genuinely unavoidable that we bring our public finances back in order... There is absolutely nothing progressive about leaving a rapidly growing burden of debt for the next generations to inherit."
It is that message that the politician is desperate to get out to people – and he is travelling across the country to do it.
On Thursday, the minister boarded a small plane in Inverness. He was travelling to Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis, for a question and answer session at the local council offices. The 6,000 residents of the town want to know how decisions being made 660 miles away in London will affect their rural community.
It was to be a rough ride. As soon as Alexander had finished a short introduction, a man leaned forward, turned on his microphone and began almost spitting out his words: "Mr Alexander, I\'d like to ask what convinced you to have what was probably the most dramatic conversion since St Paul on the road to Damascus, which made you fall hook, line and sinker for the Tories\' policy of reverting progress on public services over the last century... People are bitterly disappointed by the Liberal Democrats\' betrayal... People are angry that we are going to be made to suffer for something we had no part in."
It was the bankers who got us into this, not Labour, he says.
Alexander was quick to point out that the man – Donald John MacSween – was a local Labour councillor. But it wasn\'t the only anger. Another resident claimed the private sector was virtually nonexistent on the island and pointed out that cutbacks to public spending would destroy livelihoods.
If Alexander wants the charge that senior Lib Dems have betrayed their party to go away, he knows he has to work hard. Fighting his party\'s corner in negotiations over cuts is crucial. The MP will point to victories such as the pupil premium, but still raging are battles over Trident and tuition fees.
Whatever he does, Alexander risks unpopularity. When the Tories were in opposition, Philip Hammond, then shadow chief secretary, ruminated that he was "likely to become a great figure to pin on the dartboard, and throw darts at" should he do the job in government.
But the Lib Dem incumbent says he can take it: "Those things don\'t bother me really – it goes with the territory." He tells the story of the taxi driver, and then admits that both he and the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg have thick skins: "I spend all my time worrying about doing the right thing in government. We have seen previous governments spend all their time worrying about this newspaper or that columnist." That is what stopped New Labour being radical, he claims.
But one thing that is unavoidable is the Liberal Democrats\' dramatic decline in the polls since joining the coalition. Surely that is a huge concern?
Alexander says he has spoken to Jim Wallace, the former leader of the Lib Dems in Scotland who formed a coalition with Labour: "They got a lot of scrutiny at the start because people weren\'t used to a coalition, but by the end people saw that the Lib Dems had made a real difference." The party went on to improve its position in the next election, he adds.
"We signed up to this because we believed the country needed stable government. And I think over five years people will see we have made a real difference to government."
Could the Lib Dems one day work with Labour? "Let\'s get this coalition out of the way first. Ask me that in five years\' time," he says.
And when it comes to Labour, Alexander wants to push the point. "I just think from a party that presided over increasing child poverty, that failed to reintroduce the earnings link for pensions, that had the most centralised control over public services – I will not take lectures on fairness from them," he says. "They are irresponsible, [they] deny the problem the country faces – that puts them at the least credible end of politics."
But he knows Labour are not his only critics. Tomorrow\'s letter is signed by people who have worked in the field of poverty for years. Shan Nicholas, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, says that it is unfair and excessive rewards for reckless behaviour in the City that led to the recession: "It is certainly not fair for those who were not responsible for the economic crisis to foot the bill. We will put economic recovery at risk if we think we can afford to cut people loose at the bottom. It will leave us hit by the same kinds of social and economic costs that have been the legacy of the culture of inequality that took hold in the 1980s."
Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, says the IFS study undermines the government\'s claim that fairness is its guiding principle. And then there is the challenge from the Fawcett Society, which is seeking a judicial review that could brand the budget unlawful. The women\'s rights group is claiming the government failed in its duty to carry out an equality assessment looking at the impact on women.
"The Treasury looked more comprehensively across the spectrum of the budget as a whole than has ever been done before," says Alexander, pointing to an analysis that looked at how the measures affect the poorest and richest. He argues it would have been "almost impossible" to break that down beyond a household level and compare the impact on men and women because it requires making impossible assumptions.
Ceri Goddard, the chief executive of Fawcett, says it is an admission the assessment was never carried out. And she insists that it is possible to gather the information. She says any man or woman on the street could tell that the plans would hit women harder. Even Theresa May, the home secretary who is responsible inside government for the equalities agenda, has warned about the issue in a letter to colleagues.
For Alexander, October will be the climax of a stressful year. Since January it has been "non-stop", as he wrote the Lib Dem manifesto, helped plan the election campaign and then prepared for coalition talks. In the middle of all this, Alexander\'s second daughter, Isla, was born on 22 May. The family were with him in London and she was delivered at St Thomas\' overlooking the House of Commons. Alexander had taken three days of leave to spend with his daughter when David Laws suddenly resigned as chief secretary after being engulfed in an expenses scandal.
"I still haven\'t finished my paternity leave and I don\'t suppose I ever will," he says with a laugh.
But he quickly becomes serious: "I\'m not sure anyone would say they came into politics to cut public spending, but it has to be done." He says he is under no illusion about the impact October\'s decisions will have – from Stornoway to London and beyond.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/[...]alexander-cuts-first-interview
