Danny Alexander: we won't spend a penny more

Uneasy cabinet minister denies plans for an extra £5bn of capital spending.

With everyone from George Osborne downwards now acknowledging that growth this year will be weaker-than-expected, an argument has restarted in government about how best to stimulate the economy. Last night, the BBC's Nick Robinson reported that some cabinet ministers were agitating for an extra £5bn in capital spending, to be channelled towards the nation's roads, rail and broadband internet.

Naturally, Robinson didn't name names, but I draw your attention to comments made by Chris Huhne at a fringe event at the Lib Dem conference on Monday night. "Remember ... the target that we have is the structural current balance," the Energy Secretary said. "It is current not capital spending. That is an important distinction." In other words, the government could ramp up capital spending without breaching its fiscal mandate: to eliminate the structural deficit (the part of the deficit that remains even once when the economy has returned to normal growth) and to ensure a falling debt-to-GDP ratio by the end of the parliament. Huhne has since insisted that he doesn't recognise the £5bn figure and that there is "no such plan". As the great Claud Cockburn once quipped, "never believe anything until has been officially denied".

Whoever the culprit was (and Vince Cable uttered the s-word - stimulus - several times in his speech), they were swiftly squashed by the Treasury. "We have our spending plans and we are sticking to them," a spokesman said.

Appearing on the Today programme this morning, an uneasy sounding Danny Alexander stuck to the script. The government would "strain every sinew" to promote growth but it would not spend a penny more then the limits set out in the Spending Review. "We have set out plans on capital spending, we're going to stick to those plans across the board on spending," the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said. He added: "I just don't recognise the numbers involved or the process as described."

It was Chris Huhne who previously suggested that the cuts could be scaled back in the event of a serious downturn, and who declared that he was not "lashed to the mast" of deficit reduction. But Alexander certainly is. As growth continues to fall and unemployment continues to rise, this is one argument that will not go away.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

No, Matt Hancock: under-25s are just as entitled to a payrise as the rest of us

At 25, parts of my body were more productive than the whole of Matt Hancock, says Jess Phillips.

I had never heard of Matt Hancock before today, which may be a sign of how productive he has been. He sprang up in my consciousness when he said this at the Tory party conference, when justifying not giving workers under 25 a payrise:

"Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average. Now there are some who are very productive under the age of 25 but you have to set policy for the average. It was an active choice not to cover the under 25s.”
No it bloody wasn't an active choice based on productivity! Lord knows this Government have failed to remember productivity for the past five years. How convenient to remember it when swindling young people.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Governments living wage is just that. Is Matt Hancock saying  that workers under 25 don't deserve to afford be able to live? By the time I was 25 I had a 3 year old. Did my son and I not deserve to be able to live? Oh and while they are there telling me I'm was an undeserving yoof, Hancock is now calling me useless. I don't know Matt Hancock I won't assume he was a lazy entitled toff, but I will wager at 23 I was as, if not more productive than him. I bet you I could have done his job, but he would have struggled to do mine. Maybe I'm wrong and he would have been a great support worker for refugees and carer for people with Alzheimer's all on three hours sleep a night whilst lactating.

Now, I'm not being fair. Of course he couldn't lactate.

The reason the government did this is nothing to do with productivity levels of young adults. It is because once again their limited life experience means that they think mummy and daddy pay for everything. Look no further than ridiculous student fees, cutting housing benefit for young people and now this "you don't deserve to be able to live" wage.

The hilarious thing will be when some employers completely disprove Hancock’s assertions and rush to employ lazy unproductive under 25s because they have to pay them less.
I won't bore you or Hancock with lists of brilliant examples of productive under 25s. The Twitter hashtag #at25 is full of great examples. The history of sport, science, music, art and computing is awash with inspiring world changing young people.Mr Hancock, here is a lesson I learned from the hundreds of productive young people I meet, be honest and say what you think. Your insulting gaffe is a pathetic spun cover up you arrived at when you were backed in to an impossible unjustifiable position. What you should have said was, "oh the reason we don't want to pay under 25s more is because we don't really care about them and let's be honest they don't really vote. Toodle pip."