Return of the dignified Mr Darling

Former chancellor takes on his Tory successor with characteristic class.

By James Macintyre Published 08 June 2010 15:59

Alistair Darling did not raise his voice just now when he gently made the following point to George Osborne after welcoming him to his post and paying tribute to Stephen Timms, the kindly former Treasury minister who was brutally stabbed during constituency surgery after the election:

The reason unemployment, though high, is down by half compared to the 1980s, and that reposessions are down by half compared to the 1990s, and that borrowing is down, was because the last government -- with others -- took action that was opposed by the Conservative Party.

Osborne was pleasant in return, paying tribute to Darling, who he said had done his job with "the best of motives", adding that the Treasury set-up Osborne had inherited was "far more functional and less chaotic" than the one Darling himself had inherited (from Gordon Brown in 2007). But perhaps inevitably, other than a general attack on Labour's record, he did not answer the question.

Osborne forgot to pay tribute to Timms, but later corrected that.

More from James Macintyre

1 comment

Thu, 2010-06-10 00:31 — Nick9

Alistair Darling is absolutely right to defend the excellent work which Labour did on implementing highly effective anti-recessionary measures. Earlier mortgage interest help for those who needed it most; without having to wait 39 weeks, a pre-action protocol which lenders have to follow before they are able to get a possession order in Court, lower interest, to name but a few of their admirable measures. I have seen first hand, in my line of work, how people have positively benefited from these measures; allowing people to remain in their homes.

No-one (except banks and developers) profits from repossession of homes. Labour kept the number of unemployed down to far lower levels than we see with a Tory government.

Thatcherism promoted buying homes, it deprived the Country of a great deal of our social housing stock. Little is said of how many of those homes ended up being 'brought' by people who will never own them at all. I'd like to see some statistics on the number or interest only mortgages, for I believe it is the banks who effectively 'rent' many homes on interest only products. It's a form of privatising our housing stock; the banks have billions in assets vested in many homes across the nation; they are massive landlords.

Consumer credit has been too easy to obtain for many years. The banks were happy to lend because they knew they'd always have the security of the borrower's home. Banks and lending brokers were too greedy and more focused on their commission related lending.

Don't blame it all on Labour that the national debt is so high; it was good old Maggie who kick started the whole culture of massive borrowing. Once you're a home owner, the banks would lend you anything, the rise in house prices was music to the banks ears.

And I never heard much said from the Tories or Liberals about the deficit in all the years they sat where they belong, in the opposition benches. I presume when they go back to that side of the house, they'll still be the 'collaborative' force they try to portray today.....I think not!