Our cuts will be deeper than Thatcher's, says . . . Osborne? Darling?

The Chancellor's comments on spending cuts have caused controversy, but haven't we heard this somewh

A story that has received considerable coverage this morning is Alistair Darling's admission that, even under Labour, drastic public spending cuts will be necessary.

Asked by the BBC how this government's cuts would compare to Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, he said:

They will be deeper and tougher.

Where we make the precise comparison, I think, is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough.

But, hang on. Haven't we heard this somewhere before? Today, the Guardian has the headline "Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher". Amusingly, a month ago to the day, the Mirror proclaimed: "George Osborne to make spending cuts deeper Margaret Thatcher's".

The article quotes the Tory shadow chancellor as saying:

Yes -- tougher than Margaret Thatcher. We are not shy about taking the tough decisions.

George Osborne has today been quick to jump on Darling's comments as evidence that "Labour has been found out", and has been dishonest in claiming that it can continue to spend.

This is disingenuous: no one denies that cuts will be necessary, but the question, as our economics columnist David Blanchflower, among others, has pointed out, is one of timing.

But Darling's remarks do indicate inconsistency in Labour's position -- the party has appeared torn between a Keynesian agenda and the urge to follow the Tory promises of swingeing cuts, in much the same way as the Tories have clearly felt compelled to out-Labour Labour on the NHS.

The close symmetry of Osborne and Darling's phrasing is almost beyond satire. But this seems to be less a common admission of an indisputable truth (that we must have "tougher" cuts than Thatcher's, asap) and more another sign of the void of ideology that lies at the centre of the present political debate.

Voter apathy is hardly surprising. It doesn't look like much of a choice, does it?

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.


Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

We're hiring! Join the New Statesman as an editorial assistant

The NS is looking for a new recruit.

The New Statesman is hiring an editorial assistant, who will work across the website and magazine to help the office run smoothly. The ideal candidate will have excellent language skills, a passion for journalism, and the ability to work quickly and confidently under pressure.

The job is a broad one – you will need to understand the requirements of both halves of the magazine (politics and culture) as well as having an interest in the technical requirements of magazine and website production. Experience with podcasts and social media would be helpful.

The right person will have omnivorous reading habits and the ability to assimilate new topics at speed. You will be expected to help out with administration tasks around the office, so you must be willing to take direction and get involved with unglamorous tasks. There will be opportunities to write, but this will not form the main part of the job. (Our current editorial assistant is now moving on to a writing post.)

This is a full-time paid job, which would suit a recent graduate or someone who is looking for an entry into journalism. On the job training and help with career development will be offered.

Please apply with an email to Stephen Bush (Stephen. Bush @ newstatesman.co.uk) with the subject line ‘Editorial Assistant application’.  

In your covering letter, please include a 300-word analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Statesman. Please also include 500 words on what you consider to be the most interesting trend in British politics, and your CV as a Word document. 

The deadline for applications is noon on Monday 12th October.