Alan Johnson slams the coalition cuts

And talks about the challenges of his "big, big job"

In an interview with the Observer published today, Alan Johnson has voiced criticisms of the coalition's economic policies from his new role as shadow chancellor. He said the proposed 25 per cent spending cuts could "fundamentally alter our community" and were going to "cause huge harm to our public services".

The appointment of Johnson to the job of shadow chancellor has led to some questioning his expertise, especially compared to the other obvious choices for the position, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. In the interview, Johnson tackles the doubters head on:

"You don't need to be a professor of economics to be a Treasury minister... I will do this job the way I have done other jobs. I would not pretend to be the greatest gift to the cabinet but I have done five cabinet jobs and I have done them OK... It is about getting up to speed very quickly and it is about listening to people. Particularly in this brief it is more about listening to people than reading up. I am not going to do an economics degree in the next few months."

It is a characteristically self-deprecating assessment of his career. Some might think, however, that reading up is exactly what he should be doing, but as my colleague Mehdi Hasan pointed out yesterday, Johnson's personability, humour and background (especially in contrast to his privileged opponent on the Conservative front bench) will give him a particular strength and appeal. Johnson comes across in person and in politics as normal, human and humble - qualities you might argue are sometimes lacking in the Chancellor himself. Whether he should go on referring to his lack of learning in economics is, however, questionable. He might not be planning to do an economics degree, but he has very little time before the spending review to steel himself for the fight, and against the inevitable accusations of economic ignorance.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.