Boris and Dave bash transport unions to distract from the banks

A convenient distraction from the coalition’s failure on bankers’ bonuses.

Boris Johnson and David Cameron have a joint article in this morning's Sun condemning the rail unions for threatening to strike on the day of the royal weddding.

They write: "[Y]ou can try to drag this country back to the 1970s, to a time when militants held our country to ransom, but you will not succeed."

In reality, currently no union is planning to strike on that day. The Aslef general secretary, Keith Norman, says the question of possible industrial action on the day has not "even been discussed" by the union's executive. But, in the wake of the coalition's capitulation to the banks, Cameron and Johnson have spied a convenient opportunity to redirect public anger towards the unions.

As the Telegraph's Benedict Brogan noted yesterday, the Conservatives fear that the latest round of bonuses will further dent their popularity:

Tory high command wories that if it goes soft on the banks the numbers will get worse. Those who have pressed the coalition and specifically the Chancellor to speak out against banker-bashing are told each time that the coalition has to keep public attitudes in mind. Mr Osborne believes voters loathe the banks and blame them for the financial crisis.

On Twitter, Boris has called for the public to "bombard" Aslef's website with complaints, a useful distraction from his complete failure to secure his long-promised "no-strike deal". As I noted on Monday, there have been more Tube strikes during two and a half years of Boris than eight years of Ken Livingstone. In his 2008 manifesto, the Mayor of London promised:

I will look to reduce the disruption caused by strikes on the Tube by negotiating a no-strike deal, in good faith, with the Tube unions. In return for agreeing not to strike, the unions will get the security provided by having the pay negotiations conducted by an independent arbiter, whose final decision will be binding on both parties. I believe this is the fairest way to ensure that London is not brought to a standstill every time there is a pay negotiation, and to ensure union members get a secure deal.

But when asked in September if he had sat down with union leaders and had his "promised beer" with Bob Crow, the mayor replied: "I have not spoken directly with union leaders but with plenty of people in government." Inviting the public to "bombard" a website with complaints may be an example of the "big society" in action, but isn't it time for the mayor to adopt a more mature approach?

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.