Danny Alexander on coalition tensions, the economy, and ginger-hair

I've interviewed Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for this week's magazine. It's a long, wide-ranging conversation, covering coalition relations, the economy, Liberal Democrat election strategy and ginger-hairedness.

In terms of today's news agenda, there are a couple of lines to pick out. Alexander stays firmly against the idea of cutting the 50p top rate of tax any time soon.

At a time when the whole country faces serious financial challenges, the priority needs to be people on low and middle incomes.

Alexander also suggests that the Lib Dems will fight the next election calling for further tax cuts at the bottom of the earnings scale. The party is already implementing its policy of raising the personal allowance to £10,000 over the course of this parliament. Alexander thinks it should be even higher.

I don't see why, in the next parliament, we shouldn't be trying to get to a situation where people in a full-time job on the minimum wage are paying no income tax at all.

That amounts to a personal allowance of around £12,500.

On another issue making headlines at the moment, Alexander fires a warning shot across the bows of Tory eurosceptics. When asked whether he thinks the crisis in the eurozone is an opportunity to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Brussels, he was adamant:

We should be redoubling our effort, not looking at this as an excuse to further an agenda of weakening our ties.

He also insisted his Tory colleagues in government would not acquiesce to their backbenchers' anti-EU demands:

I haven't heard anyone within government express that view and I think it's completely wrong.

I went on to ask him if he thought David Cameron, George Osborne and William Hague had been on "a journey" towards greater pragmatism in terms of Britain's relations with the EU. He thought a long time before answering with a cautious affirmative.

In the history of Britain's role in Europe, if you go back to aftermath of the Second World War, Conservatives in government recognise that their job is to advance Britain's national interest and Europe -- the European Union -- provides an important forum for doing that. I don't think this government is any different in that respect.

True, perhaps. But not what a lot of people in the Tory party want to hear.

 

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland