sushiguru’s blog

Evan Davis questions Peter Mandelson.

ED    …the Child Poverty Ligislation is simply going to ensrine the target, which we already have, to eradicate child poverty by 2020 while you’re missing the target to halve child poverty by 2010.  Can you say that any child as a result of the bill you’ll be trying to present to parliament, which is not about politics but is simply about real government, can you say that any child will be saved from poverty by that bill?

PM    We’ve saved, as you say, er, tens of thousands, er, and more of children from poverty…

ED    but by this bill, you’ve done that without a bill, now what are you going to achieve more, what can you do with a bill that is more important that you’ve achieved without a bill?

PM    We have lifted tens of thousands and more of children out of poverty as a result of our social policies, our welfare policies over the last decade and more; we’re not going to abandon those policies nor are we going to abandon that commitment; we’re going to strengthen our social policies, our public services, our welfare policies precisely to do that amongst other things, and I think it’s very important, er, that the government benchmarks itself; only by benchmarking itself and challenging itself in this way will the public be able to decide whether we’ve succeeded or not.

OK Peter, you’ve still not answered the bloody question. Answer it, please?

ED    But you’ve given us the target, we’ve got the benchmark, we’ve had measures, you say they’re succeeding [mumbled interruptions] it almost seems as though you’re just trying to, having failed to meet the intermediate target for 2010, want to, go from the politics of delivery to the politics of intent, by strengthening the future aspiration without achieving the immediate one; I mean: what is the point of the bill, what’s the point of the bill?

PM    And very important too to strengthen that aspiration by which we are prepared to be judged both by our aspiration and by our delivery, by the public; but if you take the other example that you offered to me, er, halving the, er, public financial deficit, by half over four years, I think it’s very important that that discipline, that framework be put in place and be binding on this and future governments; and this is the Queen’s speech, it’s about legislation, er, shortly, before the end of the year, you’ll have the pre-budget report in which there are a combination of measures, including taxation and public spending measures the chancellor will set out how we intend to re-balance the public finances, er, over that period… [interrupted by ED]

Aaaaarrrggghhhhhh

ED    …what is the point of the bill; the question is why you would actually have a bill to do that? Willem Buiter, whom you guys appointed as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has written in the FT that Fiscal Responsibility Acts are the instruments of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public; you don’t need a bill to halve the deficit, you can just halve the deficit, you’re in government, that’s what you do.

PM    I think the public want a rather stronger and more robust demonstration, both of our will, our determination, and the discipline that we will put in place, in order to do that; you can’t have it both ways you know Evan.  I’ve come on your programme and you’ve sort of, taken a, you know, a stick to beat me about the government [ED laughing in background] needing to show greater responsib…fiscal responsibility…

Is this some sort of innuendo by Mandelson?

ED    …but that’s about measures, not about an act, isn’t it?

PM    …and and and, and about how we need to demonstrate to the public - heaven knows how many interviews you and I have had on this subject [ED still chuckling] - about how we need to demonstrate more convincingly to the public the discipline that we’re going to create, well we’re doing so, so don’t, please, complain now, and you won’t have too much time to wait for the pre-budget report to see the measures, but I can…[interrupted by ED]

ED    …but the point is that it’s the measures that count and the delivery that counts, not the statements of intent…[interrupted by PM]

PM    …let me ask you then: do you really think it’s irrelevant that the government states that it’s going to provide guarantees and other educational entitlements to young people, including the right to an educational training…[interrupted by ED]

Yes, actually.

ED    …it might be irrelevant if you don’t achieve it; the point is, let me give you an example [talking over each other]

PM    …that is for the public to judge; they judge us by our values, they judge us by our policies, they will then, in due course, judge by whether we’ve our delivered on those things.

In other words, piss off and leave me alone, please? I know we’re beaten, just don’t point it out, will you?

ED    Right. Well as you are trying to make, gain political credance and capital by expressing intent very strongly, it is important that we go back and look at previous expressions of intent and whether they have been delivered.  You had a bill to - you passed an act - to eradicate fuel poverty among vulnerable households by 2010, vulnerable households in England…[interrupted by PM]

PM    Are you saying that we’ve made no progress at all in doing that?

What he wants to say is: no

ED    I think you’ve made planty of progress; are you going to, are you going to eradicate fuel poverty among households, vulnerable households, in England by 2010?

PM    We will certainly continue to do everything we can to…

Umm - pass. Next question?

ED    …but that’s not a yes!  So what is the point of the bill, what is the point of the act that says you have to do that, if you don’t do it?  Who’s going to go to jail for not achieving it?

PM    Well, take NHS guarantees for patients…

Ahh - I know about the NHS, good news to be found here, everyone loves a cripple…

ED    …no, let’s take the one I mentioned which is the one you got credit for doing all those years ago, when you passed the act, you said it was about enshrining and making important…

PM    …Evan…

Pleeeease leave me alone…

ED    …and you’re probably not going to achieve it and you’re not taking measures to achieve it, what’s the point?

PM    Evan, with the greatest love and respect, I think I’m going to have to take some time to answer your questions, would you mind?

When PM gives you his greatest love and respect, it’s time to really worry

ED    Go ahead

PM    Thank you very much indeed.  I think it’s very important that the government, where appropriate enacts targets, benchmarks, by which it judges itself, but more importantly, by which the public judges its delivery.  That’s why we are providing guarantees for educational entitlements that’s why we’re putting in place national health service guarantees for patients, including the right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks if their GP suspects that they have cancer, that’s why we’re going to lay the foundations for the national care service for the elderly, now, the point I’m trying to make to you is that politics is about spelling out your policies, it’s about spelling out policy differences: what they mean for the public, what they say about the party’s values and beliefs, now that may be all too detailed and too policy wonkish [sic] for the taste and appetite of the BBC, certainly Today, but this is what is important for the public, and whether it be fuel poverty and our ability and determination to drive on and meet our 2010 targets, how we want to enshrine clearer individual guarantees and entitlements, both in our schools and in the national health service, the debate, the very important provision that we have got to talk about in this country, about supporting families who are looking after elderly parents or relatives who need that care, all these things are about politics, they are about policies [ED over: but not about electioneering], they are about what the public is interested in [ED over: of course they are], Even, and what in time they will judge us, and the other parties, by when the election comes.

Blah blah blah, hopefully no one’s listening any more. La la la I don’t care…

ED    As you’ve said.  [rest on social care…]

OK. So, other than Mandelson being PWND by Evan Davis, what he spectacularly failed to do was answer the question: why do we need this bill.

This is just yet another example of the government raising a bill simply because it can. It’s not needed, not wanted, and it’s not actually going to do anything other than weigh down the statute books even further.

Full interview available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8365000/8365766.stm

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.