British Economy at 60-year low, says Darling

[BERIGAN]

Economy at 60-year low, says Darling.

And it will get worse

Chancellor says Labour failing to communicate with voters

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent The Guardian, Saturday August 30 2008

Britain is facing "arguably the worst" economic downturn in 60 years which will be "more profound and long-lasting" than people had expected, Alistair Darling, the chancellor, tells the Guardian today.

In the government's gravest assessment of the economy, which follows a warning from a Bank of England policymaker that 2 million people could be out of work by Christmas, Darling admits he had no idea how serious the credit crunch would become.

His blunt remarks lay bare the unease in the highest ranks of the cabinet that the downturn is making it all but impossible for Gordon Brown to recover momentum after a series of setbacks.

His language is much starker than the tone adopted by the prime minister, who aims to revive his premiership this autumn by explaining how he will help struggling families through the downturn.

The chancellor, who says that Labour faces its toughest challenge in a generation, admits that Brown and the cabinet are partly to blame for Labour's woes because they have "patently" failed to explain the party's central mission to the country, leaving voters "pissed off".

In a candid interview in today's Guardian Weekend magazine, Darling warns that the economic times faced by Britain and the rest of the world "are arguably the worst they've been in 60 years". To deepen the sense of gloom, he adds: "And I think it's going to be more profound and long-lasting than people thought."

The economic backdrop presents Labour with its toughest challenge since the 1980s. "We've got our work cut out. This coming 12 months will be the most difficult 12 months the Labour party has had in a generation," he says. But Labour has been lacklustre. "We've got to rediscover that zeal which won three elections, and that is a huge problem for us at the moment. People are pissed off with us.

"We really have to make our minds up; are we ready to try and persuade this country to support us for another term? Because the next 12 months are critical. It's still there to play for."

Darling was given a personal taste of the austere climate when ticked off by a waiter for ordering a second bottle of wine during a meal with his wife, Maggie, and another couple. "The waiter came over and said 'too much wine' in a loud voice. So we stuck to one bottle for the entire meal."

Darling admits that he was recently challenged at a petrol station by a motorist struggling with the rising cost of petrol. "I was at a filling station recently and a chap said: 'I know it's to do with oil prices - but what are you going to do about it?' People think, well surely you can do something, you are responsible - so of course it reflects on me."

But he has some words of comfort for Brown when he predicts there will be no leadership challenge against the prime minister. He also reveals that Brown has no plans to carry out an imminent cabinet reshuffle as he delivers a defiant put-down to critics who have said that he could be replaced as chancellor.

"You can't be chopping and changing people that often," he says. "I mean, undoubtedly before the end of the parliament he will want to do a reshuffle, but I'm not expecting one imminently. I do not think there will be a reshuffle."

Darling does not name names, but says some people want his job and have been trying to undermine him. Many in the Treasury believe that Ed Balls, the schools secretary, has been less than supportive. "There's lots of people who'd like to do my job. And no doubt," he adds, half under his breath, "actively trying to do it."

The chancellor's remarks about the economy - in an interview conducted over two days at his family croft on the Isle of Lewis - highlight the nerves at the top of the government after the loss of Labour's 25th safest seat in Britain in the Glasgow East byelection in July. The Tories are comfortably ahead in polls as leaders return on Monday after the holiday.

Darling, who speaks about how the prime minister is one of his oldest friends in politics, admits Brown has struggled to connect with voters. Asked whether Brown can communicate Labour's mission, he says: "Yes, I do think he can."

Asked why Brown has not done so, Darling falters as he says: "Er, well. Well, it's always difficult, you know ... But Gordon in September, up to party conference, has got the opportunity to do that. And he will do that. It's absolutely imperative."

Darling even describes himself as "not a great politician". Saying how he usually avoids personal interviews and photographs, he says maybe "that's why I'm not a great politician. You know, I'm not very good at looking at pictures and subjecting them to the equivalent of textual analysis".

Today's interview was designed to show the chancellor in a more personal light after a year in which he faced criticism over Northern Rock and the loss of discs with details of half the population. He says nothing of tensions with No 10 after he was reportedly rebuffed by Brown when he pointed out the dangers of abolishing the 10p tax rate.

His press adviser tells Darling, whose relations with Downing Street have been tense over the past year, to speak his mind in the interview. "Now Alistair," the adviser tells the chancellor as Decca Aitkenhead begins the interview. "Tell her everything. Make sure you tell her everything."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/au...alistairdarling

[sidewinder]

To quote:

"We're doomed' ! "

What a great Manager this guy is. Scares half the population with tales of doom and gloom instead of actually managing the situation, which is - at the end of the day - what he's paid to do.

60-year low is also total BS. The early 80s were, from my recollection, much worse.

Edited August 30, 2008 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

It always amazes me the way that our politicians explain their unpopularity by concluding that they are failing to get their message across.

No...it's the message itself that is at fault!

I've only ever voted Labour but despair with the present bunch of public school (that's British code for 'highly privileged private education') twits.

They've clearly lost middle England, the people who were persuaded to back Labour in 1997. But what they should be really scared of is the way their grass roots supporters are angry with them for losing sight of their very reason for being. It hardly seems that a Conservative government will be much different (unfortunately, an error, I fear - they will be much worse!).

[sidewinder]

I've only ever voted Labour but despair with the present bunch of public school (that's British code for 'highly privileged private education') twits.

Unfortunately the only thing most of this lot have managed before getting into office has been the school tuck shop (and I'll bet they screwed that up too) ! They have no practical experience of the hard graft of business.

Thinking about this over-promoted rabble quite recently, it clicked just where I'd come across their ilk before. Neo-Marxist National Union of Students sabbatical loud-mouths stirring up meeting after pointless meeting for the new students back in the late 70s (ie. me) who just want to get on with their work !

The cynic in me suspects that Darling is playing an 'expectation management' game ie. tell the plebs that things are the worst for 60 years and then no matter how bad things actually turn out they'll forgive him and Gordon. Maybe even thank them for a 'job well done'.

Meanwhile the Hyena chortles away in his Middle-Eastern abode...

Edited August 30, 2008 by sidewinder

[papsrus]

I love the waiter refusing him a second bottle of wine. Any Washington waiter who dared do that to a Cabinet member would find himself out of a job -- and probably out of town -- in a hurry.

[A Lark Ascending]

This is what makes so angry with Labour at present:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7570633.stm

I expect the Tories not to give a damn - whatever pretence they make at caring about the population as a whole, they have always stood for buying their way to the front of the queue in health, education, etc.

Yet Labour should know better. The trouble is they too are dominated by people who had it on a silver platter and are deluded into thinking that they got where they are today by their own merits.

They are clueless about the lives of people who live and work in areas like that described in the article.

[sidewinder]

I love the waiter refusing him a second bottle of wine. Any Washington waiter who dared do that to a Cabinet member would find himself out of a job -- and probably out of town -- in a hurry.

[sidewinder]

This is what makes so angry with Labour at present:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7570633.stm

I expect the Tories not to give a damn - whatever pretence they make at caring about the population as a whole, they have always stood for buying their way to the front of the queue in health, education, etc.

Yet Labour should know better. The trouble is they too are dominated by people who had it on a silver platter and are deluded into thinking that they got where they are today by their own merits.

They are clueless about the lives of people who live and work in areas like that described in the article.

What's happening to the standards of GCSE's and 'A' levels, Bev?

Over the past 10 years the percentages passing these things has gone up and up and up and it totally reeks of grade deflation. At one time to get 8 or 9 good GCSEs at grades A to C was viewed as top notch but these days every kid seems to get it. As for 'A' levels, the Universities now seem to be saying they are hardly worth the paper they are written on.

I remember the day when three/four A-levels at grades A and B was an outstanding achievement that would get you into Oxbridge but again, it is very common now and no longer a discriminator.

Methinks the plot has been completely lost...

[Jazzmoose]

Yet Labour should know better. The trouble is they too are dominated by people who had it on a silver platter and are deluded into thinking that they got where they are today by their own merits.

Sounds like a common affliction. At least it's pretty common over here...

[A Lark Ascending]

This is what makes so angry with Labour at present:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7570633.stm

I expect the Tories not to give a damn - whatever pretence they make at caring about the population as a whole, they have always stood for buying their way to the front of the queue in health, education, etc.

Yet Labour should know better. The trouble is they too are dominated by people who had it on a silver platter and are deluded into thinking that they got where they are today by their own merits.

They are clueless about the lives of people who live and work in areas like that described in the article.

What's happening to the standards of GCSE's and 'A' levels, Bev?

Over the past 10 years the percentages passing these things has gone up and up and up and it totally reeks of grade deflation. At one time to get 8 or 9 good GCSEs at grades A to C was viewed as top notch but these days every kid seems to get it. As for 'A' levels, the Universities now seem to be saying they are hardly worth the paper they are written on.

I remember the day when three/four A-levels at grades A and B was an outstanding achievement that would get you into Oxbridge but again, it is very common now and no longer a discriminator.

Methinks the plot has been completely lost...

It's complex. But ask yourself, every time we have an Olympics new world records are established. Are athletes getting better, is their training more skilled...or is it medal inflation? [the cynical, I know, will cry 'drugs']

There are some things going on that I'm not happy with. A lot of new courses that are 'equal to' 2 or 4 GCSEs but don't seem to be anything like taking 2 or 4 traditional GCSEs. The way things are assessed varies enormously - in Science modular tests with lots of multiple choice, whereas History and Geography exams are 75% end examined, requiring extended writing throughout.

And yet...there's a book on sale at present with 'O' Level questions from the good old days. The history ones are pure memorisation - 'What were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles', 'What were the causes of the First World War?' (and as I recall doing them, you had plenty of choice). Today's kids have to do source analysis, often on sources they've never seen before, and write analytical answers that might throw together two people they've studied (say, Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur) and ask them to decide who was most significant to the development of medicine (most of the papers giving no choice). Reeling off their knowledge gets them nowhere.

One of the things in the current debate that makes teachers despair is the cries of 'GCSEs are getting easier' matched with 'it's a scandal that so many children don't get 5+ higher grades'. We're scuttled either way.

Despite some inconsistencies that must be sorted soon (and an even greater problem with regard to exam marking - the SATS fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg), I don't believe exams in general are easier but they are very different to 30 years ago.

It's worth reading this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7502340.stm

I feel that one of the sad things about many older people is their need to feel that younger people are not nearly as accomplished as they are. Its almost jealousy. What they forget is that most of the things they know, and that they despair about young people not knowing, they have learnt AFTER leaving school.

The grumbles of the universities I don't take too seriously - they generally come from those locked in the old model where an elite attended university, where we are now in a world where a huge proportion of the population need that level of education. They are no longer educating the independent sector plus some bright state school lads and lassies...like schools, they are also having to deal with an increasing proportion of students who do not come from advantaged backgrounds, students whose disadvantages are still there to see when the reach university.

There's also trouble brewing with standards of university degrees - there's virtually no mechanism for ensuring comparability there. So the universities are really in no position to grumble about the situation in school exams.

[sidewinder]

There's also trouble brewing with standards of university degrees - there's virtually no mechanism for ensuring comparability there. So the universities are really in no position to grumble about the situation in school exams.

Well - even the old Colleges of Higher Education are calling themselves 'Universities' these days so no surprise that there's a vast range of standards.

It's bound to happen when one of the the objectives of the people up top is to put as many people as possible through a 'University' system - including what are essentially vocational qualifications.

Not to knock vocational qualifications one bit - in my own field of engineering they are every bit as valuable as the academic aspects. The HNC/HND and City & Guilds qualifications were and are very valuable to employers.

I have to say though that I see quite a few young engineers coming through the sausage machine and I can't say I've seen any noticeable overall improvement in standards. As ever, some very talented people come through the system but from observation but I'm afraid that I have to say that basic literacy and understanding of fundamental physical principles has gone down somewhat. Sorry to have to say it but by and large, the (State) schools are really not fulfilling their primary objectives !

Edited August 31, 2008 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

From that BBC article:

So, as we contemplate the almost daily bad news about class sizes, school drop-outs, and the poor basic skills of school-leavers, we should perhaps pause to remember that - while there is certainly still plenty of room for improvement - the answer does not seem to lie in a nostalgic return to a past system which served the few very well and the majority poorly.

It always has to be born in mind that the independent sector is dealing with - bar a smattering of 'assisted places' type students - children from middling to very well off backgrounds. They can provide smaller class sizes, resourcing well above what the state sector gets and - the all important - contacts and connections. They deal with children who - by and large - have stable backgrounds, experience of a wide breadth of social and cultural experience from their earliest days. Most significantly, children who are surrounded by examples of success and, often, high achievement in their parents, relations, parental friends.

State schools - especially like the one where I work (a good 10% below the average GCSE pass rate) - have the impossible job of making up that ground and then doing the teaching for SATS, GCSE etc.

The point made by the head in the earlier BBC article (in a school in an area of far greater deprivation than mine), that teachers frequently work in such schools out of choice based on a desire to make a difference, to try to give kids in those areas a chance, needs taking seriously - continue to bash them and they'll just move to the more affluent schools where they can get the results demanded of them. Teaching kids who come from backgrounds of low educational achievement with the sort of distractions that your middle class kid wouldn't know anything about is a completely different experience. I'm not saying that teaching kids from more advantaged backgrounds is easy (different pressures - they often come with great knowledge and skills, you need to be right on top of your subject and parents are watching from not far away); but getting kids from disadvantaged areas involves so much work to get off the starting block.

I've no problem with government pushing to raise standards. But Labour seem to have fallen into the Tory trap of assuming that schools with low achievement are simply the result of poor teaching/management and need beating with a stick. There is a singular refusal to recognise the differing social contexts when comparisons are made. The government should be going in to help these schools deal with their situations (maybe even...shock horror...putting some work into the social situations themselves instead of worrying about frightening off middle England), not trying to scare them into improvement. Fear doesn't make kids work harder; it won't make schools improve.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the current Academy programme fails to bring the big improvements the government promises; and how long the business people being co-opted into them will stay the course (we have one opening in Mansfield this week, run by a chap who made his millions making fake Cornish Pasties!).

The debate igniting at the moment on plans for 'faith' schools shows again how backward the government's thinking is ('Faith' schools get better results so we need more 'faith' schools; as opposed to 'faith' schools attract middle class parents (some of who will acquire their faith from no-where to get their kids in!), creating schools with a higher proportion of middle class kids, thus making them more successful).

There was an interesting study done a few years back that concluded that the best way to predict the performance of a school was to study the postcodes of its catchment area.

The cynic in me says the government knows all this and knows it can do nothing about the social inequalities that underlie variable performance; so it refuses to acknowledge them, preferring to flag up those schools who buck the general trend and berate the rest.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[sidewinder]

That's very true - that the independent sector schools have the big advantages of pupils from generally affluent backgrounds, with stable home environments and usually with aspirational parents that are ambitious that they do well.

I find it both sad and worrying that there's been this drain over recent years of some of the more gifted kids from state schools into the private sector by parents who seem to have given up on the state system and who have their best interest at heart (often at massive financial sacrifice to themselves). It's a shame where we can't achieve the results of somewhere like, say, Germany - where a balanced state sector predominates and private schooling (at least it used to be) the preserve of rich dunces !

Edited August 31, 2008 by sidewinder

[Jazzjet]

It always amazes me the way that our politicians explain their unpopularity by concluding that they are failing to get their message across.

No...it's the message itself that is at fault!

I've only ever voted Labour but despair with the present bunch of public school (that's British code for 'highly privileged private education') twits.

They've clearly lost middle England, the people who were persuaded to back Labour in 1997. But what they should be really scared of is the way their grass roots supporters are angry with them for losing sight of their very reason for being. It hardly seems that a Conservative government will be much different (unfortunately, an error, I fear - they will be much worse!).

Like you, I'm a life-long labour voter but its true that Gordon Brown has no connection with the British public. He might be a decent man with a 'moral compass' and all that but its not getting across at all. Possibly this is to do with boredom with Labour after 11 years and possibly voters buying the 'style over substance' of the Tories, being so enamoured of our celebrity-obsessed culture. But we shouldn't forget that there has been, not before time, decent investment in schools and hospitals, with crime also coming down significantly by most reliable measures. While I'm disillusioned too, I'm even more concerned about the damage the Tories will do. If this lot are out of touch, I suspect the Tories are more so.

The question is - will Labour get rid of Brown or just sit back and accept defeat. This is pretty much what the Tories did under Major and look where it got them. A new leader might not turn things around but it might limit the damage.

[A Lark Ascending]

That's very true - that the independent sector schools have the big advantages of pupils from generally affluent backgrounds, with stable home environments and usually with aspirational parents that are ambitious that they do well.

I find it both sad and worrying that there's been this drain over recent years of some of the more gifted kids from state schools into the private sector by parents who seem to have given up on the state system and who have their best interest at heart (often at massive financial sacrifice to themselves). It's a shame where we can't achieve the results of somewhere like, say, Germany - where a balanced state sector predominates and private schooling (at least it used to be) the preserve of rich dunces !

I think that ties with a general (in Northern Europe at least) stronger acceptance of higher taxation and state intervention.

Britain was moving that way (I come from the age group that benefitted) but then did a volte-face from '79, buying into the American 'free-market-is-all' dogma.

Labour has its roots in the former but got into power in '97 by embracing the latter. Now it just seems confused!

[A Lark Ascending]

It always amazes me the way that our politicians explain their unpopularity by concluding that they are failing to get their message across.

No...it's the message itself that is at fault!

I've only ever voted Labour but despair with the present bunch of public school (that's British code for 'highly privileged private education') twits.

They've clearly lost middle England, the people who were persuaded to back Labour in 1997. But what they should be really scared of is the way their grass roots supporters are angry with them for losing sight of their very reason for being. It hardly seems that a Conservative government will be much different (unfortunately, an error, I fear - they will be much worse!).

Like you, I'm a life-long labour voter but its true that Gordon Brown has no connection with the British public. He might be a decent man with a 'moral compass' and all that but its not getting across at all. Possibly this is to do with boredom with Labour after 11 years and possibly voters buying the 'style over substance' of the Tories, being so enamoured of our celebrity-obsessed culture. But we shouldn't forget that there has been, not before time, decent investment in schools and hospitals, with crime also coming down significantly by most reliable measures. While I'm disillusioned too, I'm even more concerned about the damage the Tories will do. If this lot are out of touch, I suspect the Tories are more so.

The question is - will Labour get rid of Brown or just sit back and accept defeat. This is pretty much what the Tories did under Major and look where it got them. A new leader might not turn things around but it might limit the damage.

You are right about the investment - however much I might moan about the way they are trying to steer the educational ship, there is no doubt that education has benefitted enormously since '97. I can physically see the change. I've been in the same school for nearly 31 years - for the first 20 nothing happened. The last 11 have seen huge structural improvements. Improving the actual education is more complicated!

Which means that however disgruntled I get I'll still vote Labour.

[sidewinder]

for the first 20 nothing happened.

Thatcher !

[BillF]

for the first 20 nothing happened.

Thatcher ! =milk snatcher

[A Lark Ascending]

for the first 20 nothing happened.

Thatcher !

And Major.

Public services were not a high priority.

[A Lark Ascending]

Here's a practical suggestion that should be lapped up by a 'socialist' party.

Abolish the 'charitable' status of private education (how assisting the already privileged to jump further ahead in the queue amounts to charity, I'm not sure!); plough the funds recouped into intensive literacy programmes for the youngest children in areas of social deprivation.

We'll leave busing the pupils of Eton, Harrow etc into inner city comps in Slough, Reading, Tower Hamlets etc for a few years yet!!!

[sidewinder]

for the first 20 nothing happened.

Thatcher !

And Major.

Public services were not a high priority.

...and anywhere North of Watford Gap didn't count with that lot anyway !

[sidewinder]

Abolish the 'charitable' status of private education

Gets my vote !

[Jazzmoose]

Charitable status of private education.... Damn, our silver spoon crowd could learn a few more lessons apparently.