In the interview, Abbott tries to explain how the opposition Labour Party plans to fund an expansion to the number of serving police officers. You really have to listen to the interview to do it full justice, but for the record I set out parts of the transcript below.
Nick Ferrari (interviewer): Where will the money come from Diane Abbott? Good morning.
Diane Abbott: The money will come from reversing some of the tax cuts for the rich that the Tories have pushed through. And the tax cut we're specifically identifying to pay for the 10,000 policemen is the cut in capital gains tax.
NF: So how much would 10,000 police officers cost?
DA: Well, if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four-year period, we believe it will be about £300,000.
NF: £300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?
DA: No, I mean, sorry...
NF: How much will they cost?
DA: They will cost, it will cost about, about £80 million.
NF: About £80 million? How do you get to that figure?
DA: We get to that figure because we anticipate recruiting 25,000 extra police officers a year at least over a period of four years. And we are looking at both what average police wages are generally but also specifically police wages in London.
NF: And this will be funded by reversing, in some instances, the cuts in capital gains tax. But I'm right in saying that since Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the party, that money has also been promised to reverse spending cuts in education, spending cuts in arts, spending cuts in sports. The Conservatives say you've spent this money already, Diane Abbott.
DA: Well the Conservatives would say that. We've not promised the money to any area, we've just pointed out that the cuts in capital gains tax will cost the taxpayer over £2 billion and there are better ways of spending that money. But as we roll out our manifesto process, we are specifically saying how we will fund specific proposals. And this morning I'm saying to you that we will fund the 10,000 extra police officers by using some - not all, but just some - of the £2 billion.
NF: But I don't understand. If you divide £80 million by 10,000, you get £8,000. Is that what you are going to pay these policemen and women?
DA: No, we are talking about a process over four years.
NF: I don't understand. What is he or she going to get? Eighty million divided by 10,000 equals 8,000. What are these police officers going to be paid?
DA: We will be paying them the average...
NF: Has this been thought through?
DA: Of course it's been thought through.
NF: Where are the figures?
DA: The figures are that the additional cost in year one, when we anticipate recruiting about 250,000 policemen, will be £64.3 million.
NF: 250,000 policemen?
DA: And women.
NF: So you are getting more than 10,000. You're recruiting 250,000?
DA: No, we are recruiting two thousand and - perhaps - two hundred and fifty.
NF: So where did 250,000 come from?
DA: I think you said that, not me.
NF: I can assure you you said that, because I wrote it down.
It was shambolic and described by one journalist as the worst interview from a front line politician he has ever heard. There is, actually, a policy in there. Indeed, I have raised the issue of police funding in a previous post (here). But the whole affair gave the impression of a politician who was ill-prepared and a policy which was badly thought-out. I have done my share of media interviews in my time, and I know how easy it is to have a brain fade. But this is a politician seeking high office, trying to put across one of their key policies. Despite the fact that the apologists will say we should not allow the presentation to get in the way of the message, the fact is if a senior politician cannot prepare for a radio interview and get their facts straight, what chance would they have when faced with the difficulties of Brexit negotiations?
All this undermines the opposition’s case to be taken seriously at a time when the government is open to criticism on its track record in managing public spending, and will reinforce the media view that Labour cannot be trusted on key policy matters. Now more than ever, the UK needs effective government and a strong opposition able to hold it to account. On matters of economic policy, the government is getting off far too easily. The prime minister struggles to answer when pinned down on points of detail, but wriggles out of it by repeating to her interviewer that she will bring “strong and stable government.” It is the soundbite of the election campaign so far.
But it is a slogan, not a policy. Faced with the Scylla of the prime minister’s position and the Charybdis of Diane Abbott’s, it is hard to avoid the view that the electorate is not being well served by its politicians. Twenty years ago today it all seemed so different, when a freshly minted prime minister in the form of Tony Blair, marched into Downing Street promising to bring a fresh approach to government. Blair has come and gone, and is widely reviled - even by his own party. But his ability to communicate was first rate. The inarticulacy which characterises today's policy debate would simply not be allowed to stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment