An Indifferent Performance in an Impossible Job

I am not a great fan of Alistair Darling, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think there have been times over the last couple of years when he has seemed uncertain and unconvincing when making speeches. Indeed, there has been at least one occasion when media comment has highlighted the fact that he didn’t look like someone who really believed in what he was saying. All this at a time when strong and determined leadership has been what the economy and the general public have needed more than at almost any time in living memory.

I confess, however, to feeling considerable sympathy for the man.

Did he grow up dreaming of being a politician? Did he ever dare to think that he might be a cabinet member, entrusted with a pivotal role in government?

If so, you can bet your life that nobody warned him it could end up like this...

Alistair Darling was born in London in 1953 and educated in Scotland, where he gained a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Aberdeen. He showed his political ambition (and leanings) by becoming head of the University’s student union and a supporter of the International Marxist Group. Becoming a solicitor and then an advocate he became a councillor on the Lothian Regional Council and then a member of parliament at the 1987 General Election. He is one of only three MP’s to have been a member of the Cabinet since Labour came to power in 1997- eventually becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in June 2007- which was, let’s face it,  pretty bad timing on his part.

Within three months there had been the first run on a British Bank since 1860, leading to Mr Darling authorising a bailout of Northern Rock that eventually totalled tens of billions of pounds through depositors’ guarantees and other measures. He then had to watch, and try to manage the UK’s way through, a global economic meltdown the like of which had not been since the 1930’s. Amongst other things he has had to; virtually re-nationalise a significant part of the UK banking sector, put together a huge debt program for the government, handle the public rage over tax changes (such as the abolition of the 10% starting rate) that were actually decided on by the previous Chancellor and current Prime Minister and, on a more personal level ,fend off recurring questions about his expenses- including how the designation of which home was his “second home” could change four times in four years. All this with his predecessor in the job, now his boss, leaning over his shoulder and taking a very active role in financial policy. Anybody who’s been in that situation in commerce knows how awkward a situation that can be, especially in difficult times.

So what could he have done better?

Principally he could have stood up to the Prime Minister and done more tough things that were necessary and fewer things that were politically expedient. This would especially apply to the pre Budget report at the end of 2009 that read more like a pre election Party Political Broadcast. He could have announced measures to attack our growing deficit, rather than put everything off until after the General Election, when it is likely to be a more serious problem- but is very likely to be somebody else’s problem. He could have avoided attacking populist targets like the bankers quite so often and taken some of the blame onto the Government’s shoulders, where some of it certainly belongs.

On the other hand, to have done any of the above things, let alone all of them, would make him a rare politician indeed.  This would especially be true in the face of negative opinion polls and an imminent General Election.

That is why he has my sympathy. I think he has done an indifferent job at best, but I’m not sure anyone else would have done very much better.