Frank Field given role as poverty czar by Cameron - The Times

StevieJ

Somerset wrote: »

I second the above.

It's way too early to say for sure, but these types of appointments are seriously giving the idea that a) capable people are being chosen for the slot, and b) partisan politics are not the deciding factor any more.

Let's see how it unfolds.

Behave, Osbourne is Chancellor

ILW

andyroberts1967 wrote: »

In which case, I'm dreading the industrial action. If there's one thing guaranteed to get civil servants out on strike in massive numbers, it's changing our pension arrangements. :-(:(

I wonder if anyone will notice this time?

LydiaJ

nickmason wrote: »

He's quite a big cheese - hit the big time with his book "The State We're In" in 1996, which was very popular with New Labour. Now runs the Work Foundation - a left-of-centre think tank.

I once took part in a debate with him at Oxford in about 2000. I was sitting next to his wife at the dinner beforehand. She asked me whether I was interested in politics - slightly a bizarre question given the situation. When I answered yes, and that I was a Tory, albeit a moderate one, she, apparently in shock that I wasn't falling into line with all the New Labour students, announced "my god, I didn't think anyone of a brain was, anymore" and studiously ignored me for the rest of the dinner. Incidentally, she is a director of a property development company - albeit one that builds social space through public and private funding.

I didn't find him much better, either - with his absolute faith in Keynesian economics, and scathing disgust at anyone of a different political perspective.

I agree with JP45 that this is a surprising appointment. Frank Field is surprising but very, very welcome. The jettisoning of his work on the welfare state became a catalyst to those of us on the right that the left, even New Labour, couldn't be relied upon to take the tough choices to make a difference.

Are his views on Keynesian economics or on the euro likely to be particularly problematic if his remit is limited to advising on the restructuring of civil service pay?

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

Are his views on Keynesian economics or on the euro likely to be particularly problematic if his remit is limited to advising on the restructuring of civil service pay?

Good point LydiaJ.

Cameron was saying this morning on Andrew Marr that it is unfair to have the highest paid civil servants on 30 times more than their lowest paid employees. Given that he's taken a pay cut and there are heads of councils on about twice what he is on (and I appreciate his benefits package is way better), then I'd expect that it would be on the higher paid members of the civil service that he's pushing for cuts. If he can get buy in from a left-wing think tank for this point of view I'm sure that there will be an agenda to rein in the public service unions. I know of few low-moderate paid civil servants/LGOs who have major sympathy for pay cuts for the best paid people in their service who they rarely meet or come into contact with. Cameron also said that public sector bonuses will go (although this will only save about £15m).

A._Badger

LydiaJ wrote: »

Are his views on Keynesian economics or on the euro likely to be particularly problematic if his remit is limited to advising on the restructuring of civil service pay?

It's a moot point, because it does lend Hutton some credibility for his silly views.

Perhaps more to the point is the signal it sends about Cameron himself. Wasn't he trying to cuddle-up to Polly Toynbee, some months ago?

If Cameron is trying to upset the Right of his own party (and reports suggest this is larger than we may have been led to suppose) then he's going the right way about it.

Still, it's good news about Field. Now he needs to find a role for the equally sensible Kate Hoey, whose integrity and intelligence has been wasted on NuLabour.

carolt

Whilst I welcome the appointment, and think Frank Field is generally a good egg, I am slightly astonished that no-one else appears to have spotted that Cameron has given responsibility for 2 of the most unpopular policies that are going to have to be brought in - namely cutting benefits and cutting civil service pay - to two non-Tories.

This way, Cameron gets to make the needed cuts BUT STILL BLAME THEM ALL ON LABOUR.

Clever, innit?

chris_m

carolt wrote: »

Cameron has given responsibility for 2 of the most unpopular policies that are going to have to be brought in - namely cutting benefits and cutting civil service pay - to two non-Tories.
This way, Cameron gets to make the needed cuts BUT STILL BLAME THEM ALL ON LABOUR.
Clever, innit?

Nah, that won't wash - he'll still get blamed coz he appointed them ;-)

Mind you, I do think it's refreshing that he seems to be trying to appoint people who he thinks are the best ones for the jobs without sticking to the old-fashioned party politics.

ninky_2

A._Badger wrote: »

Now he needs to find a role for the equally sensible Kate Hoey, whose integrity and intelligence has been wasted on NuLabour.

you've got to wonder why kate hoey is still in the labour party given her pro hunt and anti-gay views tbh. i'm sure she'd fit in with cameron's agenda very nicely.

ninky_2

chris_m wrote: »

Mind you, I do think it's refreshing that he seems to be trying to appoint people who he thinks are the best ones for the jobs without sticking to the old-fashioned party politics.

machievellian i'd say.

Jonbvn

ninky wrote: »

machievellian i'd say.

You are allowed to use both eyes you know.;)

carolt wrote: »

This way, Cameron gets to make the needed cuts BUT STILL BLAME THEM ALL ON LABOUR.

Sink or swim the PM gets the blame or glory.