John Maples apologises over recession comments

At Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, one of the pre-prepared quotes Gordon Brown threw at the Opposition was from Tory MP and party deputy chairman, John Maples, who had said in the Commons on Monday:

“The recession has to take its course... bad debts have to be written off, bad investments have to be written off and people and businesses need to repair their balance sheets. The Prime Minister knows that, even if some of his Back Benchers do not. If that does not happen, there will not be a solid base for recovery.”

Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard has picked up on the fact that Maples took the free-for-all opportunity that is Business Questions earlier today to apologise for the remarks.

Here's what he told the Commons:

"I would personally like to explain and apologise for a phrase I used on Monday, which was that the recession must take its course. I realise that may have caused offence to people who are the victims of the recession. I regret that. What I meant, and what I believe, is that the economy cannot recover until levels of private debt have been reduced. I do not believe, and I did not meant to convey the impression, that the government should not help victims of the recession. I fully support borrowing to do that."

Comments

[Tony Makara]

John Maples has no need to apologise. He speaks the language of commonsense. Rather like Lord Lamont all those years ago, he has been castigated for telling the painful truth.

[Christian May]

"I fully support borrowing to do that."

There's another gem for Brown to use next week.

[Wearside Tory]

Totally agree Tony - more nasty out of context spinning by Mandelson and Campbell...

They are still after Osborne - articles in the New Statesman about "Nasty, Nerdy and Over Promoted" Osborne...

The New Labour family has definitely buried the hatchet and is on a full speed mud slinging campaign - the Economy and the Shadow Treasury team are there chosen battlefield...we have to match them and overcome them...

[Vincent Wall]

Can we expect Mr Maples to apologise for gerrymandering the MEP selection process?

[Mike]

Is it me or are we witnessing the 'Dianafication' of this crisis?

What I mean is that there only seems one acceptable way to react to events. If you are not in favour of borrowing money to spray around then you are a heartless monster and need to beg forgiveness.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

A perfect, nearly completely house-trained, Cameroon.

Yes, he can still remember what he used to believe, but it isn't a big problem any more.

[IRJMilne]

He was, of course, right first time.

[johnC]

There is far more for John Maples to apologise for in his apology than in his original remarks, which were perfectly sensible.

[Sammy Finn]

The fool has now only drawn more attention to his remarks.

[Joe James B]

He was right.
Nothing to apologise for.

It does need to work it's way through.

That's not to say we can't do anything to mitigate the worst effects of it, and we should.

I suppose the headless chicken mode would like us to put the economy back to how it was in 2007. If that were remotely possible, it would never fix it for the long term.

[Gloy Plopwell (Hornsey and Wood Green)]

You see, same old Tories.

[Raj]

He was, of course, right first time.

That it was ok to imply those who are most in need should be left to drown? You can help people without throwing money around to those who do not need it.

[Daniel]

As the recession bites, and Labour seeks to profit from it politically, we are seeing the re-emergence of a familiar figure from the early 1990s - the heartless Thatcherite who cares nothing for the impact of recession on ordinary people's lives provided it promotes some abstract concept of economic efficiency. Cameron's leadership was supposed to be about ending this type of toxic nonsense, so let's see him instil some party discipline. Maple's statement was crass, a propaganda coup for Labour, and he was right to apologise. Much better not to fall into such an obvious trap in the first place. To see Conservatives defend him on this site by invoking the spirit of the poor, misunderstood Norman Lamont is a truly, deeply depressing experience. Have we learnt nothing from 11 years in opposition?

[Mike]

Daniel, the country is going to face some hard choices after the borrowing binge it's been on for the last decade.

It is not 'heartless' to tell people that they need to reign in their lifestyles and pay off their debts.

Whilst help should be strategically given to the most vulnerable it shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free' card from adult responsibility.

I have the sinking feeling that this debate is going to be played out at an emotional level by Labour.

[Laugh Out Loud]

This is the problem with being an MP Daniel (16:15).

You tell the truth but get castigated for it because it is either something people don't want to hear or it is 'off message'.

Better to write columns or blogs becuase at least you can tell it how you see it.

Also no sympathy with Maples.. candidates list et al.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Why did he apologise? If you listen to his full statement, it was merely a statement of fact. Borrowing huge sums as the Japanese have has merely prolonged their recession and the suffering of the Japanese.You don't have to be a hard hearted Thatcherite to appreciate that Daniel.

[Tony Makara]

Daniel, if the value of our curreny collapses because we borrow too much, don't exorcize our debts, and have a cavalier attitude to interest rate cuts leading to inflation, you will see economic problems far in excess of those we face today. The British economy which is 76% services has for too long been dependent on credit to fuel demand. Now it has run its course and a new economy must emerge, one balanced away from services and towards export sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture. The old economy has died because its principle plank of support, consumer credit has died. No amount of borrowing or flash-in-the-pan tax cuts are going to save it. We now need to plan for the new economy post recession.

[Raj]

Malcolm, the problem was how he presented it. You can say something that is correct but have it twisted. That might not be fair, but politics is never fair and politicians need to mentally review what they say before it comes out of their mouth. Otherwise they leave themselves open to attack from their enemies.

I don't know that he had to apologise as his comments weren't that bad, but as it is he did apologise and I can understand why he may have wanted to do so.

Unfortunately the last comment he made about borrowing probably spoilt it and might make things worse.

[Raj]

Tony

Now it has run its course and a new economy must emerge, one balanced away from services and towards export sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture.

As much as I would like to see more exports, how do we do that? We can't do it on cost and with quality it takes years, perhaps decades to establish a reputation in a particular area. There are some things we do well, but overall I cannot see how we can make ourselves bigger exporters with what we have now.

[Wearside Tory]

Wrong.. for telling people there are no more pots of Treasury cash at the end of the rainbow.

Wrong... for telling people they will have to tighten their belts and save for material things if they want them..

Wrong...for suggesting it is prudent to save for a rainy day...

This is what sensible Conservative policies are about...

What really gets my goat is when sloppy journalists suggest we have "all" been living beyond our means....There are plenty of people who haven't bought into the credit binge...They are now suffering as interest rates are extremely low and pensions plummet...

Who is standing up for these people..

[Hawkeye]

"What I mean is that there only seems one acceptable way to react to events. If you are not in favour of borrowing money to spray around then you are a heartless monster and need to beg forgiveness"

That is just normal socialism at work.

There is only one way - the party's way. All others who disagree are dangerous, or deluded or in need of re-education to stop them challenging the supremacy of the bureaucracy and harming the workers.

[Joe James B]

Wearside Tory - I totally agree.

I'd also like to see urgent action to get credit to small and medium sized businesses.

This is a priority.

Companies that would be perfectly healthy otherwise are being demanded rates at outrageous terms.

[Malcolm Dunn]

This is the sort of apology I would have expected from certain Conservatives in 2004-05 when we had lost all confidence and were lying prostrate at the feet of the electorate. Either excessive borrowing is wrong which is what I believe (as does Cameron and Osborne) or it isn't which is why Maples apology is pathetic.

[Raj]

Who is standing up for these people..

No one, because people who spend don't like those who live within their means. Plus it's difficult to have sympathy for anyone who isn't up s-creek without a paddle. Not that such a person should be given sympathy if they could have been more careful, but that's life.

[RichardJ]

"As the recession bites, and Labour seeks to profit from it politically, we are seeing the re-emergence of a familiar figure from the early 1990s - the heartless Thatcherite who cares nothing for the impact of recession on ordinary people's lives provided it promotes some abstract concept of economic efficiency."

It isn't heartlessness, it's stating the laws of economics. You might as well sue the forces of gravity because you fell off a wall.

[Raj]

It isn't heartlessness, it's stating the laws of economics. You might as well sue the forces of gravity because you fell off a wall.

Although I'm not attacking Maples, the point is that if someone falls off a wall and is injured scolding them for injuring themselves does come across badly - the natural reaction of most people is to rush over and help.

Again, I have to say that although sometimes people can be CORRECT they must be ON GUARD against SPIN. It would be wonderful if spin were outlawed, but it isn't and a lot of people are vulnerable to it. People must realise that. It's no good complaining it's not fair.

[Tony Makara]

"As much as I would like to see more exports, how do we do that?"

Raj, firstly by ensuring that the productive sectors like manufacturing and agriculture receive special-tax-status and are allowed to keep enough money to make them competitive.

We must develop a substantial export-industry so that we are not completely reliant on domestic demand. This will allow our economy the ability to fight on two fronts and will allow us to finally have Sterling operating at a stable level that will benefit the entire economy. Recent years have seen our interest rate policy and our currency overvalued to accomodate financial services, this has allowed Gordon Brown to paint a false picture of economic health as he measured economic success in terms of cash-flow rather than productivity, better wages and full-time jobs.

The British economy must be rebalanced and the recession can be a time to set into motion forward planning, analysis of why the credit-services economy collapsed, and focus on how we are to construct a new economy in which productivity and better wages fuel demand rather than credit.

[Raj]

ensuring that the productive sectors like manufacturing and agriculture receive special-tax-status and are allowed to keep enough money to make them competitive

Is that legal in respect of EU/WTO rules? I.e. it wouldn't be counted as a subsidy or something else?

We must develop a substantial export-industry so that we are not completely reliant on domestic demand.

Perhaps you are right, but you've only listed tax breaks which I have queried as to whether they could be allowed in sufficient quantity as to make a difference.

[Man in a Shed]

The problem is that no one wants to explain to the general public about had bad things are and what that really means.

Instead tea and sympathy combined with stealth destruction of the future is to be served to keep the current government in power.

Democracy cannot function when there are no people willing to spell out unpopular truths.

[Peter Buss]

In my view Raj is right. Maples should have said that whilst everything possible should be done to help people at this time, the stark truth is that the recession will have to play itself out.

Anything which smacks of an uncaring Tory Paty at a time when so many are suffering(not all becuase of their own fault) is political suicide. Furthermore any idea that the Country at large is yearning for a return to Maggie is pure and utter fantasy.

I am a Tory, but sometimes when reading some of the comments on here I truly think that the biggest danger to us getting re-elected are the views of the unreconstucted Right who stubbornly fail to recognise that the Country has now said 3 times "No we don't want your policies thankyou very much"

[GB£.com]

Well it was a good job that Maples didn't refer to people who are struggling deep in credit card debt as 'tossers'.

That would have been deeply uncaring and shocking.

[West London Tory]

I hope the housing market collapses 50%,
so we can buy better houses,
and 96% of estate agents shut.

[Raj]

Democracy cannot function when there are no people willing to spell out unpopular truths.

Perhaps, but you cannot win an election by telling a majority of the electorate that they were stupid and only have themselves to blame. AGAIN, this is not what Maples was saying but it could be easily twisted into that.

There is no country with perfect democracy, and the UK is no exception. We must accept that there are devious politicians who will twist our words against us and members of the media who will lap it up. Such activity cannot be made illegal and it cannot be stamped out. But it can be mitigated by careful phrasing of comments and remembering that once you have said something you cannot tip-ex it out - unless you apologise, even if there really was nothing to apologise about.

Politics is horrible, but if you don't like it get a job somewhere else. If you want to be a MP or go higher you have to accept that even if you're right, you can be "wrong".

[Tony Makara]

"Is that legal in respect of EU/WTO rules? I.e. it wouldn't be counted as a subsidy or something else?"

Raj, no there is indeed a question. My only answer is that if it comes to the stage when the EU forbids us from supporting our own industries, then perhaps it is time that we re-examined our position as a member of the EU.

[Robert Eve]

Just because we have lost 3 elections it doesn't mean our policies are wrong. Those parts of the electorate that vote Labour deserve all they get.

Cameron's big error is to try and produce a New Conservative party after watching Blair.

[Tony Makara]

Raj, we also need to look ast whether the minimum wage, as a starting rate, is a luxury we can no longer afford. I'm all for better wages, but they should come out of productivity and not state top-ups. It seems the minimum wage has become something of a taboo subject among senior Conservatives these days. However we have to ask whether its better to be on four pounds an hour, or be on the dole? Difficult times call for sensible solutions and if people support the idea of a minimum wage in principle, then at least they ought to allow for struggling firms to adopt a more flexible rate of MW?

[Raj]

My only answer is that if it comes to the stage when the EU forbids us from supporting our own industries, then perhaps it is time that we re-examined our position as a member of the EU.

Well if they apply to us they apply to everyone (and they do apply to everyone - it's just that some countries accept the fines). If we pulled out of the EU we might not be allowed to stay in the free trade area and our exporters would be stiffed anyway.

Also, with all due respect, you didn't address my point that surely we can't just be cutting tax - there must be more to it, right?

[Raj]

Just because we have lost 3 elections it doesn't mean our policies are wrong. Those parts of the electorate that vote Labour deserve all they get.

So it's better to have "right" policies and be in Opposition than make pledges that get you elected? You DO realise that after being elected you can modify your proposals, yes? A manifesto is not a legally-binding document.

Comments like these are another example of people that would prefer to see the Tories in Opposition than win with Cameron at the helm - people who are not affected by Labour's troubles, or if so find it a mere inconvenience. Otherwise they would back Cameron as at least an improvement over Labour.

[Eurorealist]

John Maples was right first time but his unconvincing apology was both unnecessary and wrong. We can help the victims of the recession without increased government borrowing.

[ChrisD]

"Comments like these are another example of people that would prefer to see the Tories in Opposition than win with Cameron at the helm - people who are not affected by Labour's troubles, or if so find it a mere inconvenience. Otherwise they would back Cameron as at least an improvement over Labour."

Raj, I agree.

Maples behaviour today restores my faith in some of our MP's.
How often does a Cabinet Minister apologise for their departments incompetence or failure?
How often do they have to be dragged into the HoC's to do just that?

I was really surprised and welcomed Osborne's similar approach over the Yachtgate carry on.
The arrogance and inability to accept any responsibility for their actions on a range of issues, from Iraq to the huge loss of personal data, shows that if this government doesn't understand its mistakes, it cannot be the cure.

[Tania Brisby]

I think the point that needs to be made, is that Gordon Brown has misled the public by pretending that re-capitalisation of the banks would flow back to a return to easy credit. I believe that this was not on the table during the Night of the Curries and John Maples was right to imply that Labour's front bench are quite clear that businesses and households will be borrowing less on worse terms.

[HF]

Is this one of those gullible fools who caved in to the MEPs?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

He said nothing wrong. He was telling the truth. This has just given Labour their pound of flesh and will be thrown back in our faces with interest by the socialists.

Why are we always apologising like this? James McGrath, Nigel Hastilow, Patrick Mercer? Why can't our party high command get a backbone and stop jumping to Labour's command every time someone says something outside of the left-liberal consensus?

[Tony Makara]

"with all due respect, you didn't address my point that surely we can't just be cutting tax - there must be more to it, right?"

Raj, of course tax is only one string to the bow, we also need to remove restrictions on working hours/conditions and the minimum wage must also go. Government can play its part by helping us to corner niche markets and a quid pro quo policy would help, for example instead of letting the Chinese completely dominate Africa, we should move aggressively into the region, offering expertise and foreign aid in exchange for exclusive rights to trade with us. China are already doing this, and if I say so myself, I believe we would be a better friend to the continent of Africa than China ever could.

There are lots of ways to build up export markets, but the first step has to be taken by government in looking at the various ways markets can be cornered.

The Labour government only ever seem to create one-way trade with Britain doing the importing. We need to move away from that and develop a productive capacity that not only allows us to corner export markets, but also makes us less dependent on imports.

The old economy, the service-heavy economy, is dead. Its now time to look at rebuiling again, only this time we need a more balanced economy, one in which production and innovation is key, we used to be workshop of the world, we need to aim to get back to that again.

[Mark M]

"John Maples was right to imply that Labour's front bench are quite clear that businesses and households will be borrowing less on worse terms."

I beg to differ.

Tha actions of this Labour govt are contradictory. This in itself suggests they do not fully understand the predicament they/we are in.

They started off appearing to believe that Banks had to rebuild their balance sheets, introducing stricter terms and conditions for loans and recapitalisation.

However, they are now in the midsts of a full about face. They are now asking banks to be more lenient again with loans, coercing them (thru public embarrassment at the moment) into issuing loans at lower and lower rates of interest and to ease up on the terms relating to those loans. I dont think this contradiction is due to ignorant back benchers. Rather it reflects the fact that Brown/Darling did not think thru their earlier policy pronuncements and actions about recapitalisation.

One more comment: To portray anyone who says that the recession has to run its course as callous is wrong. The callous ones are those like Gordon Brown who ran the boom, who hiked the (monetary) expansion up as much as they could for electoral gain in the self deluded belief that they had changed the laws of economics and bought us salvation in the form of an undending boom. Yet it was illusory and always destined to fail. The need to let the recession run its course follows naturally from that - the gift, if you like, that New labour has bequeathed this country. The pain of the recession is therefore not the fault of the tories but of this Labour govt. Hold back the necessary market adjustments necessitated by this bust and you will simply prolong that recession and maybe turn it into a depression causing even more misery and suffering.

[grumpy old man]

"So it's better to have "right" policies and be in Opposition than make pledges that get you elected? You DO realise that after being elected you can modify your proposals, yes? A manifesto is not a legally-binding document."
Raj, this is exactly what the Blairite Labour Party did. Three times. The electorate have finally caught on to "we'll say what YOU want to hear, and do what WE want to do, because you are all cretins."
The depression will not be over in 6 months. Many people who borrowed excessively will be wiped out. Even those who were prudent, the OED meaning of the word, not the Brown, will suffer. Retired people will find their pensions wiped out and end their lives in poverty. The best and brightest of our young people will emigrate and build themselves a future abroad. This is what happened in the Wilson-Callaghan years and it will happen again. We need house price deflation, we need drastic downsizing in both the over-inflated non-critical areas and the non-performing areas of the public sector. I'm considering the back offices, not the front line. If Labour cut the rest of the public sector in the way they have cut the Armed Forces, one would soon notice the difference. The minimum wage figure will not matter because the Foreign Exchange markets will take it into account when setting the rate of the ever-depreciating £.
I think that now is the time to "Seem fouler but feel fairer". Lets tell it like it is, not as the Spinmeisters of the Left would like the Nation to believe.
And it would be a much needed return to the time when a manifesto was a moral contract with the electorate.

[Eurorealist]

Perhaps John Maples had the Tory Tosser campaign in mind - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hTa64yOnRqA.

[Raj]

Tony, I'm actually enjoying reading your comments - thanks.

we also need to remove restrictions on working hours/conditions and the minimum wage must also go

We can't remove the restrictions on working hours because of our EU commitment. And again that can't be a reason to leave the organisation.

As for the minimum wage, I don't think we were a competitive exporting nation (read balance, not reliance) before it was brought in. Read wrong your comments could imply that people should be worked longer hours for less, which won't go down well with anyone....

for example instead of letting the Chinese completely dominate Africa, we should move aggressively into the region, offering expertise and foreign aid in exchange for exclusive rights to trade with us

I see where you're going, but there's been a backlash against cheap Chinese exports flooding the markets and killing off African business. The Chinese are doing well because they'll get into bed with anyone, even Mugabe. We can't really beat that especially if we want to have any sort of human-rights element to our foreign policy.

++++

g.o.m.

Raj, this is exactly what the Blairite Labour Party did. Three times. The electorate have finally caught on to "we'll say what YOU want to hear, and do what WE want to do, because you are all cretins."

You say that, but the public do not have lie detectors. Of course if the Tories pledged to bring in 80% top tax rates no one would believe them, but if policy is credible with the public people will go for it. There is still plenty of scope for variation according to the circumstances of the time afterwards.

Lets tell it like it is, not as the Spinmeisters of the Left would like the Nation to believe.

I agree and disagree with you. We should say that the government should be careful how it spends its money, but we should also be careful how we put the message across. There is a difference between saying "we need to try to fund spending increases/tax cuts through efficiency savings" and "people who are in trouble have only themselves to blame and shouldn't be looking to the State for handouts". The latter may well be true, but it would be electoral suicide to use it as a campaign platform.

And it would be a much needed return to the time when a manifesto was a moral contract with the electorate.

I'm not sure when that was ever the case, except for very clear policies like abolition of X, or bring in Y. Things change throughout a term in office, though I would hope that a Conservative government would at least follow the spirit if not the letter of a manifesto.

[Candidate]

"I do not believe, and I did not meant to convey the impression, that the government should not help victims of the recession. I fully support borrowing to do that."

Doesn't this apology put John Maples in line with Brown and in disagreement with Conservative policy? We don't support additional borrowing at the moment.

[Tony Makara]

Raj, On the matter of a minimum wage, I certainly support better wages, but the minimum wage is a child of the service-sector economy with its poor and part-time wage structures. Once we rebalance the economy away from services we can pay for better wages out of productivity and the state won't need to impose a starting rate.

On removing restrictions on working hours, this is important if we want people to be able to earn a decent standard of living and business to be competitive. You state that it isn't a reason to leave the EU. Well, I can't count on one hand the reasons worth staying in the EU anymore. The EU is a political body supported by trading practices and not the other way around. We don't need the EU, we would be stronger setting our own rules on trade, working practice and the like.

On China, as I said yesterday, we would make a better and fairer trading partner than China, which in its domestic press describes Africa as 'The great feeder continent for the great Chinese economic project', little wonder therefore that China is resented in some parts of the region. On the matter of Mugabe, well, he won't be around forever and then change will come to Zimbabwe. We always need to be thinking long-term and setting up the avenues for trade that will take us into the next generation.

[IRJMilne]

@ Raj

"That it was ok to imply those who are most in need should be left to drown? You can help people without throwing money around to those who do not need it."

I didn't read it like that. It has to be twisted beyond recognition to mean that. "Leaving people to drown" is somewhat more emotive than "the recession must take its course, bad investments have to be written off", etc.

I also didn't say he was right to say what he said. I only meant that what he said was correct. As for the apology, I think it only draws attention to his initial statement, and will be used as amunition by Brown. But ideally, perhaps he should have made a more circumspect initial statement.

But it is important that we do not allow the present economic difficulties to be used as another excuse to expand the state, which will only make matters worse (at which point I will stop, as here is perhaps not the place to argue about what caused the long continuation of the Great Depression).

[Joe James B]

Whether one agrees with John Maples or not (and I agree with his first statement which is basic Conservative common sense),

I think it is just so ridiculous that politicians are forced to withdraw and apologise statements on important matters,

whilst

total trivia like Jonathon Ross etc. prompts questions and statements from the two front benches.

Am I wrong?