Archive for June, 2014

Reshuffles hardly ever make a difference. But that won’t stop the speculation

30/06/2014, 06:09:38 PM

by David Butler

David Cameron and Ed Miliband are preparing to shuffle their packs and make their final cut of this Parliament; for one, this will be the last reshuffle they preside over. Ministers and their shadows buzz around nervously awaiting the phone call that will determine the next few years of their political career. For a few, membership of the cabinet (or shadow cabinet) awaits. For others, the comfy leather of the commons backbenches is their destination. However, as much as fun discussing reshuffles can be, the act itself will be mostly irrelevant to either party’s prospects next year.

There is a media tendency to overhype the impact of reshuffles. In Miliband’s most recent shadow cabinet reshuffle was argued to be a cull of the Blairites. In fact, it was more of a replacement of Blairites associated with the Ancein Regime rather than Blairites per se. The 2012 government reshuffle was said to be a ‘rise of the right’ moment but has made little discernible effect on the overall direction of the government, aside from possibly the work done by Chris Grayling as justice secretary and Owen Paterson as environment secretary. Another discrepancy between media discussion and political reality is the perception that reshuffles are a political masterplans, executed with supreme efficiency; in fact, it is often the case that they are chaotic and messy. For example in 2012, the failure of Cameron to convince Iain Duncan Smith to move from the DWP to the MoJ caused a chaotic last minute rethink of the reshuffle and damaged relations between Number 10 and IDS.

The presence of a northern woman in the cabinet will not be the silver bullet to the issue of Tory unpopularity with urban voters and women, just as Sajid Javid’s appointment has not made the Tories more appealing to ethnic minorities. Without addressing the deeper roots of the problems – culture, policy, perception and history – that prevent the Tories from winning over said voters, such an appointment will have only the most marginal of impacts.

For Labour too, a few fresh faces, perhaps a promotion for Gloria de Piero or Dan Jarvis, won’t get over our problems of the lack of trust on the economy and Ed’s poor personal ratings. These are problems arising from strategy, communication and Ed himself. People don’t believe we will make the changes we have pledged and are sceptical that we can manage the economy and public finances well.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Hyperbole is becoming a bad habit for our political class

30/06/2014, 07:29:35 AM

by Kevin Meagher

If the Scottish referendum on independence is ‘lost’ in September it may be a tad late to reflect that apocalyptic warnings of Caledonia dystopia didn’t exactly help win the case.

Claims in February that Scotland wouldn’t be able to keep the pound – a “masterstroke” concocted by the three main Westminster parties’ frontbenches – were silly enough, leaving the electorate unmoved while playing into the SNP’s hands, showing-up the Westminster elite up as a cosy club.

Last week, however, the ‘hyper’ was well and truly put into ‘hyperbole’ when Ed Miliband floated the idea of border checkpoints if Scots opt for independence. The supplementary question are obvious enough.

Will these checkpoints come with watch towers and Alsatians? Will we see miles of unfurled razorwire stretched across the countryside, just like in The Great Escape?

Hell, why not just rebuild Hadrian’s Wall.

Why can’t we treat the Scots as rational adults?

“Sorry you’re thinking of going. We’ll miss you. There’s nothing at all wrong in embracing your nationhood, but there are a few serious practical downsides. We’ll respect your wishes, but, out of friendship, we want to discuss these and try to persuade you to stay.”

Surely that’s better than threatening them with Checkpoint Charlie?

Alas, too many Westminster politicians, schooled in that ghastly student union habit of painting debates into tiny corners in order to make broader points, think this is how you shape public opinion.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Khan’s reaction to new lags’ bedtime is tone deaf

28/06/2014, 02:41:35 PM

by Kevin Meagher

As campaign slogans go: “Soft on criminals, soft on the bedtime of criminals” is hardly a winner.

But it nevertheless appears to be Labour party policy after Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan today described the government’s bid to introduce a new 10.30pm “lights out” policy in young offender institutions as a “gimmick”.

Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, believes the move will help inmates (“most of whom have had chaotic and troubled lives”) by setting clearer boundaries and instilling some much-needed self-discipline.

According to today’s Independent, prison governors have been told to enforce the new policy from August. After 10.30, watching television – or reading under the covers – will be strictly banned and staff patrols will enforce the measure, including removing privileges from anyone breaking the new rules.

At the same time, however, Grayling also proposes to “more than double” the hours of education and training that under-18s in custody receive each week.

Khan’s – and Labour’s – response?

“Routine is crucial for those with chaotic lives, but to think that turning the lights off at the same time in every youth prison is all that’s needed to turn them all into law-abiding citizens is a joke,” he said.

“This looks like a gimmick to cover the cracks caused by Grayling’s cuts.”

“A joke?” Really? “A gimmick?” Was this response off-the-cuff? And who was Khan aiming it at?

Why did he not say something more balanced like: “Setting boundaries for young offenders is sensible and helps provide structure and encourage self-discipline; however Chris Grayling’s cuts to prison budgets means there are concerns about staffing these new arrangements.”

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

“290 seats and Ed stays”

27/06/2014, 03:32:37 PM

Much rumour and speculation in recent days on the aftermath of a potential Labour defeat next year. The Guardian splashed last Saturday with an anonymous frontbencher demanding Ed Miliband’s resignation if Labour loses the next election. The Mail followed up earlier this week with “friends” of the Labour leader talking up his chances of “doing a Kinnock” and fighting on in the event of a loss.

To party members these types of stories often seem to erupt into the news without warning.  But in reality they represent the cresting waves above currents that are surging below the surface.

Uncut has now spoken to four parliamentary sources that have highlighted a specific operation by team Miliband to reset expectations in the PLP. Rather than an outright victory, or even being the largest party, this endeavour is focused on setting a new benchmark: the minimum number of seats Ed Miliband needs to stay on as leader.

The magic number currently being touted is 290, a gain of 32 on Labour’s current voting strength.

290 seats for Labour would almost certainly mean the Tories were the largest party with the Lib Dems in the high 20s to low 30s. Labour would be facing another five years in opposition.

The leadership operation has involved senior parliamentarians, political advisers and friendly journalists, all giving a similar narrative on why Ed should stay. Common phrases include, “two term journey,” “changing the terms of the debate,” and “Labour needs to stay unified.”

In the event of Labour securing 290 seats, the leader’s pitch would offer the prospect of a return to office if Labour could stay unified under Miliband and make another 30 or so gains at the next election. He would have a track record on making this type of progress and the fear of a divisive leadership election would be used to discourage rival candidates supporters declaring publicly.

This is the context for the recent press stories. They haven’t just happened randomly. They are the reaction to a concerted lobbying campaign by the leader’s team that prepares the ground for defeat and the internal battle to come. Expect more over the coming weeks and months.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

How Labour is losing the battle for media relevance

26/06/2014, 07:00:08 AM

by Atul Hatwal

Last week Ed Miliband, gave a major policy speech at the IPPR. One of the biggest of his leadership. The Labour party mounted a significant press operation around it: there was the mandatory trail to the Guardian the previous night, lots of morning chatter on Twitter among Milibelievers about what a big deal this all was with shadow ministers deployed to comment immediately following the speech.

But within two hours of Ed Miliband finishing his Q&A, the story was elsewhere. Rather than discuss the deeper policy or electoral ramifications of the intervention, the media’s attention was captivated by something else entirely: owls.

The Labour party’s twitter account was hacked with this tweet going out.

Owl Tweet

The rest is history. An analysis completed for Uncut by Twitter analytics experts, of tweets by the Westminster media (lobby, press gallery, columnists, political reporters and bloggers) illustrates the extent to which this one rogue tweet overshadowed the big Miliband speech.

From the point Ed Miliband stopped talking, to the end of the day, there were over double the number of media tweets about owls compared to Ed Miliband’s IPPR speech.

Owls vs Ed

By the early evening, loyalist MPs were having to use the owls meme to crowbar Ed Miliband’s speech back into the Westminster conversation.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Shadow Cabinet League: Reshuffle special

25/06/2014, 11:29:54 AM

by Alan Smithee

We are entering reshuffle season. Parliament is full of Labour MPs hoping Ed Miliband won’t put the black spot on them. For some shadow cabinet members, this is the end of the line. For others, they will cling on, their hopes of high office not yet dashed. At Uncut, we are nothing but loyal servants to Dear Leader, so our table may give him a few ideas as to who should be bumped off.

The recess and elections meant that May saw relatively low levels of parliamentary activity.  Sadiq Khan continued his good work. The relative success of the London results has boosted his chances of getting mayoralty nomination (even if his spectacularly poor Express article showed a lack of judgement). Chris Leslie had a busy media month, attempting to combat the Government’s narrative over the recovery and setting out how Labour would build long-termism into the economy. Hilary Benn and his team continue their strong media attacks on the DCLG, exposing the incompetence of Pickles.

Over at Progress conference, Chuka Umunna put in a smooth performance in his Q&A session with Jacqui Smith. This capped off a successful month where he rang rings around the Government over the Pfizer/AstraZeneca issue and bested the BBC’s notoriously tricky interviewer Andrew Neil.

Shad Cab May 2014 JPEG

Just behind Chuka, Caroline Flint and his potential leadership rival Yvette Cooper had contrasting months. Flint and her team had a slow month (aside from the mandatory campaigning). By contrast, Cooper made some good interventions, proactively generating stories over Labour’s policies towards the assets of criminals and exposing the government’s poor record on waiting times for victims of crime. In the media, however, she was understandably overshadowed by Theresa May’s audacious intervention at the Police Federation conference.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Letter from Wales: New evidence of how the Welsh media has effectively been nationalised

21/06/2014, 01:23:13 PM

by Julian Ruck

Now, you readers of Uncut may be thinking that in Wales things cannot get any crazier. Well, please note the following –

Rob Gittins, who lives in Carmarthenshire and is an award-winning screenwriter for such programmes as EastEnders, Casualty and The Bill, has had the publication of his two books, ‘Gimme Shelter’ and ‘The Poet and the Private Eye’ subsidised by public funds – make no mistake, the gentleman’s creative dexterity has certainly made a casualty out of the taxpayer!

But this is not all, do read on.

Martin Shipton, chief hack for the Western Mail no less, has written a political masterpiece on Welsh politics, titled “A Poor Man’s Parliament” (Seren 2011).

An admirable endeavour by anyone’s standards, except for one thing.

Mr Shipton observes, “…..a  stifling of public debate in Wales through the reliance on Assembly patronage of so many organisations.” So the book’s blurb maintains anyway.

Well, guess what?

His very own Marquandian and towering political critique was published with the financial help of  “Assembly patronage”!

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

We’ve been here before on welfare reform. Now the backlash is coming, will Labour hold the line?

19/06/2014, 01:07:25 PM

by Atul Hatwal

The much quoted definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Today, the Labour party is testing this proposition.

For the third time in seven months, Labour is attempting to re-position itself on welfare. For the third time in seven months the pre-briefing before a welfare reform speech has been about “toughness,” how Labour will cut benefits for young people and respond to public concerns on welfare spending.

We’ve been here before.

As a taster for what’s likely to come, this is what happened the first time Labour went down this road, back in November last year. James Kirkup at the Telegraph wrote a story on potential Labour cuts to benefits for under 25s if they were not in training or ‘intensively’ looking for work, based on an IPPR report and a briefing from the party. 

The backlash from the party forced an immediate denial, with Rachel Reeves tweeting “This is not and will not be our policy” “it’s not our plan” and “it is totally not my position!” Cue much relief,

These weren’t the reactions of random activists, Matthew Pennycook is the PPC in Nick Raynsford’s seat and will be an MP in 2015, Gemma Tummelty works for Ed Miliband and Mark Ferguson edits Labour List.

Take two. In January this year, Tom Newton Dunn at the Sun wrote a similar story about removing benefits for the young unemployed, which was, once again, based on another IPPR report and a briefing from the party. Cue a repeated denial from Rachel Reeves and more relief,      (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

A decade has passed and the world is in chaos. For all our sakes, can we all move on from 2003, please?

18/06/2014, 10:26:15 AM

by Rob Marchant

If recent events in Ukraine were not disturbing enough for those who might occasionally worry about the future for their children and grandchildren, one need only now look towards the Middle East, and a little further.

The aftermath of the Arab Spring. Egypt. Syria. An isolated Israel that seems to have lost all hope of establishing a meaningful alliance against a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, and has now ended up forming stranger ones. A pernicious and persistent strain of Islamism remaining in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and Nigeria, to name but a few.

And finally, the coup de grâce: the overspill of ISIS Islamists from Syria into large parts of Iraq, threatening, in a symbolic poke in the eye for the West, to realise a long-held goal. A fanatical and oppressive religious autocracy; a Caliphate.

It is difficult to recall a moment since the 1960s when the world has been in such an unstable geopolitical position. The bipolar certainties of the Cold War are now replaced with the unpredictability of a multi-polar world. And all the while, we have Western countries and their governments seemingly stuck as powerless onlookers, rabbits caught in the headlights of their own recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nowhere is this more the case than the British Labour party. We cannot look at the current situation in Iraq without reflexively referring back to 2003. For those who disagreed with it, it is a perfect chance to say, ah well, that’s because of what we did. Never again. We still cannot forgive and forget, eleven years after the invasion and seven since its chief architect left office. We cannot help but re-fight old battles.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

If coalitions are to work, they need to be time-limited

17/06/2014, 05:04:39 PM

by Kevin Meagher

The fallout from Dominic Cummings’ salvo against David Cameron and the coalition government received a less histrionic response from former Cameron special adviser Sean Worth this morning.

Writing in Public Affairs News, the adviser turned lobbyist wrote that:

“Future coalitions will be formed by parties demanding explicit control of distinct areas of policy, rather than simply sharing power. The principal powers, notably tax and spend, and defence decisions, must be shared, but governing leaders will carve out defining areas of political territory on which to build the personal crusades needed to push radical reforms that really get them noticed.”

The current model of zipping ministerial appointments in departments between Conservatives and Lib Dem and vice versa, has seen the creation of internal departmental hand breaks. Think Gove and Sarah Teather, or Vince Cable and Michael Fallon. (Of course, one place it has worked all too well is the Treasury between George Osborne and Danny Alexander – but that underlines a different problem, certainly for the Lib Dems).

Reform-minded ministers like Michael Gove are frustrated by the need to co-operate and seek consensus. For politicians (and advisers like Cummings) who are sure of themselves and are keen to make their mark – or who simply want to please their party and implement the manifesto they stood on – the current coalition experience is clearly a massive anti-climax.

But creating party fiefs across Whitehall – Worth’s alternative suggestion – is a recipe for disaster. How do you deal with cross-cutting issues in this model? Take the recent spat between Gove and Theresa May on tacking extremism. How much more loaded will rows like that become when they are not just between different departments, but different departments controlled by different parties?

If inconclusive election results are to become the norm, then our political system needs a clearer way of responding. Coalitions may indeed be here to stay, but rather than staggering on for five years, descending into bickering and drift in the process, it would be better to limit their lifespan to 12-18 months instead.

This focuses the attentions and energies of both parties. It creates an incentive to co-operate on areas of agreement and on issues that require immediate attention in the national interest. Larger changes should be put before the electorate at the subsequent election.

This sort of arrangement would show that sensible co-operation between parties in the national interest is indeed possible, but it also challenges voters to accept that our model of government works best when a single party has a mandate to govern.

Kevin Meagher is associate editor of Labour Uncut

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon