Neil Kinnock: the history man

Neil Kinnock’s loss in 1992 still haunts Labour. But he thinks Ed Miliband can lay those ghosts to rest – and says his successor must “absolutely not” support a referendum on EU membership.

“Seething”. That is the word Neil Kinnock uses to describe his mood when I meet him at his House of Lords office. The cause of the former Labour leader’s ire is what he calls the “Nazi news” and its treatment of the Miliband family.

“This attack on Ralph [Miliband] and this attack on Ed, because that’s what it’s about, is beyond outrage, beyond outrage,” he tells me. “Especially from the newspaper [the Daily Mail] that had headlines like ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ in the 1930s, when German and Italian fascism was seeking to exterminate everything that Britain stands for,” he adds, thumping his desk for emphasis.

In the 21 years since he resigned as Labour leader, Kinnock, who is 71, has seldom been more public than now. His name is invoked daily by those newspapers that once disparaged him so mercilessly as today they seek to portray Miliband as similarly “unelectable” and “left-wing”. When Miliband delivered his speech at the Labour conference in Brighton in September, it was Kinnock, as the only former party leader in attendance, whose face the TV cameras repeatedly cut to. And it is his defeat in 1992 that has become the shared reference point for the optimists in David Cameron’s party and the pessimists in Miliband’s.

When I ask him whether he fears that the viciousness of partisan press attacks could deny Labour victory in 2015, he warns that newspapers retain “substantial influence in shaping the opinions of the small number of people who – in the marginal constituencies – can make the difference in an election. Knowing that, the papers will make special efforts to sustain lengthy personalised anti-Labour campaigns and, particularly during the election weeks, will probably do sales promotion campaigns such as giving free copies away in marginal seats.”

Kinnock knows better than most how a handful of votes can determine an election result under the anachronistic first-past-the-post system. In 1992, if just 1,240 votes in 11 Conservative constituencies had been cast for Labour, rather than the Tories, he, rather than John Major, would have won a majority. That statistic haunts the man who remains on record as the longest-serving leader of the opposition.

But while delivering this warning from history, he tells me that Labour is in “a very good position”. “Right from the day of our defeat in 2010, I think uniquely in Labour Party history, there was no instinct for division at all. There was, as far as I could witness it, an almost universal determination to maximise unity and to get on with the task of preparing for the next election.”

Kinnock, who endorsed Ed Miliband in 2010, and whose daughter Rachel works for the Labour leader, says: “We have a leader who is very much his own man and has manifest bravery and brightness and all the right instincts . . . When a country or a party unavoidably encounters difficulties, you don’t want some petulant git who flounces off at the end of a debate to command a ship when the storm is high, you want someone who can be determined, deliberate and calm, and certain that the difficult can be and will be overcome – and that’s Ed.”

Kinnock describes Miliband as being “lethally calm”. “This is Mr Cool, not Mr Cold . . . he really does show terrific fortitude, intellectually, politically and physically.”

He rebukes his old friend and former director of communications, Peter Mandelson, for claiming that Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices was in danger of taking the party “backwards”. “I was rather amazed. Peter knows very well that governments in modern democracies must intervene when markets are plainly malfunctioning. Being doctrinaire about that doesn’t help, as Germany, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and many other instances show. Even George Osborne, in his clumsy way, has intervened in an attempt to prevent the housing market from juddering to a halt and Maggie Thatcher introduced housing benefit in order to keep the private rental sector afloat. Of course, when they intervene, it’s ‘stimulus’ – when Labour does, it’s ‘socialism’.”

Of the pantheon of memorable Kinnock lines (“I warn you not to be ordinary”, “Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?”, “Well, awriiight!”), it is his alleged response to Miliband’s election as Labour leader, “We’ve got our party back,” that is most often cited today. The words are gleefully held up by Conservatives as proof that Labour is once more unelectable. But as Kinnock tells me, he never uttered them.

“At the Tribune rally in 2010 at conference, I reported a conversation instantly after Ed’s election with a guy I’ve known many, many years, as a conference-goer and activist, and he shouted at me through the applause, ‘Neil, we’ve got our party back!’ . . . I shouted back, ‘No, we never lost it! Don’t forget, the Labour Party has leaders, not proprietors!’

“To me that’s a very basic and important principle. And the reality is that obviously leaders exercise huge influence and nobody should diminish the significance of them, but the continuity of the Labour Party, its strength, is the fact that, leader in, leader out, good times and bad, it is a permanent organisation whose purpose is to secure progress locally, nationally and internationally. And sometimes the Labour Party is better than its leaders and sometimes the leaders are better than the party. I do think that the party has sometimes shown remarkable patience with its leaders, but I also think there have been leaders who’ve shown remarkable patience with the party.”

The proximate cause of our meeting is to discuss Kinnock’s political mentor, Michael Foot, on whose life he will reflect with Melvyn Bragg at the Hampstead Arts Festival in London on 4 November. When I ask Kinnock what Foot taught him, he replies: “That you must be very firmly grounded in the present, you must have an understanding of the past, but you must not offer a faltering note if you’re going to try to encourage people to achieve more in the future. That particularly applies, of course, to social justice and economic progress.

“People who feel daunted, people who feel restrained, people who accept that they’re victims of circumstances don’t make the future. People whose heads are screwed on but whose spirit is strong, they make the future.”

With RBS and Lloyds in public ownership, former generals supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament and the Tories considering withdrawal from the EU, Foot’s 1983 manifesto (which Labour’s Gerald Kaufman acidly described at the time as “the longest suicide note in history”) now seems prescient.

“A lot of that would warm the cockles of Michael Foot’s heart,” Kinnock says. “But you would never hear him saying ‘I told you so’. That just wasn’t in his make-up . . . he had a pomposity bypass.

“But he would have been delighted at the turn of opinion, even though, of course, he would have been deeply depressed by the cause of some of those changes, those evolutions in thinking. If he’d wanted to nationalise the banks, he would have made the case for it. He wouldn’t have wanted it to come out of chaos.”

After speculation that his speech to this year’s conference would include a call for an early EU referendum, Ed Miliband avoided the subject in favour of the cost-of-living challenges that polls show preoccupy voters. But he has notably refused to rule out such a commitment in the future, and Labour figures now suggest that a U-turn could follow the 2014 European elections as the party seeks to demonstrate that it has “listened and learned”. Tom Watson, among others, has argued that it should lend its support to the Conservative MP Adam Afriyie’s legislative amendment calling for an early referendum.

However, Kinnock, who served as a vicepresident of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004, tells me that Labour must “absolutely not” support a referendum on British membership of the EU.

“When the question comes up, I offer in response this question: ‘Why should our country be subjected to the distraction, the cost and, most of all, the gigantic risks that come with the referendum, simply because the leader of the Conservative Party can’t run his party?’ He is suffering the fate of all appeasers, which is to be eaten by the people he’s trying to appease. What he does inside his own party is his business but he really hasn’t got the right to inflict that on the future of our country.”

Kinnock is more sympathetic to the other much-mooted Labour U-turn, the one over High Speed 2, and he warns that it is “difficult to justify such enormous investment in one project when, over the same decades, the need for radical and continual upgrading and modernisation of the rail network, technology, engines and rolling stock will be huge and urgent”.

Kinnock was part of a generation of Labour politicians who feared that the party would never hold office again. But the joy he felt at Tony Blair’s three victories was tempered by the party’s rightward shift and Blair’s courting of Rupert Murdoch. Should Miliband, by contrast, win in 2015 on an unambiguously centre-left platform and in the teeth of press opposition, he will feel that Labour has finally won the victory that was denied to him.

In an anecdote reflecting the bond between him and Miliband, Kinnock told me that the Labour leader’s new slogan, “Britain can do better than this,” was inspired by him. “I said, ‘Where did you get that from?’ and he said, ‘Actually it’s what you said the night you acknowledged defeat in the 1992 election.’ I said, ‘I didn’t say that,’ and he said, ‘No, you actually said, ‘Britain deserves better.’”

If, through an act of alchemy, Miliband can turn Kinnock’s words of defeat into words of victory, the demons of 1992 will at last have been slain.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 11 October 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Iran vs Israel

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for non-recent child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn become historical investigations because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.