Exclusive: the end of Blue Labour

"Maurice Glasman's actions have made supporting the project untenable."

Blue Labour, the informal Labour policy group established by Ed Miliband advisor Maurice Glasman, is to be effectively disbanded.

Labour MP Jon Cruddas and Middlesex University academic Jonathan Rutherford have both informed Lord Glasman they no longer wish to be associated with the project following an interview given by the controversial peer in which he expressed a belief that immigration to the UK should be completely halted.

A third influential supporter, Dr Marc Stears, is said by friends to be "deeply distressed" by Glasman's comments, and is also considering his future engagement with Blue Labour.

Asked by the Daily Telegraph's Mary Riddell whether he would support a total ban on immigration, even if just for a temporary period, Lord Glasman replied, "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

In response to a further question on whether he supported Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith's call for British jobs for British workers, he responded, ""Completely. The people who live here are the highest priority. We've got to listen and be with them. They're in the right place -- it's us who are not."

The Telegraph profile is the latest in a series of increasingly eccentric interviews and public appearances given by the Labour Peer, in which he has attacked David Miliband, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Neil Kinnock, and claimed his agenda is influenced by Aristotle, Miles Davis, Aldo Moro, Lionel Messi and the Pope.

Last month Labour Justice spokeswoman Helen Goodman circulated a critique of Blue Labour to all members of the Parliamentary Labour Party in which she claimed, "[Glasman] characterises as female all the aspects of New Labour he dislikes, whereas all the characteristics he applauds he draws as male. It looks more like something suitable for the psychotherapists' couch than a political tract."

"If Glasman thinks we will all greet this with an ironic post-feminist smile, he is wrong. How can we in a country where 1,000 women are raped each week? He seems to be harking back to a Janet and John Fifties era".

Lord Glasman had been warned by both Cruddas and Rutherford that his media appearances were alienating potential supporters, and had asked him to lower his profile. Both men told friends they believed they had been give guarantees that he would do so, with Rutherford reportedly describing his latest intervention as "a breach of faith".

One source close to Blue Labour said, "Both Cruddas and Rutherford repeatedly told Maurice to tone it down, but he ignored them. Their view is the Blue Labour brand is now too contaminated to continue with the project in its present form. They still hope it will be possible to salvage some of the ideas and themes, but Maurice's actions have made supporting Blue Labour in its present incarnation untenable."

Lord Glasman has formed part of what has been described as Ed Miliband's "long-term strategy group" which meets regularly with the Labour leader on Sunday afternoons. Other members of the group reportedly include Guardian journalist John Harris, Jonathan Rutherford, Chuka Umunna, IPPR director Nick Pearce and Compass chair Neal Lawson.

However, Glasman's most recent comments have alarmed Miliband and his team. "Ed values a lot of things Maurice has raised, such as his focus on strong communities," said a source, "but there are a lot of elements of Maurice's agenda he doesn't agree with, and it's a myth that he has become Ed's main policy person."

UPDATE, 12.26 20 July: Maurice Glasman has now sent me a response via email. Here it is in full:

I overstated the position [on immigration]. I was not talking about what should happen.

I want most importantly to reiterate my full and total support for immigrant communities in Britain. I have worked long and hard with people of all backgrounds, trying to build a common life, and have spent many years campaigning for a living wage for all workers in London, including for those from the most vulnerable migrant communities.

We all make mistakes. And this is mine. I just hope that it does not detract from the energy and real goodness of the work. I will do all I can too to strengthen frayed relationships.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Parliament will trigger Article 50 - but it may legally still be possible to cancel Brexit

Legal experts believe they have found an escape hatch if Britain's negotiations turn out to be a damp squib. 

MPs have voted to trigger Article 50. The Lords now debating the Article 50 bill are unlikely to block Brexit. 

But campaigners believe there will still legally be an opportunity to cancel what they see as a slow motion constitutional and economic disaster. 

The People’s Challenge, one of the parties that, along with Gina Miller, forced the government to consult Parliament, has consulted lawyers about the next stage of the process.

According to the legal opinion written by three senior EU law specialists, there is an escape hatch at the end of the Brexit negotiations.

Sir David Edward, a former European Court of Justice judge, Sir Francis Jacobs, the ECJ’s former Advocate General, and the EU lawyer Sir Jeremy Lever believe that the EU can’t force Britain to leave. 

This means that MPs two years hence don’t have to choose between a terrible deal or no deal at all – they can also simply revoke Article 50 and go back to being full members of the EU.

Grahame Pigney, the founder of The People’s Challenge, told me: “We want to dispel the idea that there is a Hobson’s Choice [on taking the Brexit deal or leaving it]. 

“It is entirely reasonable and practicable to say ‘We will reserve that decision until the end of the process’.”

The legal opinion will raise hackles on Brexiteers who believe Remain campaigners aim to halt Brexit in the courts. But what does it actually argue?

What the legal opinion says

The legal opinion considers two main questions:

a) What are the constitutional requirements, as set out by Article 50, for the UK to withdraw from the EU?

b) If these constitutional requirements are not met, could the UK withdraw the Article 50 notice, or let it lapse? 

The lawyers argue that MPs must do more than vote on a Brexit deal – they must set out the terms in an act of Parliament. 

There is a well-established constitutional practice of Parliament legislating to require new international agreements, particularly those concerned with the European Union, to be approved by an Act of Parliament before they can take effect.

Then, considering the constitutional question, they say “there are very strong arguments” that triggering Article 50 means a country can leave the EU “subject to the fulfilment of such constitutional requirements”. 

Here’s the most crucial part of the opinion:

Therefore, if Parliament were to refuse to give legal effect to the terms of a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union, or were to refuse to authorise withdrawal in the absence of any agreement, the notification given by the United Kingdom of its intention to leave the European Union could be treated as having lapsed (since the constitutional requirements required to give effect to that intention had not been met), or could be unilaterally withdrawn.

What this means

Pigney says his campaign group commissioned this legal opinion to give parliamentarians guidance, rather than to mount another challenge in the courts – although he doesn’t rule out one later on in the game. 

As he put it to me: “Whether there is a court case depends on the climate in the UK when we know what a deal is and whether the government is going to try to push something past that is plainly not in the interests of the people.

“Yes, a decision was made, but people can change their minds.”

Although the Prime Minister has confirmed Brexit will mean leaving the single market, and one recent Daily Mirror poll found hints of “Bregret”, most polling so far has suggested those who voted Leave are still happy with the way they voted. 

But as Pigney points out, the Brexit negotiation process is likely to take two years, if not more. And by that point, the mood of the country may be very different. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.