Cameron's reshuffle is even more hazardous than before

The PM has accidentally stoked vast expectations.

Shortly before everyone in Westminster started talking obsessively about House of Lords reform, they talked obsessively about the likely outcome of David Cameron’s first big cabinet reshuffle. (Sometimes the obsessive talk in Westminster is about things that have a direct impact on people’s lives – the things voters care about. But not as often as they ought.)

Happily for the obsessives, the themes of Lords reform and reshuffle have now effectively merged. There was always speculation that Cameron was delaying making any new government appointments until after the Lords vote, so as to dangle the prospect of promotion and the threat of blackballing in front of potential rebels. If so, it didn’t work out too well as an incentive scheme.

Jesse Norman, the rebel chief, has often been tipped for a ministerial gig of some kind. He has been close to the Cameroons. He quite literally wrote the book on the "big society". He’s clever, politically astute and very ambitious. It should be of some concern to No.10 that he chose to deploy his talents in the service of rebellion rather that government. (The PM is reported to have expressed what might euphemistically be called his disappointment in a moment of finger-jabbing exasperation after Tuesday night’s vote.) Norman, it must be said, is a sincere and erudite enthusiast for all matters Conservative and constitutional. His action against what he saw as an attempt to bodge the upper chamber of parliament was driven by a particular passion, not some cynical discovery of coalition-baiting as sport.

Still, it would be impossible for Cameron to promote him; likewise Nadim Zarhawi, a formerly ultra-loyal MP from the 2010 intake, thought to be a eligible for a first rung on the government ladder, who also rebelled on Tuesday night.

Cameron’s authority in the party is too low for him to be seen to be rewarding flagrant insubordination. Two junior ministerial aides – Conor Burns and Angie Bray – have already lost their jobs over the rebellion; the former jumping the latter pushed. And while officially the Lib Dems have no say in who the PM appoints on his side of the coalition, dispensing favours to the Lords saboteurs would be an extraordinary affront.

It now seems certain – as indeed it has for a while – that the reshuffle will come in autumn. Cameron will want the summer to get some perspective on the turbulent politics of the first half of the year and to think about his strategy for what will, whether he likes it or not, be judged as a re-launch. Chiefly he has to decide whether the emphasis will be on “Modernisation 2.0” – a renewal in some form of plan to change people’s perceptions of what the party stands for and whom it represents or on a more “Authentic Conservative” platform – stressing traditional themes to fire up the base.

Of course, Downing Street aides insist you can do both and that the choice is a false one, but certain signals will inevitably be sent by the decisions about who is appointed to what jobs. Putting Chris Grayling in charge of, say, the Home Office - a job he once shadowed and for which he unsubtly auditions whenever he appears in public - would tilt conspicuously to the right. Finding some modest ministerial niche for Nick Boles – a liberal Cameroon ultra and old friend of the PM – would be a nod to the old modernisation agenda. And then, of course, there are the dilemmas that have lingered around for so long they feel almost stale, but remain problematic: what to do with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and party chair Sayeeda Warsi – two cabinet members who have been the target of ferocious campaigns, one from the opposition, the other from inside the Tory ranks.

The list could go on. Everyone has their pet theory and gossip of dubious origin about the scale, timing and likely content of the reshuffle. A problem for Cameron is that, having left it so long before re-jigging his team, he has accidentally stoked vast expectations. There are too many factions and individuals to be satisfied and the strategic political challenge is too big to be met by a round of musical chairs. The PM finds himself in political air traffic control, with some many ambitious figures - jumbo-sized egos - circling overhead and only a little bit of runway space on which to bring them safely in to land. Far from re-launching the whole project, he will be lucky to pull it off without accident.

David Cameron is set to carry out his first cabinet reshuffle this autumn. Photograph: Getty Images.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.