Exclusive: Labour to show "Against the Odds" film in election broadcast

Victory for blog campaign

The Labour Party has decided to adopt as its next election broadcast the well-received film used before Gordon Brown's conference speech, called Against the Odds, Newstatesman.com has learned.

The two-and-a-half-minute broadcast, praised as "moving" by Labour delegates and journalists alike, runs through a brief history of the labour movement's leading figures, from Keir Hardie to Gordon Brown.

It begins with the words "It's the fighters and believers who change our world", and goes on to say that although it was said the son of a miner could never become a minister, "no one told Nye Bevan", a reference to the working-class architect of the National Health Service. Later the film moves into images of Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair and Brown with the words: "So here's to the fighters."

The decision by Labour to capitalise on the film is a victory for bloggers, especially the student Ellie Gellard who has been leading the campaign to persuade Labour to adopt the film on her site, The Stilettoed Socialist. Party insiders say it is indicative of an enhanced listening process aimed at grassroots campaigning, including on the blogs.

Miss Gellard, who describes herself as a "Bevanite", has won the support of Alastair Campbell and Eddie Izzard in her attempts to have the film used as the next Party Election Broadcast (PEB).

The decision to go ahead was taken during a conference call on Friday afternoon and is likely to be formally announced later today.

Miss Gellard says on her blog: "In a blogosphere dominated by right wing, angry men, I feel a certain responsibility to counteract or merely dilute their poison with a different viewpoint."

 

Sign up to the New Statesman newsletter and receive weekly updates from the team

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.