London calling the shots

London Labour has been buoyed by election results thought impossible a year ago.

So, the one definite thing in what happens next is that Gordon Brown won't be a part of Labour's future.

The other certainty is the release of the grip that Scottish politicos have had over the Labour Party -- and British politics by default.

Power fills a vacuum, and that hole has already been filled by Labour London, which has created a formidable fighting machine and is buoyed by election results thought impossible a year ago. It is the kingmaker that will decide if David Miliband will take over.

The political map of the capital now has a solid core of red. It controls eight more Labour councils, having gained more than 180 councillors. Westminster seats were secured despite Ashcroft cash; the party held Hammersmith -- home of the Conservative easyCouncil project -- plus Westminster North and Tooting. And it won the marginals of Harrow North and Enfield.

The BNP and Respect were seen off by what Tessa Jowell called "highly targeted campaigns", run by disciplined and focused teams which get the job done with little fuss.

And now the area organisers are looking for both blood and payback. Labour central had already been told that Brown was no longer an asset. "This makes it easier to put the knives in," was the reaction by one activist to the PM's statement.

What is not generally known is that a team within London Labour -- including senior MPs from the capital -- had quietly opened negotiations with the Liberal Democrats over power-sharing months ahead of the election to lay the groundwork for a deal.

Ed Balls is out of favour (too close to Brown), but David Miliband cannot take support as a given: London members long ago tired of being taken advantage of.

The local party's intense focus is now on the city's mayoral race, which it believes is for the taking with a decent "non-Ken" candidate.

"Oona [King] is a possible, but she's got a life outside politics and needs some convincing," said one Hackney activist.

London Labour is confident it can turn a possible bid by Boris Johnson for David Cameron's job into a chicken run -- and the Tories are seriously worried by the Labour turnout.

One Tower Hamlets member reflected on Winston Churchill's wartime coalition as its 60th anniversary fell this week: "This is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. We're just getting started; it's time one or two in the party sat up and took notice."

Chris Smith is news editor for the MJ and a former lobby correspondent. A specialist on UK government at all levels, he has written for the Guardian, the Times, Sunday Times, the Channel 4 News election FactCheck, Auto Express, HSJ and ePolitix.com.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.