Labour leadership: what role will the SpAds play?

Special advisers should be part of the bridge between frontbenchers and the party membership.

The Labour leadership debates rumble on and now look likely to generate more light than heat. Despite the acres of coverage, one shadowy and influential group's views remain untested: the special advisers (SpAds), who tirelessly work to ensure their master's voice makes the 8.10 slot on the Today programme, among other things.

Caffeine-, alcohol- and nicotine-fuelled, sleep-deprived and harassed, they played a key part in New Labour's rise and fall. They live in the 24-hour news cycle, feeding off opinion polls and policy papers.

Some are working unpaid while they wait to find post-election jobs. The SpAds with funding are jockeying for position in the leadership race. Who wins has a personal financial imperative.

But few have paused for deep reflection on why the party lost, or what is the big idea that will bring voters back to the fold. This is critical, because they should be part of the bridge between frontbenchers and the party membership, rather than the gap.

There is a danger the party will end up with business as usual -- scoring points when it should place itself above and beyond the competition.

A group of former ministerial advisers pledged at a recent gathering that they would "hold the line" while the leadership campaign ran through and once the new leader was in place in the autumn they would, in the words of one aide, "recalibrate".

The dangerous strategy is: "Get new face in place and get the Tories out within 18 months."

Yet this acts as a potential straitjacket, restricting any move towards meaningful debate and change. Holding the line means that the key people involved in formulating and then "selling" the party's future are engaged in a junior-common-room debate.

Moving on

New Labour lost because it is out of touch with the day-to-day needs of Joe Public, despite its commitment to "continuous modernisation". People are fearful for their own, and their children's, future. They're time-poor and cash-poor. They certainly don't have the time, never mind the inclination, to read the policy documents SpAds obsess about.

Business as usual means a missed chance to really develop ideas like sustainability, which even business is now grasping.

And the still-palpable anger among party members over the Iraq war has yet to register. As one SpAd revealed: "We've moved on, the usual suspects haven't. Trying to give the cabinet a kicking over a closed issue is pointless."

What little is emerging as new policy also comes in for a drubbing from the insiders. David Miliband's call for greater inclusion of party members in policy decision-making through forums was treated with distain.

"Anyone suggesting that has never tried organising one," was one exasperated response. "You give the solution and track the reaction on the basis that you haven't got all day to hear about how you haven't asked the right question and haven't included all the interest groups."

So, what's missing? In short, the vision thing -- but one that everyday people can relate to -- that differentiates the party very clearly from the Conservatives.

But it has to be something that doesn't sound like tax and spend: zero-sum games to show who can tackle the deficit will not inspire. Since when did we all become accountants?

Two of the telling moments in the general election campaign were Gordon Brown's surprise to learn that the cleaners at HM Treasury earned less than a living wage and the party's condemnation of BA cabin crew for striking.

A new social contract

There has to be a better way to make people's lives more bearable. What is the contract a Labour government would offer the people it serves?

Modern public services are about things such as enabling older people to live in their homes for longer, or filling in benefits online rather than completing the same form ten times. It's not small government, but the small tedious stuff that government needs to do better. To escape the big versus small argument, tell us what good government looks like.

The workplace is still ruled by a Victorian factory day that starts at 9 and might end at 5.30 if you're lucky enough to be one of the few who don't have the longest working hours in Europe.

What is an affordable home, and how much would it cost? And how can you support a 25-year mortgage in a job market that is a free-for-all with zero security?

How do you create meaningful jobs? What will they be and where will they be?

How do you help those people who are struggling with crippling mortgages, university debt or chronically low wages save for a retirement with employers exiting pensions of any worth?

Whatever happened to family-friendly? The education system got money for schools and teachers' wages, but did testing really improve outcomes? After 14 years of government, where you are born -- and to whom -- still decides your future. How is that right?

Another special adviser advised me to ignore the debates and look at the Kremlinology.

"Diane Abbott's the pantomime dame and Andy Burnham keeps the social worker wing happy. It's about Balls versus Miliband," they said.

It misses the point. New Labour was about distancing itself from the days of Brezhnev. But distance is what the SpAds and other party thinkers need right now, along with a holiday.

Chris Smith is news editor for the MJ and a former lobby correspondent.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.