How Ed should handle McCluskey

Miliband should condemn McCluskey's Olympics threat but he can't "rein him in".

On one level, Unite leader Len McCluskey's threat to disrupt the Olympics is unsurprising. If you oppose all of the cuts (as McCluskey does), why not strike at the moment of maximum inconvenience? The trade union head tells the Guardian:

The attacks that are being launched on public-sector workers at the moment are so deep and ideological that the idea the world should arrive in London and have these wonderful Olympic Games as though everything is nice and rosy in the garden is unthinkable.

It's important to note, as few have, that this was not an unprompted intervention. McCluskey was asked by the paper if he had "talked about" the possibility of strike action during the Olympics and it's unsurprising, at this stage, that he's not willing to take any options off the table. That is standard negotiating practice.

What make his intervention significant is his standing in the labour movement. As general secretary of Unite he leads the country's biggest trade union and Labour's biggest donor, responsible for a quarter of all donations to the party. And, lest we forget, had it not been for his union, among others, David Miliband, not Ed, would now be wearing the crown.

Nick Clegg, a long-standing critic of the unions, has already called on Ed Miliband to "rein in" McCluskey, something that is neither possible nor desirable for the Labour leader to do. As the democratically-elected head of a trade union, McCluskey should answer to no one but his members.

What Miliband can and should do is simply condemn the Unite leader. Unlike Tony Blair, Miliband has never sought to define himself by picking fights with his own party. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't respond when union leaders speak out.

Tessa Jowell, Labour's shadow Olympics minister, has already issued an unambiguous statement:

No one in our country looking forward to the Olympics, no athlete preparing, and none of our thousands of potential visitors, would understand or sympathise with any disruption to the Olympic Games.

If this is a negotiation it should take place in private. Unions and employers should get together and sort it out without threats or disruption to Britain's Olympics.

Those who say that Miliband cannot afford to alienate Unite, his party's biggest paymaster, should remember that, even at the height of Blairism, the unions continued to pay the bills.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496