John Hayes replaced as energy minister by Michael Fallon

A mini ministerial reshuffle.

David Cameron has made a slight tweak to his ministerial line-up this morning – John Hayes, formerly a Minister of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, is to become the prime minister’s senior parliamentary advisor. Michael Fallon, already a Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, takes on the energy brief in addition to his current responsibilities.

The BBC’s Norman Smith reports that the move is designed to give “a more business focus” to energy policy. But questions will be asked about whether John Hayes is indeed being promoted, or in fact brought closer to heel. Michael Savage of the Times tweets that Hayes’ departure will help solve the “awful” atmosphere at DECC, and it’s been no secret that he’s clashed with Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey, particularly over wind farms. 

Tim Montgomerie is cheerful about the move – he applauds the decision to bring Hayes, a “non-southern, non-posh voice” - closer to the No 10 operation. Similarly, the Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan appears to be delighted to see Fallon recognised with a bigger brief – he calls him “one of the proper grown-ups”.

It’s not clear exactly how Michael Fallon is going to balance ministerial jobs in two different departments, but it is apparent that his ability to get on with a Lib Dem Secretary of State at BIS is being rewarded – by avoiding public clashes with Vince Cable, Fallon has charmed his way into David Cameron’s good books for sure. Now he will be expected to do the same with Ed Davey. We have yet another indication, if we even needed it, that the Conservatives are committed to trying to preserve Coalition harmony for the foreseeable future.

John Hayes speaking at the 2011 Conservative Party conference. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Momentum vice chair Jackie Walker calls claims of antisemitism in Labour “a weapon of political mass destruction”

The issue was also compared to a “monstrous soufflé” during a tense and often bizarre Momentum debate at Labour party conference.

A two-hour debate hosted by Momentum – asking whether there is antisemitism in the Labour party – grew heated on Sunday evening of the Labour party’s annual conference.

The packed out room, at the campaign movement’s fringe called The World Transformed, was warned beforehand to avoid “bitter incivility of discourse”. Which, translated from the language of Labour conference, means: “Don’t say anything dreadful.”

Jackie Walker, the vice-chair of Momentum, argued that antisemitism claims have been “exaggerated for political purposes”, and “the most fundamental aim of such allegations, I suggest, is to undermine Jeremy Corbyn”, and “silence” his supporters.

She claimed that there is “little if any hard evidence” that Labour has a problem with antisemitism, and blamed a “rabidly, anxiously anti-Corbyn” media for using antisemitism claims as a “weapon of political mass destruction”.

“Being offended is not the same as experiencing racism,” Walker added. “Claims of racism have been weaponised . . . Both the chair and the vice-chair [referring to herself] of Momentum are Jewish, and many leading members of Momentum are Jewish.”

(Later an audience member picked up on this theme perhaps a little too zealously. “Trotsky the Jew? Lenin the Jew? What about Zinoviev? What about Kamenev?” he cried, concluding that therefore claims of left-wing antisemitism are “nonsense”.)

Jeremy Newmark, head of the Jewish Labour Movement, clashed with Walker, accusing her of having “perpetuated” the “antisemitic myth” of slave trade collusion (referring to a comment she made on Facebook for which she was briefly suspended from Labour).

She hit back by saying she was “disappointed” in his comment, and had “simply repeated the defamation of his friends in the Jewish Chronicle”, accusing them of racism towards her as a black woman.

Newmark lamented that, “the relationship between our community and the Labour Party has deteriorated”, and “it pains me that a once historic natural alliance [should] dissipate, dilute and disappear”.

He warned those who “want to criticise someone for over-egging” the issue of antisemitism in the party should look no further than Jeremy Corbyn, who called for Shami Chakrabarti’s inquiry into the subject. “Perhaps you should criticise him.”

It was a tense exchange, which elicited gasps and heckles from the audience. But perhaps less predictable was the description of the Labour antisemitism row as a “monstrous soufflé” by Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, an LSE academic involved in boycotting Israeli universities.

He called it “a monstrous soufflé of moral panic being whipped up”, and warned the audience: “We need to ask about this soufflé”.

“Who are the cooks? Where’s the kitchen? What are the implements?” he asked, before the killer rhetorical question: “Why has this soufflé been cooked?”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.