After Watson: who will run Labour's general election campaign?

Douglas Alexander, who ran the 2010 campaign, is the frontrunner.

One immediate question posed by Tom Watson's resignation is that of who will run Labour's general election campaign. The frontrunner to fill the vacancy - Watson had been the party's campaign co-ordinator since October 2011 - is Douglas Alexander.

Alexander, currently shadow foreign secretary, ran the 2010 campaign and is admired by MPs for his intellect and strategic nous. As a figure from the "Blairite" wing of the party, who ran David Miliband's leadership campaign, his appointment would also reassure those concerned that party has drifted too far to the left since 2010.

Finally, it would offer Miliband a chance to demonstrate that it's not Len McCluskey who calls the shots. When I recently interviewed the Unite general secretary, Alexander was one of the shadow cabinet ministers he suggested should be ignored or sacked. McCluskey told me: Ed Miliband must spend most of his waking hours grappling with what lies before him. If he is brave enough to go for something radical, he’ll be the next prime minister. If he gets seduced by the Jim Murphys and the Douglas Alexanders, then the truth is that he’ll be defeated and he’ll be cast into the dustbin of history."

The other names circulating in Westminster are Sadiq Khan (who ran Miliband's leadership campaign), Harriet Harman and Michael Dugher, who has acted as Watson's effective deputy since he was appointed vice-chair in November 2012. He previously served as Gordon Brown’s spokesman and as PPS to Miliband, and is seen as one of the most impressive of the 2010 intake.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander speaks at the Labour conference in 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: a test of competence as well as compassion

George Osborne's chickens may be coming home to roost.

The debate will be political and polarized, as you’d expect, when the Chancellor sets out the results of the Spending Review tomorrow and how his £20bn of savings will be realised. However my suspicion is that while many followers of the Westminster's circus are debating what it all means for compassionate or compassionless conservatism, the public will be more interested in a more straightforward question: one of competence. 

Strip away the hyperbole and the election in May was won on an assessment of which party was the more competent to govern. A huge part of the public’s judgment in this regard was to trust the track record of the Conservatives in balancing the books and that the £20bn in departmental savings earmarked was a reasonable and responsible ambition. 

This is the question in point because what the public did not endorse explicitly was significant change in the size and role of the state. The argument was made and won for a budget surplus, not necessarily for its consequences. As Paul Johnson of the IFS has been at pains to say after every recent budget.

We should acknowledge that one of the reasons the Chancellor does have the public’s confidence is that the cuts to public services so far have not been as damaging as many opponents predicted. The NHS is under-strain, but has not broken. Hard pushed local government leaders have managed to shield social care from the worst of the changes, and the majority of police officers lost were in the back-office not on the beat. So when pollsters ask the public whether they have noticed the effects of austerity, most say they haven't. 

Understanding what the implications are of further large reductions in areas in the firing line such as police forces or local government is hard to do. So the government has told the public "trust us". Now we are going to find out how well that trust was placed. The point is this though - if the public haven't yet felt the full affects of a smaller state they may not be so tolerant it if they do. That brings us to the Chancellor’s real test. The easy cuts have surely been made, after the long years of spending increases prior to 2010 you would expect the system to be able to tighten its belt. But with five years of austerity under that belt there is a risk that the additional cuts could push services too far. 

The public were told that £20bn of saving could be achieved without the kind of pain that will be felt if social care for the elderly really starts to fall over, if police officers become significantly more scarce, or if the NHS does need much more than the promised £8bn (as many believe it will). On this point they have trusted the Chancellor to understand the implications of what he is promising. So if the policy choices in the Spending Review turn out to show that he did not, it will be the Government's competence as much as its compassion that will concern the public.


Steve O'Neill was deputy head of policy for the Liberal Democrats until the election.