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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.