Rowenna Davis selected as Labour candidate for Southampton Itchen

The New Statesman contributor is chosen to contest the marginal seat currently held by John Denham.

Congratulations to New Statesman writer Rowenna Davis, who has just been selected as Labour's PPC for Southampton Itchen.

I've known Rowenna since 2011 and have long admired her campaigning on issues such as the living wage, affordable housing and payday loans. Current MP John Denham, who is standing down in 2015, held the seat by just 192 votes in 2010 (making it the 13th most marginal in the Commons) but with a candidate as strong as Rowenna it's one the party can be confident of retaining.

She said after her selection:

It's an honour to succeed John Denham as Labour's candidate for Southampton Itchen.

Too many people have told me they feel anxious about the future as a result of a heartless and incompetent government that continues to give a raw deal to this city, threatening Southampton's proud record as a place of hope and opportunity. We urgently need to make Southampton a living wage city, attract new investment and employment, build more affordable housing and support our schools to become the leading lights of the south.

I'm looking forward to working on these issues with all residents whether they voted Labour, Conservative, UKIP or have never voted at all, to change Southampton together.

As well as serving as a councillor in Peckham, Rowenna has been a regular contributor to the NS since 2010. She's also the author of Tangled Up In Blue, an excellent account of the birth of Blue Labour, which I reviewed back in 2011.

To get a flavour of Rowenna's social commentary and investigative journalism, here are a few good places to start.

No "spirit of 45" for the workers at the liberal intelligentsia's favourite cinemas (April 2013)

How food banks became mainstream: the new reality of the working poor (December 2012)

The left's opposition to badger culls ignores the plight of our farmers (October 2012)

Spread of betting shops shows the coalition's failure on growth (June 2012)

The silent crisis engulfing our pubs (March 2012)

Payday loans: "Don’t worry, love, they don’t need your backstory!" (December 2011)

Shadows over the rural idyll (December 2010)

Labour also held its selection in Hampstead and Kilburn today, where Camden councillor Tulip Siddiq was chosen to replace the retiring Glenda Jackson. That seat is even more marginal than Southampton Itchen, with Labour holding on by just 42 votes in 2010.

Judging by tweets from those at the selection, it appears to have been an acrimonious occasion. Camden New Journal reporter Richard Osley wrote: "All a bit heated outside the Labour selection meeting for Hampstead and Kilburn. One man reportedly headbutted in clash outside", and the police and ambulance services were subsequently called.

Rowenna Davis, who was elected to Southwark Council as a councillor in Peckham in May 2011.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's Brexit gamble

The Prime Minister is betting that the economic hit from putting border control first will be delayed and go unnoticed. 

Britain’s European referendum was about immigration. That doesn’t mean the country was divided on it. Had the question been a Yes/No proposition on whether or not immigration was a good thing, it would have between a 78 to 22 per cent rout for Brexit.  As it was, what separated those who opted for a Remain vote over those who backed a Leave one was not whether or not you thought that immigration to Britain should be lowered. Remain did, however, 88 per cent of the vote from the pro-immigration majority.

The real dividing line was between people who thought that bringing down immigration would come at a cost that they were unwilling to pay, and people who thought that it could be done without cost, or, at least, without a cost that they would have to pay. Remain voters, on the whole, accepted both that there would be an economic consequence to reducing immigration generally and they’d pay for it personally, while Leave voters tended only to accept that there was a cost to be paid for it in general.

That leaves politicians in a bind, electorally speaking. There undoubtedly is a majority to be found at the ballot box for reducing immigration and there is an immediate electoral dividend to be reaped from pursuing a Brexit deal that puts border control above everything else.

But as every poll, every election and the entire history of human behaviour shows, the difficulty is that this particular coalition is single use only. It’s very similar to the majority that David Cameron and George Osborne won to cut £12bn out of the welfare bill. People backed it at the ballot box but revolted at the prospect of cuts to tax credits, one of the few ways that the cuts could possibly be achieved. In the end, the cuts were abandoned and George Osborne’s hopes of securing the Conservative leadership were, if not permanently derailed, at least severely delayed.

The nightmare scenario for Theresa May is that the majority for border control dissolves as quickly on impact with reality as the planned cuts to tax credits did.  That’s also the dream for the Liberal Democrats and Greens, who, due to Labour’s embrace of the Conservative approach of abandoning single market membership, are well-placed to benefit if everything comes unravelled.

Who’s right? In both cases, the gamble is clear. There will be a heavy economic price to be paid through leaving the single market. The question is whether that price will come in one big shock or be paid out over a number of years. If the effect of leaving the single market is an immediate fall in people’s standard of living, job losses and negative equity, then Theresa May will find herself in jeopardy. But if the effect is longer-term, and the consequences of Britain’s single market exit are only made clear when in 2030, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to abandon promises made to pensioners at a time when the pound was worth more than the Euro, then May will be able to reap the electoral dividend of getting Britain’s borders under control.

But there’s a more pessimistic future than either of these. The worst-case scenario isn’t that we all become poorer and the freedom of future governments to do what they want is sharply reduced by its weaker financial consequences. It’s that the economic hit is immediate, noticeable, but that the blame centres not on the incumbent government, but on immigrants and minorities.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.