Why Labour should delay its reshuffle until after the conference season

A late reshuffle will turn the conference into a beauty parade and avoid the danger of disgruntled sacked ministers roaming the bars.

After a brief flurry of rumours on Wednesday evening, another week has ended without the long-awaited Labour reshuffle taking place. It's now likely that it won't take place until after the conference season - and wisely so. 

Delaying the reshuffle until October has the benefit of turning Labour's Brighton gathering into a beauty parade, with every current and would-be shadow minister doing their best to impress, and avoiding the risk of disgruntled former ministers roaming the conference bars. 

Politically speaking, next week will be dominated by the TUC Congress, which Ed Miliband is addressing on Tuesday, and the run-up to Lib Dem conference (on which note, look out for two major interventions in next week's NS).

The former in particular is good reason for Labour to delay. A reshuffle immediately after the trade union gathering would make it easy for the Tories to pin any sackings on Len McCluskey and co. When I interviewed McCluskey earlier this year, in a now famous intervention, he suggested that Douglas Alexander, Liam Byrne and Jim Murphy - "the Blairites" - should be ignored or dismissed. 

Since David Cameron often gives the appearance of believing that every decision in Labour is taken by McCluskey, I doubt Miliband will allow this to affect his decisions too much. But it would still be politically wise to put some distance between the two. 

Ed Miliband speaks at last year's Labour conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

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