An open letter to Rachel Reeves: being "tough" on welfare won't work for Labour

Rather than trying to outflank the Tories, the party needs to think harder about how to create a greater sense of collective identity and solidarity.

Dear Rachel Reeves,

As the new shadow secretary for work and pensions, you are now the face of Labour's policies on social security and benefits, and will likely stay there until the 2015 election. So you have a unique opportunity to rethink the failed approach of the past and offer voters something bolder at the next election.

The conventional wisdom within Labour is that the party is seen as 'soft' on people who claim social security and too forgiving of people who abuse the system. You will know that poorer people are usually harsher towards others on benefits and want tough sanctions on abusers of the system. You will have seen polling that suggests Labour needs to neutralise that image or else people may be tempted to vote for the Conservatives in 2015. Hence you wanted to sound tough in your interview with the Observer on Sunday.

This is a safe approach and has been part of Labour's vocabulary since Tony Blair said he was "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". It has also stopped working; all the evidence shows it just takes Labour further into a cul-de-sac without a way out. Here's why:

1) It stopped working for New Labour
You couldn't accuse the last Labour government of being soft on people on welfare benefits. Successive ministers were trotted out repeatedly to deliver harsh language on "scroungers" and "fraudsters" who ripped off the system. Labour even unveiled billboard ads calling on people to report benefit fraudsters. And yet, a 2010 poll found that 66% of people thought Labour "was close to" benefit claimants. If being 'tough' on claimants is a good strategy, why didn't it work for New Labour?

Last week the American cognitive linguist and writer George Lakoff (the author of Don't Think of an Elephant) toured London and made a point that some campaigners have been making here for years: adopting your political opponent's language doesn't neutralise your disadvantage, it cements their advantage as the centre of gravity shifts in their direction (just ask your colleague Stella Creasy, she was there too). New Labour helped create a harsher climate for people on social security without reaping any political benefits, despite silly gimmicks such as lie-detector tests.

Most people don't pay attention to policy details. Labour would have to do something very drastic, perhaps beheading a welfare claimant live on TV, to cut through to voters and convince them that it is 'tough'. Otherwise they just think you're pandering for votes and dislike you even more.

2) Look at immigration as a warning sign
New Labour adopted the same strategy on the issue of immigration. Phil Woolas was regularly wheeled out to deliver sanctions and he didn't mince his words. The Conservatives didn't give Labour any breathing space of course - they shifted even further to the right and kept attacking Labour. Once again there was no political benefit for Labour. In fact, it created a monster for the Tories, as they now face public disillusionment over their absurd promises.

As in the case of social security, by feeding a war of words on immigration, New Labour ended up alienating some of its own voters while convincing almost no one. Even uber-Blairite John McTernan admitted this failure. Reports show that tough rhetoric only shifts attitudes even further away from where Labour needs them to be. As Emma Burnell recently pointed out, "If all we intend to do is ape the Tories in a macho punishment contest we will fail. Because the public refuse to see us like that however hard we tried."

3) Labour should appeal to voters but think broader
How about this for a message: "Labour is absolutely committed to reducing the welfare bill, but without the divisive and demonising language of the Tories. To do that we need to get people into well-paying jobs, and Labour will offer not just a jobs guarantee to the long-term unemployed, but refocus our economy to create better jobs. That is about creating a different kind of an economy that isn't reliant on property bubbles and the City, and one where we pay vastly less on housing benefit and unemployment." Tough on the costs of social security without the demonisation.

But there is a broader problem here. Britons are less appreciative of some welfare payments because our society has become more individualistic and atomised, with a breakdown of traditional social links with neighbours. Labour has to think harder about how to increase a sense of collective identity and solidarity within Britain if it wants to preserve the welfare state. We have to reverse government policies that increase loneliness and kill communities.

As Labour's policy review co-ordinator Jon Cruddas once said : "An ex minister wrote last week of how we needed to 'crack down on the welfare underclass'. Others argue for us to become the 'anti immigration party'. A new kiss up, kick down politics that blames the victim. There lies political death for labour. No language, no warmth no kindness; no generosity, vitality nor optimism. No compassion. If you seek to outflank the coalition from the right, you will turn Labour into a byword for intolerance."

This talk of Labour 'walking into a welfare trap' set by the Tories has itself become a problem: we keep returning to the safe ground of 'tough' rhetoric, without convincing messages or policies that favour Labour in the long term. It is time to bring some fresh thinking to this debate and I hope you won't shy away from doing so.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves.

Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberal Conspiracy.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.