Chuka Umunna speaks at the Labour conference in Manchester in 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Chuka Umunna is "intensely relaxed" about being compared to Peter Mandelson

The shadow business secretary admires the New Labour godfather as a champion of industrial activism. 

Chuka Umunna's interview with The House Magazine, in which he remarked, "I don’t have a problem with people making a lot of money, so long as they pay their taxes and it’s good for our economy", has raised eyebrows among some Labour MPs today. The line was a knowing echo of Peter Mandelson's declaration in 1998 that he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" (adding "as long as they pay their taxes"), a quote frequently held up as evidence of New Labour's damaging infatuation with the wealthy.

Mandelson has been one of the most prominent critics of Ed Miliband's leadership, attacking policies such as the energy price freeze and criticising his left-wing direction. When asked during the Labour leadership contest whether he would have the former Business Secretary in his shadow cabinet, Miliband (who Umunna voted for) replied: "I think all of us believe in dignity in retirement", prompting Mandelson to later comment: "I felt hurt, I felt denigrated by some of Ed Miliband’s remarks. I mean talking about me in terms of 'dignity in retirement', I felt as if I was being unfairly treated and packed off rather prematurely to an old folk’s home." He added: "To define himself against New Labour, as opposed to being a development of New Labour, was electorally unwise."

But sources close to Umunna told me today that he was "intensely relaxed" (boom boom) about being compared to Mandelson. One said: "Chuka regularly speaks to Peter and he - alongside Hezza [Michael Heseltine] - is generally seen as the most successful Business Secretary of recent times. His period at BIS provides a fantastic model of industrial strategy and activism which we would want to follow and emulate." He also rightly noted that few recall Mandelson's proviso that the "filthy rich" must "pay their taxes". 

Umunna is certainly right to draw inspiration from Mandelson, who rescued and revitalised the British car industry, and from Michael Heseltine (whom I recently interviewed), another champion of industrial activism and one of the most creative Secretaries of State of the last 50 years (it's worth reading Andrew Adonis's NS tribute to him). He said of the latter: "I think in many respects, if we can build more consensus and actually acknowledge where we agree, when you disagree with the other side you actually have more credibility. I think people find that refreshing, and I think we should do more of it."

As for Umunna's echo of Mandelson's "filthy rich" quip, although the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph suggest that his remarks place him at odds with Miliband, it's worth noting that Miliband himself made a similar point in his speech on responsibility in 2011. He said: "We were intensely relaxed about what happened at the top of society. 

"I say - no more  We must create a boardroom culture that rewards wealth creation, not failure. 

"To those entrepreneurs and business people who generate wealth, create jobs and deserve their top salaries, I’m not just relaxed about you getting rich, I applaud you. 
 
"But every time a chief executive gives himself a massive pay rise - more than he deserves or his company can bear - it undermines trust at every level of society.
 
"We cannot and we must not be relaxed about that." 
 
Umunna's declaration that the rich deserve their rewards provided that "pay their taxes" and that their actions benefit the economy (a stipulation that Mandelson did not make) is entirely consistent with Miliband's responsible capitalism agenda. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.