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

Sadiq Khan tops new Labour London mayoral poll - why he's the man to beat

The shadow London minister has several key advantages over his rivals.

Who will Labour's London mayoral candidate be? Some commentators have marked Diane Abbott down as the surprise favourite after she topped a YouGov poll of Labour supporters this week, but a better bet is Sadiq Khan. The shadow justice secretary and shadow London minister, who is almost certain to stand, has finished first in a new poll of LabourList readers (sample size: 772).

Since the candidate will be predominantly selected by Labour activits (with others paying a small fee to take part in the closed primary), the survey is likely a better guide to the result than the YouGov poll. It puts Khan on 22 per cent, with Tessa Jowell on 17 per cent, Abbott on 15 per cent, David Lammy on 7 per cent and Andrew Adonis (who most suspect is eyeing the post of transport commissioner) on 5 per cent.

As shadow London minister, Khan has the in-built advantage of being able to regularly meet activists and CLPs and was rightly praised for Labour's remarkable performance in London in the local elections (its best result since 1998). He has also stood out as one of the loudest champions in the shadow cabinet of radical action to reduce inequality, including the revival of collective bargaining. His recent Fabian pamphlet Our London was the first to float the idea of a cap on rent increases (since embraced by the party at large) and a ban on letting agent fees. As Ed Miliband's former campaign manager, Khan will also be the unofficial candidate of the Milibandites. Should the Labour leader become prime minister next May, he will be in an even stronger position to win the nomination.

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.