Ed Miliband speaks at the Scottish Labour conference on March 21, 2014 in Perth. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The real struggle in Labour isn’t between factions, but between Red Ed and Moderate Miliband

If the public is unsure what Miliband stands for, it is partly because he has often appeared unsure himself.

The Labour Party, Harold Wilson once remarked, is like a stagecoach. “If you rattle along at great speed, everybody is too exhilarated or too seasick to cause any trouble. But if you stop, everybody gets out and argues about where to go next.” No one can claim that Ed Miliband has stopped. Since the 2013 Labour conference, he has announced policies at a rate that Westminster historians agree exceeds that of any recent leader of the opposition. Yet everybody is still arguing about where to go next.

Turn left, turn right, stay straight: Miliband wakes each day to contradictory advice from party grandees. Absorbed by the deadly cycle of comment and countercomment, Labour MPs fear a repeat of last year’s summer of discontent.

If the party is divided over where to go next, it is partly because the journey has taken so long. By this stage of the parliament, a general election would usually have been held, or be imminent. But as a result of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act introduced by the coalition, the date has been rigidly fixed at 7 May 2015. With ten months remaining and the Damoclean sword of a snap election removed, the arguments go on.

The uncertainty surrounding the outcome next May, amplified by the modern innovation of daily opinion polls, breeds further tension. “We know what it looks like when a party isn’t going to win after one term. We’re not in that place,” says one Labour strategist, contrasting the progress made by Miliband with William Hague’s unambiguously doomed leadership. “But we’re also not in a ’97-style position.” As long as this remains the case, Labour figures have every incentive to offer unsolicited advice. Even Miliband’s loudest detractors believe he has a plausible chance of becoming prime minister. Peter Mandelson says, “The electoral arithmetic is probably on his side.” Maurice Glasman declares, “Labour can win under Mr Miliband.”

The internal ructions ultimately reflect a more profound question: which direction is the driver going in? Of all the criticisms made of Miliband in recent weeks, the one that has stung most is that voters don’t know what he stands for. The Labour leader is a man who prides himself on his ideological clarity, contrasting his “intellectual self-confidence” with David Cameron’s equivocations. Yet the truth, wearily relayed to the leader by MPs and activists, is that few voters know how Britain would look different under a Labour government.

This is partly a reminder of what the Conservative peer Daniel Finkelstein calls “the universal law of politics”: most people, most of the time, don’t listen to anything said by any politician. If Miliband is fortunate, the majority of voters may have heard of his energy price freeze, but he should assume little more. This is why Labour MPs are so troubled by his poor personal ratings and by the party’s perceived lack of economic credibility. A shadow cabinet minister tells me that he fears future policy announcements will sound like “white noise” to voters who doubt Labour’s basic fitness to hold office.

If the public is unsure what Miliband stands for, it is partly because he has often appeared unsure himself. There is Ed the radical, who is “bringing back socialism” and talks of sweeping away three decades of neoliberalism through a Thatcherite revolution in reverse. Then there is Ed the incrementalist, who learned his politics at the feet of Gordon Brown and who talks gently of building a “fairer capitalism” and reveres consensual “one-nation politics”.

The radicals in Labour fear the latter is winning the contest for Miliband’s soul. One of his early supporters recently told me how disappointed he had been by the modesty of his announcements to date. “When Ed mocks the Tories for calling him a ‘Marxist’, or for stealing his policies, it’s a reminder of how timid he’s been.”

The blame for Miliband’s caution used to be attributed to the nefarious influence of “the Blairites”. But after their humbling in last year’s shadow cabinet reshuffle, it is now more often attached to Ed Balls.

The shadow chancellor is sceptical of Miliband’s project to remake capitalism. He warned that his energy price freeze would harm relations with business and sought to dilute his commitment to carve out two “challenger banks” from the big high street institutions. The speech he gave at the London Business School at the end of June, in which he argued, “Over the last 20 years, the global economy has fundamentally changed – and changed for the better,” took a notably more benign view of globalisation.

However, there is no evidence that he or anyone else has acted as a significant brake on the Labour leader’s radicalism. The more plausible explanation is that Miliband’s moderation is the result of his own calculations about the compromises necessary to win a general election. When the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, recently warned him to reject “the siren voices of austerity-lite”, he neglected to consider that Miliband simply believes they are right.

The complaint frequently expressed by the left is that his team lacks “true believers”. But this, too, rests with him alone. In a little-remembered act of boldness early in his leadership, he abolished shadow cabinet elections to give himself complete freedom over appointments. Whether he stages the reshuffle that some are privately urging will be an early test of his willingness to reassert his authority.

The most important struggle in a Labour Party that remains, by historic standards, ideologically united may not be between factions – but within Miliband himself. Only when this internal conflict has been resolved, only when the radical or the incrementalist has taken charge, will the rest of the party stop giving directions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 02 July 2014 issue of the New Statesman, After God Again

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.