Alan Johnson speaks at the Labour conference in 2010. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Alan Johnson should return to the shadow cabinet, says Mary Creagh

Shadow transport secretary says former cabinet minister has "a huge contribution still to make to politics".

After David Cameron's Night of the Long Knives, Ed Miliband is likely to take the chance to freshen his top team before the general election. As I've previously reported, Miliband may use his final reshuffle to achieve gender parity in the shadow cabinet, fulfilling a pledge he made during the Labour leadership election. At present, women make up 44 per cent of the his team, putting him within touching distance of his target. By contrast, even after Cameron's recent reshuffle, just 25 per cent of the cabinet are female. Lucy Powell, the shadow childcare minister, and Luciana Berger, the shadow public health minister, are two of those tipped for promotion by party insiders. 

But while Miliband has long championed "the new generation" (31 per cent of his shadow cabinet are 2010ers), others in Labour are urging him to bring back "big beasts" from the past, with Alan Johnson the most popular choice. Tom Watson, Len McCluskey and John Prescott have all called for the former home secretary to return to the shadow cabinet. 

Now, in an interview with the NS, Mary Creagh has added her voice to those backing a Johnson comeback. She told me: 

I would love Alan to come back into the shadow cabinet. I think he’s fantastic ... He's got a huge contribution still to make to politics. 

She added: "But I also want him to keep writing his books, because they’re fantastic too. I read This Boy; I thought it was wonderful, I cried when I read when it, it was just so incredibly moving. You understand where Alan comes from in a completely different way, but it was also a beautiful tribute to the west London working class life that he had. 

"He showed a different world and a different approach, and a different model of fatherhood. But also the generosity of the people around them, giving them a box of groceries because they never quite had enough food.

"So would I want to see Alan come back? Yeh, definitely. I think Alan’s got a huge contribution still to make to politics."

But for someone to come back, someone else has to make way. Ahead of Miliband's reshuffle, then (expected after Labour's conference), some of Creagh's shadow cabinet colleagues face a nervous wait. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496