Ed Balls' gaffe distracts from Labour's business tangle. Photo: BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Labour's biggest own-goal on business isn't forgetting Bill Somebody's name

The Labour party has missed a good opportunity to win over British business, and it’s nothing to do with forgetting the names of its advocates.

“‘Bill Somebody’ is Labour’s policy!” cried David Cameron during PMQs yesterday, triumphantly mocking Ed Balls’ memory lapse regarding one of Labour’s business backers on Newsnight this week.

The shadow chancellor’s forgetful performance has exacerbated the criticism that Labour is unattractive to business, which was triggered by a flurry of recent stories about British business leaders dreading the idea of Prime Minister Ed Miliband.

Stefano Pessina, the Boots boss, recently accused the opposition of promoting “catastrophic” policies. His intervention led to a number of other high-profile British business figures voicing their fears, such as the former M&S head Stuart Rose disregarding Miliband as a “Seventies throwback”, and the Yo! Sushi founder Simon Woodroffe commenting that Labour’s approach “scares” him.
 

The shadow chancellor’s “Bill Somebody” gaffe. Video: YouTube

But Balls’ fluff is not a symbol of Labour being anti-business or anti-enterprise. It is merely a distraction from the fact that the party has not strongly capitalised on its great advantage over other parties regarding business: its stance against an EU referendum.

It was clear from all three main party leaders’ speeches to the CBI conference last year, for example, that Miliband has a unique selling point when it comes to wooing business leaders in Britain. He was the only one who could stand firmly against risking Britain’s European Union membership. The uncertainty Cameron has caused by promising a vote on the matter in 2017 has already caused significant jitters among UK business leaders and prospective investors.
 

The Prime Minister jokes about Balls’ forgetfulness during PMQs. Video: YouTube

The Labour party clarifying its stance against promising an EU referendum – and consequently cementing its friendlier attitude towards European migrants – was received well by a business community frustrated with party politics sacrificing investor confidence in Britain.

Miliband’s own-goal has been his failure to target the open goal that his party’s USP on the EU has provided to forge contacts with business leaders. Instead of nurturing relationships with a sector traditionally more sceptical about Labour policies, he has allowed the Tories to level the same old cries of “anti-enterprise” at his party – at a time when it has more potential than ever to win over the business community.

And the PM’s slurs have unfortunately caused Miliband’s party to revert to type and attack “billionaire” big business bosses. One Labour adviser insists it “won’t help” if the shadow cabinet tries to paint people like Pessina as the “arch Satan of capitalism” in their quest to avoid being stereotyped as anti-business. Just one symbol of the messy way Labour has approached its relationship with business is that its key business ally and donor, John Mills, is also a vocal advocate of an EU referendum.

Labour is in the unusual position of filling a “gap in the market” politically regarding business, as the only major party not to capitulate to Ukip on an EU referendum. It should see this as a new opportunity to build bridges rather than allowing its detractors to shrink the party back into its old business-bashing comfort zone.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at 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.