Challenge Labour and you'll find a horse's head on your pillow
It's all-round compulsory happy time in Labour ranks.
By Dan Hodges Published 13 June 2012
A couple of weeks ago I was discussing the local election results with a Labour MP. I explained that my initial reaction had been that they were very good for Labour, especially in terms of number of seats won, but I was concerned that the party hadn’t been able to break through the 40 per cent barrier.
He nodded and said: “Thirty-eight per cent in midterm local elections, with the country falling back into recession, the cuts and the shambles the Tories are in. It’s nowhere near good enough.” Then he shook his head. “But you won’t find anyone saying that, of course.”
Several days later I was chatting to someone who had spent the day at the annual conference of Progress, the New Labour pressure group, and sat through Ed Miliband’s speech. His response was scathing. Could I quote him, off the record? “No. Sorry. We’re all being terribly positive at the moment.”
The next day I phoned a shadow cabinet adviser. “The worst thing is we were just starting to make some headway. The shadow cabinet was beginning to put down some markers on the economy and not just the usual suspects. Now everyone’s going to have to shut up and bite their tongue.”
And, on the whole, they have. The muttering against the leader has ceased. The demands for a more credible stance on deficit reduction and on how the party should respond to the cuts have been muted. Even Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson are reportedly poised to become paid-up members of Generation Ed. Labour is united. But united behind what exactly? A solid but unremarkable opinion poll lead? The Tories’ spring omnishambles? François Hollande storming the Bastille of austerity?
No debate
All of which may be a genuine cause for optimism. Or a recipe for complacency. But we’re not going to be finding out, at least in the short term, because such things are not up for discussion. Labour is instead opting for a period of dignified, and comfortable, reflection. Reflection, rather than dialogue. Or debate.
To look out across the Labour movement at the moment is to see an ocean of tranquillity. The party’s “refounding” has been completed; the contentious elements such as a reduction in union conference votes, a directly elected chair and open leadership primaries quietly shelved. The early new year unpleasantness between the leadership and the union leaders has been smoothed over; there is precious little talk now of “tough choices” or “having to keep all these cuts”. The policy review has been removed from the perfidious grasp of the ultra-New Labourite Liam Byrne and dropped into the lap of the party pin-up Jon Cruddas. “Independent-minded” Jon Cruddas, no less, just in case at some point down the road a touch of deniability is required.
Since the Budget, a window of opportunity has opened up for Labour, with George Osborne, Jeremy Hunt, Sayeeda Warsi and Francis Maude all hurtling out of it. However, Ed Miliband, for reasons best known to him, remains reluctant to scramble through this inviting aperture.
In the past month alone, we have witnessed the crisis in the eurozone, Syria’s descent into barbarism, the deepening of Britain’s double-dip recession, the Rochdale rape scandal, the collapse of the UK’s manufacturing base and government schism over universality of benefits. In response, Labour’s leader has announced a voter registration drive, a call for greater respect for vocational qualifications and a plea to embrace our Englishness, all the while clinging tenaciously to the comfort blanket of the Leveson inquiry into media practices and ethics.
Yet within Labour ranks, this strategy (or anti-strategy) is greeted with silent approval. Perhaps wisely, given that those who do opt to question the current “consensus” risk waking to find the equivalent of a horse’s head on their pillow. We have had Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, taking out a political contract on Ed Balls, Jim Murphy, Liam Byrne and Stephen Twigg – the four shadow ministers who have been branded the “horsemen of the austerity apocalypse”.
MPs who fail to show McCluskey and his union appropriate respect have been threatened with the removal of constituency support. Byrne, who dared think the unthinkable on welfare reform, was subjected to what colleagues called “a punishment beating” as he fought to retain his place in the shadow cabinet. Maurice Glasman, who challenged the liberal orthodoxy on social policy, is now confined to what is described as “house arrest”. Progress is facing a concerted effort to see it expelled from the party. And even those idealistic dreamers at Compass are about to be elbowed aside by “Class”, the new union-funded think tank pledging to “cement a broad alliance of social forces and influence policy development to ensure the political agenda is on the side of working people”.
Union heavies
The New Politics was supposed to be open, inclusive and pluralistic. Instead, it is being ushered through the labour movement, head bowed, by a bodyguard of old-fashioned union muscle, Twitter warriors and street activists. To stand in the way of this “progressive” entourage is to invite accusations of being a traitor, a Tory, or, worse still, a Blairite.
To be fair to Ed Miliband, he is aware of, and not entirely comfortable with, this new tyranny of loyalty. “I think this is a bit over the top,” one Miliband supporter confided to me after Anthony Painter and Hopi Sen, the fiscal credibility advocates and authors of In the Black Labour, a pamphlet advocating greater fiscal responsibility, found themselves under sustained attack for lacking “ambition and integrity” from the pro-leadership website Shifting Grounds.
That’s where we are. In the perennial battle between loyalists and pragmatists, it is the loyalists who hold the whip hand. And they plan on using it. Which will simply demonstrate that no consensus at all has been reached among Labour’s various factions. Instead, we are witnessing a shift in the internal balance of power: sceptics neither courted nor convinced, but neutered. “We’re in survival mode,” conceded a Blairite shadow cabinet source.
But for how long? Before finishing this piece, I spoke to a Labour MP who talked eloquently about his frustrations with the leadership. “Can I print that?” I asked. “No,” he said, “not at the moment.” Then he paused. “Soon, though.”
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


41 comments
New Labour and Blaritism has failed.
All people do now is pontificate over how Labour should be governed and what way it should be governed but no actual voice is given to the public, that voice it is supposed to represent. You can scream as much as you want that class is dead, that the old labels of red and blue are dead, that centre ground is alive. But are you in power? No. People are sick and tired of the same old same old. Why does no one ever listen? But yet still ponder in academic and journalistic circles as if their opinion is the be all and end all of opinions on the matter. No. Too many times have I now heard from Labour voters who feel disillusioned, from youth, from all factions - Labour has lost its way. The Progress Project was tried, tested and failed. New Labour has not suceeded. It's tory in a diluted solution and ideology needs to be reintroduced to purge neo-con ideas from the waters. Go back to the roots and listen to the voters. Not the elite who hold power just because they are the elite.
Labour is for the workers. In this society. We are ALL the workers.
Labour have always hated ideas. It's one of the reasons they are so inadequate as a party of Government!
Everyone at my local Labour party are stunned by the silence of Ed Miliband when the GMB are trying to oust Progess, Does Ed feel if he pretends the hard left aren't using trotskyite lies to osut progress ,it's not happening.
Yo Blair's, cerebral, homeopathic dilution of Fukuyama - "the end of ideology" - is simply a bonsai fig-leaf for his bankers know best money grubbing greed. Sadly this small beer of pseudo-philosophy continues to intoxicate his dwindling band of apologists. It's the other end of the horse his followers should be waking up to.
I did seriously consider writing a book entitled Eminent Blairians, until I realised that there hadn't been any. I am not joking. Look at the subjects treated by Lytton Strachey (whose non-inclusion of Newman strikes me as miracle enough for the Blessed Cardinal's canonisation) and by Andrew Roberts. If one were to attempt such a study of the Age of Tony, then about whom, exactly, would one write? And why?
As if to prove my point, The Times has launched a blogging site featuring Daniel Finkelstein, David Aaronovitch, Philip Collins and Oliver Kamm. Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightingale, Dr Arnold and General Gordon, indeed. But which is which? And why? Hilariously, it permits no comments, doubtless in order to protect Kamm.
Hugo Rifkind has somehow managed to get himself into this company, and it is impossible not to remark on the fact that that makes at least 60 per cent of the contributors Jewish. I have never been able to discover whether or not Kamm was, but they love him quite so much on Harry's Place that I suppose he must be. With or without him, this site will present itself as one of the principal voices of Anglo-Jewry on the basis of the extreme neoliberal, socially liberal, neoconservative, Dawkinsite agenda that can at least be described as its house style. Any criticism by Gentiles will be shouted down as anti-Semitic, any criticism by Jews as an example of "self-hated".
But so far as those agenda are concerned, where is the need for this new site? Harry's Place is already there. Telegraph Blogs is already there. The Spectator already hosts six personal blogs of which one third are by Nick Cohen and Douglas Murray, rising to half if you include Martin Bright. Coffee House recently found room for Mark Steyn. When, if ever, is anyone, anything or anywhere of any great prominence going to give a platform to the reclaimed traditions of patriotism and social conservatism on the British and wider Left, and to the recovered Tory and wider conservative sceptical attitudes towards capitalism, consumerism, libertarianism, globalisation, American hegemony, uncritical Zionism, and kneejerk hostility to Russia, China, France, Germany, Iran and the Arab world, among others? The union of the two is 14 points ahead in the polls.
Or must we be allowed until the end of time no voices other than those of the living dead of Blair-loving London neoconservatism, and of such Americans and others as might be acceptable to those killer zombies?
Just when you thought the NS couldn't get any worse...
I know right?!
Who knew you were such a delicate flower, Dan?
Most people reading your output would think you are quite comfortable with the rough and tumble of politics. Or does that only apply when you're dishing it out?
I must challenge you on one point, however - the assertion that I launched a "sustained attack" on the authors of In the Black Labour on Shifting Grounds.
I set out what I think was a restrained and reasoned critique of their argument which concluded with some mild teasing.
The debate was sustained in attack form by Hopi Sen in his response.
Readers can judge for themselves -
Here - http://shiftinggrounds.org/2012/05/why-im-not-a-fiscal-conservative/
And Here - http://hopisen.com/2012/you-talking-to-me-aint-nobody-else-here/
Certainly anyone comparing my approach to the sort of things you often say about those you disagree with will see the absurdity of your criticism.
I won't accuse you of mafia-style thuggery, for that would be ridiculous. But I do think you're guilty of hyperbole and double standards.
David,
I quite like debating with you, and couldn't care less that you disagree with me, but could you please not say how restrained and reasonable you are with your "mild teasing", then say then my rebuttal of your argument represented an "attack".
I could equally say that yours was the attack, and mine was the reasonable, restrained teasing. It's meaningless. Your argument was a strong critique with a bit of critical rhetoric about wannabe punks thrown in. I disagreed with it strongly. Both are allowed.
Apart from anything else, praising your own restraint in public makes you sound pompous and self regarding, which I'm sure you're not.
There were quite a few spin-doctors among the blairites, something that has always been quite a characteristic of the Right...