Challenge Labour and you'll find a horse's head on your pillow

It's all-round compulsory happy time in Labour ranks.

Jack Woltz discovers a horse's head in The Godfather. Photograph: Getty Images.
"To be fair to Miliband, he is aware of, and not entirely comfortable with, this new tyranny of loyalty." Photograph: Getty Images.

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.”

41 comments

lisacat1999's picture

One of E Miliband's significant achievements has indeed been the evident unity of purpose within Labour under his leadership. Dan Hodges is clearly an opponent of Labour, whatever he claims. His palpable disappointment at the lack of infighting amounts to a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership.

matthew fox's picture

It looks like Dan has stopped sulking and returned to the NS. I wonder if the Torygraph ran out of pieces of silver for his remuneration?

With Dan, it is not a case of a horse's head, more a pig's ear.

test-test's picture

The only unity of purpose - and I'll admit they have it - Labour seems to have now, though, is an overwhelming belief that Tories are evil. Not incorrect, not stupid, but actively malevolent and downright diabolical. The party has lost its pragmatists and is left with a bunch of middle-class student union hacks (like Miliband) and some old trade union heavy metal who are both the natural constituencies for believing in this Tory-evil theory.

That will get Labour so far - but the question then is, what the hell are they for? The same policies as the Tories (only not administered by the evil-doers but by nice, lovely, angelic Labour) - or socialism? Really?

mittfh's picture

Unfortunately, anti-Coalition rhetoric is about all we seem to hear from Labour nowadays. They've been very quiet on producing anything that sounds like policy since the election, supposedly while they're undergoing a "policy review". Does it really take over two years to come to some form of agreement on what your policies are and what direction you want to take?

I'd even hazard a guess that most of their current support isn't because of what they stand for (erm, less austerity?) but because they're only significant party that isn't a coalition partner.

I'd say the main message they need to get across is that (whatever their policies turn out to be) they'll provide a better future for people than the coalition - whilst also not spending wildly. One key thing that would help would be to override habits of a lifetime and introduce real, genuine transparency, particularly with regards to spending. Explaining why they're spending what they're spending, and (perhaps even harder) explain both the advantages AND disadvantages of policies, while also explaining why they believe the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. For example PFI: on the one hand it allowed new buildings to be constructed far quicker and for far less upfront cost than direct funding; but conversely it meant that more would be spend over the long term as the private company would be paid back with interest.

Oh, and when negotiating contracts with private sector companies, make sure they've got a few experts in contract law on hand, so the company can't sneak in damaging clauses like penalty payments if a hospital is more than 85% full.

Peter Deville's picture

Oh FFS! Dan Hodges again? Goodbye NS.

Hurrdurr's picture

Why is the NS increasingly anti Unions?

Isn't there a Magazine called the spectator for that?

DMyers's picture

It seems to be anti pretty much everything these days...

postageincluded's picture

Apologies. Clumsy old fingers posted twice.

postageincluded's picture

Well, lets start with misuse of statistics. The vote in the local elections was not a representative sample. the wards that voted were not a cross section of the whole population, and the population as a whole votes differently in local elections and national ones. (The LD leader of my local council, for example, said after the local elections in 2011 that the LDs would only go into alliance with the Tories locally "over my dead body" - a widely reported comment that no doubt kep the LibDem vote up here). In fact the result was better even than the Tories' estimate (the original estimate, not Warsi's mid-result inflated figure) and they were better than Rawlings and Thresher's independent estimate on the basis of national polls putting Labour at about 41%.

I appreciate, Mr Hodges, that you probably only consult people who agree with you wholeheartedly (e.g. Telegraph columnists) so you may not have heard any of this before.

As for "horse's heads" - well I've heard worse threats down the years from more powerful and more malicious TU leaders than McLuskey's ritual offering; it barely registered with me and will mean nothing at all to most voters. TUs scare little old Tory ladies, but on the shop floor the general opinion is "You don't have any teeth any more, why should I bother joining". You are the one with the dead horse, Mr Hodges, and you can go flogging it for all your worth, it ain't going get up and walk.

A T's picture

Hear hear!

Latest tweets