Chris Leslie, the shadow chancellor, supports the pay freeze. But his next boss disagrees. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Labour at odds over public sector pay freeze

Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn are all against the public sector pay freeze. But Harriet Harman and Chris Leslie both back the policy. 

Labour's leadership candidates have all announced their opposition to the continuing public sector pay freeze, putting them on a collision course with Harriet Harman, the party's acting leader, and Chris Leslie, the shadow chancellor.

Andy Burnham, the bookmakers' favourite, was the first candidate to rule out a continuation of the pay freeze, while Liz Kendall also confirmed her opposition to continuing pay restraint at a Q&A in central London this morning. The Kendall campaign believe that they can find the money to end the freeze through reducing the scale of British tax breaks - which currently stand at £100bn a year. 

Yvette Cooper believes that continuing the pay freeze - which has been in place since 2010 - will hit recruitment and retention. "Is the Chancellor really saying he can afford to cut inheritance tax for estates worth £1million," the shadow home secretary asks, "but the people who care for us and keep us safe should have to face five more years of real term pay cuts?" Cooper believes that a decade worth of cuts to public sector pay will do lasting damage to the quality and morale of public sector staff, and that, in any case, that the NHS is increasingly having to turn to more expensive agency staff to fill staffing gaps means the savings are void.

Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, is against cuts and will not be supporting the public sector pay freeze. That puts all four candidates in opposition to the policy position set out by Harman and Leslie.

In some respects, the fact that Harman will leave office when the new leader is elected on September 12 renders the row moot. However, Leslie, who is supporting Cooper's bid and is a longstanding ally of the shadow home secretary, was considered likely to remain in post as shadow chancellor should either Cooper or Kendall win the leadership. (Should Burnham win, Rachel Reeves is widely tipped to be appointed both his official deputy, and shadow chancellor, shadowing George Osborne both as Chancellor and as First Secretary of State.) His support of the pay freeze may imperil his chances of keeping hold of the role, or re-open the divides of the first phase of Ed Miliband's leadership, when he and Alan Johnson disagreed over the 50p rate and tuition fees. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

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