Labour’s Neanderthal tendencies
The party should have reacted much earlier to Phil Woolas’s BNP-style electioneering. His populist rhetoric has left a deep stain.
By Mehdi Hasan Published 11 November 2010
In the 1964 general election, the Conservative candidate in Smethwick, Peter Griffiths, stood for parliament with the aid of the most offensive slogan of the modern political era: "If you want a n**ger for a neighbour, vote Labour." He won the seat. But when the new Commons assembled after the election, Harold Wilson, the incoming Labour prime minister, said Griffiths should be treated by MPs as a "political leper".
In the 2010 general election, the Labour candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth and former immigration minister, Phil Woolas, published pamphlets with headlines such as "Lib Dem pact with the devil", "Targeted: militant extremists go for Phil Woolas", "Lib Dems in mosque planning permission stitch-up", and "Straight-talking Woolas too fair for militant Muslims". Behind the scenes, Woolas's advisers circulated emails discussing the "need . . . to explain to the white community how the Asians will take him out . . . If we don't get the white vote angry, he's gone."
Woolas won the seat with a majority of only 103. But he was not treated as a "leper" upon his return to the Commons by his parliamentary colleagues, nor was he reprimanded by the Labour leadership. Instead, the acting leader, Harriet Harman, kept him on as shadow immigration minister – a front-bench position then formalised by the new leader, Ed Miliband, in October. The shadow home secretary, Ed Balls, had no say in the matter. "It was communicated to Ed [Balls] by the leader's office that Phil would stay on," I was told.
Delayed reaction
Woolas has since been stripped of his seat in parliament by a special election court, which ruled that he knowingly made false statements about his Lib Dem opponent, and suspended from the Labour Party. Is Miliband guilty, in the words of one former minister, "of a huge mistake and misjudgement", in retaining the tainted Woolas on his front bench? "We couldn't pre-empt the outcome of the court case," says a shadow cabinet minister and close ally of Miliband. Another friend of the leader tells me: "Ed was in an impossible position – it was Harriet who had kept Phil on as a frontbencher. He had to wait for the court verdict."
Did he? The leaflets were in the public domain long before the trial. Miliband could have made an example of the odious Woolas, in the same way he stood up to the former chief whip Nick Brown. After all, he ran for the leadership on a mantra of "change" and a fresh start. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a good enough defence – as Labour keeps reminding David Cameron over his communications director, Andy Coulson. "The Woolas debacle has rendered null and void our line on Coulson," a former Labour minister tells me.
At least Miliband and Harman acted promptly to suspend Woolas following the court judgement. Old-right Labour tribalists, however, have closed ranks around Woolas. MP Graham Stringer claimed their man has been "hung out to dry". The party's former general secretary Peter Watt said the suspension showed a "complete lack of humanity", while deigning to describe Woolas's pamphlets only as "controversial, to say the least". The veteran MP David Winnick, defending Woolas, said merely that "he may have gone over the top" in his election campaign. Speaking at a tetchy meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, in which MPs lined up to denounce Harman, the backbencher Michael Connarty asked the deputy leader to "examine her conscience".
What is going on here? It is Connarty and his PLP colleagues who should examine their consciences. Woolas's inflammatory leaflets focused on the need to "galvanise the white Sun-reading voters" of Oldham, in the words of one of his aides. In 2001, the town was the setting of Britain's worst race riots for more than a decade. The Ritchie Report into the violence accused the BNP of distributing "crude leaflets" in order to "stir up tensions", adding: "The mainstream political parties have a big role to play in countering this threat." Yet here was a Labour minister using BNP-style scare tactics.
Woolas has a history of making intemperate and provocative remarks on issues such as immigration, race and Islam. On immigration, his rhetoric earned the praise of the Sun and MigrationWatch's Sir Andrew Green. He once claimed his own family and children had suffered from the impact of migrant workers, without providing any details; and, in 2009, he described the Tory government of Ted Heath as "soft" for allowing in East African Asians. On race, Woolas echoed the rhetoric of the far right when he claimed, in 2003, that "racist attacks" by blacks and Asians on white people were being ignored by the authorities. On Islam, he accused veiled Muslim women of provoking "fear and resentment" among non-Muslims as well as fuelling the rise of the BNP.
Cynical populism
Woolas embodies the cynical, authoritarian populism of New Labour – the party of David Blunkett, who blamed refugee children for "swamping" schools, and Gordon Brown, who promised "British jobs for British workers". Their government locked up the children of migrants and Woolas authorised security guards employed by private contractors to use "physical control in care" techniques to deport people – including the mentally ill and children under 18 – according to documents obtained by the Liberal Conspiracy website under the Freedom of Information Act.
Labour can no longer afford to be seen as the "nasty party". Ed Miliband, away on paternity leave, needs to think long and hard about how to woo back disaffected liberals who left the party and refused to vote for it in 2005 and 2010. He is right to talk of "optimism", "hope" and a "new generation" – and decline the opportunity to outflank the coalition on the right. Labour cannot win a public auction to show who is toughest on minorities and foreigners, nor should it want to. This is the scorched-earth terrain of the Tories: despite Woolas's unpleasant rhetoric, Cameron's Conservatives enjoyed a double-digit lead in the polls on the immigration issue in the run-up to the general election.
The Neanderthal tendency within Labour – personified by Woolas's supporters – has been emboldened. Miliband must confront it. There can be no "business as usual" on his watch. As the backbench MP Jon Cruddas, perhaps the party's most thoughtful figure on the subject of race and immigration, has said: "If Labour becomes the voice for this sour, shrill, hopeless politics it will die. And it will deserve to."
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


36 comments
============== http://www.fashiongoods.us ==========
sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
To me,on this issue alone things have been defind for Miliband he does seem weak and he wont win the next election.
"...British jobs for British people." It's clumsy and stupid phrase isn't it? So easily misinterpreted. Why on earth did he take such clearly loaded language in his mouth? Reading the full statement again, makes one wonder what Brown meant exactly? Was he only referring to White British people? That seems highly unlikely. He couldn't have meant to exclude workers from the E.U. as this would have been illegal under E.U. law. E.U. citzens are entitled to seek jobs across the continent. So he must have been talking about fewer jobs for illegal immigrants. The why didn't he say so, in clear and understandable language?
Or he could have said, something like this.
"I'm a man of my word. I'm a man who can be trusted. I'm ready to give the people of this country this pledge, and you can hold me to it. I promise to create three million jobse over the next five years. New, real, British jobs, for all Britain's people. Remember my words, British jobs, for all Britain's people."
Which means something completely different. Shame it's now all water under the bridge.
Why the hell is this Miliband chap on bloody maternity leave while the country is being cut to pieces by this bunch of bleedin' pampered, public school, mutli-millionaires? Who can not ever be in anything together with the vast majority of the British population who aren't, will never be, millionaires!
Miliband should return to the job he was elected for, running the opposition, not being a nursemade. He could though turn it to his advantage and come back early, showing that he too is willing to make a "sacrifice" for the good of the country. Putting the welfare of the country before his own family. After all he can afford a nanny to help out can't he? And considering how many "ordinary, hardworking, families" with small babies are going to be suffering at the sharp end of this dreadful government's policies, Miliband has a great chance to show where his priorities are, or should be. If he's serious about leading the country.
Sorry, that's not strictly relevant, but it does indicate just how hopeless Labour really is, in the political strategy department, then and now.
"Immigration" "Muslims" or the "race card" as it's also known, is a "wedge issue." It's an American concept. One finds a crack in the opposition and pushes a "wedge" into it to make it bigger and weaken, or split the opposition.
It's being used successfully all over Europe. The "Muslim threat" is seen as the golden key to political power by nationalist/populist parties of the Right, especially when one uses it against Social Democrats who are wobbly and vulnerable on this highly emotive issue.
Of course, in reality, it's a phantom issue, which has been successfully blown out of all rational proportion for cynical political ends by right, centre-right, and centre-left groups and parties, from one end of the Continent to the other.
It's very similar, or identical, if one wants to be really pessimistic, to the Phantom Jewish threat to Germany that the Nazis dreamt up and used so effectively to create a name for themselves and attention. Christ let's hope we don't go down that vile road again!
The analogy with Powell and with Smethwick is entirely apposite. The whole Labour election team in Oldham East should be jettisoned. What a disgrace.
I wish people would stop using the term "Neanderthal" as a perjoritive.
Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15
Sandal $32
Sungl $15
handbag $33
http://www.fashiongoods999.us
At the very least, why are those MPs who support Woolas not condemning the clearly racist leaflets emanating from Woolas' campaign?
The same MP's complain about due process when it comes to Phil Woolas but reserves no such sympathy for Lutfur Rahman, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, who was kicked out of Labour without due process thanks to smears and insinuation. In fact, the very same tactics deployed at Woolas' opponents were used on Lutfur Rahman.
The real extremists are those defending Phil Woolas, such as Jum Fitzpatrick.
Bring on the election! He wasn't the only person handing out dodgy leaflets!
Remember Labour leaflets scaremongering the elderly about losing their freedom passes, free television licence and heating allowance. My grandmother is still frightened that she would lose her freedom pass!
New Labour was totally wrong for scaremongering the elderly and the good poeple of Great Britain.. Any evidence that dodgy leaflets were used in the 2010 general election, there should automatically be a bye-election!!!!! We can't trust scaremongering Labour MP!!!!!!!!!!! Lock him up!!!!!
Who is Sheffields Labour candidate? They should accuse Nick Clegg of telling lies in his election campaign and get a court to look at it, it may be a way of getting rid of the sod.
thinkov - 'was he set up?'
Oh yeh. Somebody wrote the offending leaflet, sent the offending e-mails... all so that Woolas could be dealt with six months later. Are you serious?
Post new comment