Labour’s response to Philpott is dangerously out of sync with public opinion

For the past 18 months or so I’ve spent quite a bit of time defending Ed Miliband: a decent man with a broad vision about how our political system needs to be changed to work for the many instead of a privileged, sheltered few. I’ve applauded the leadership’s disassociation from the worst excesses of New Labour – its authoritarianism, ruthless attacks on civil liberties, reckless liberal interventionism. He has taken on powerful elites in a way few have dared to.

But over the last few months an immaturity and amateurish streak has taken hold. Beginning with his breathtaking naivety in fully endorsing the Leveson Report in its entirety with barely any time to take in the executive summary, let alone digest all 1,987 pages. Wanting to be on the side of the victims of hacking and new best mate to UK Celebs Are Us, clouded his judgement and put Labour on the wrong side of press freedom. But at least he had public opinion on his side. Even though Leveson and press regulation will barely feature come polling day.

Not so welfare.  As Dan Hodges pointed out this week:

“The “debate” over welfare playing out over the last few days has reminded me of where we were with the debate on immigration a decade ago.”

We are in the embryonic stages, meaning hyperbole, misinformation, accusations and counter-accusations shout down the moderate and measured. Mick Philpott, doting father of 17, misogynist, benefit-scrounger extraordinaire, and now guilty of the manslaughter of six of his children puts us firmly in hysteria territory. Vile product of Welfare UK? Of course not. But a man entitled to handouts not far off £50,000 a year according to some reports is evidence of a benefits system intent on self-harm.

There was nothing remotely controversial about George Osborne musing that:

“There is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."

Every right-thinking person would have been nodding in approval. I certainly was. Then in blunders Ed Balls with the equivalent of a studs-first two-footed tackle:

“George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the cynical act of a desperate chancellor.”

No, Ed. Osborne’s comments will have struck a chord, even with Labour voters. Especially with Labour voters. Sarah Teather’s contribution bordered on the idiotic when she said that Osborne was seeking to:

“demonise anybody who receives any kind of welfare support."

Again, wrong. The extremity of a case like Philpott milking the system for all it’s worth is exactly the sort of thing that has the public foaming with rage. Its rarity is irrelevant to public anger. Opinion already formed only hardens.

When left wingers (rightly) point out that such abuses are isolated, they are merely preaching to other like-minded souls. Just because something is rare, doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy of public attention. Policy is often changed or loopholes closed in the face of extreme examples: the Dunblane school shootings and the subsequent law on handguns; the Soham murders and the never-ending growth of the CRB industry. One could reasonably argue that certain anti-terror laws are passed and are wholly disproportionate, all the result of the murderous acts and/or thoughts of a very small number.

Ed Miliband has yet to comment on Philpott, but don’t expect a deviation from his Shadow Chancellor’s script. Welfare, immigration and economic credibility: not so much Labour’s Achilles’ heel as an entire Achilles’ limb. Labour trails the Tories on all three. All three will dominate the election campaign.

Labour has made the right noises on immigration. Miliband shrewdly acknowledges economic impact versus its social and cultural effect. On welfare, all there is is a lot of hot air. See Peter Watt’s piece on these pages earlier in the week.

This is not to say I don’t support the party’s opposition to some of the government’s welfare reforms, such as the bedroom tax. I’m fairly confident that the sight of families or people with disabilities being forced to relocate under the gaze of the media will drive the government into a humiliating retreat.  It’s one thing freezing or cutting benefits.  Not something that can be really captured with the naked eye.  Yet, it’ll be a lot easier to film a man or woman in a wheelchair being led out of their home with all their earthly possessions in tow.  The pictures will look dreadful.

Labour’s job is to provide a solid and serious alternative to bringing down the welfare bill.  Opposing every government effort isn’t the way to do it, even if they are often right in doing so.  Opposition without an alternative is wasted energy.

Wanting to be heard at all costs has led Labour to play politics in accusing Osborne of playing politics this week.  It beggars belief that the party lack the maturity to simply echo Osborne’s sensible comments. Their intervention this week has shown that they offer next to nothing on the welfare debate, even when faced with a grotesque man having a laugh at the nation’s over-generous expense.  Sometimes it’s good to learn that opposition for opposition’s sake just looks desperate.

The best contribution to this week’s event was found in The Times from Tony Blair’s former speechwriter Philip Collins (£):

“By opposing the welfare consequences of austerity with no viable alternative, Labour is asking to be placed on the side of those who want the welfare bill to rise rather than those who want it to fall.

“The absence of a constructive Labour voice from the welfare debate means that the left is associated only with the shrill shriek of opposition”.

 

This article was first published by Labour Uncut on Monday 8th April 2013

End the speculation: Cameron won't sack Osborne

When the media, old and new, sink their teeth into a story, it’s hard to prize it away. All it takes is a scent, a glimmer of hope that they may be proved right, for momentum to take over. As is the scenario with Chancellor George Osborne. Speculation over his position has been rife since the Budget: the brilliant, shrewd, future leader in waiting, reduced to a laughing stock, in a matter of months. As long as the economy continues to tank, the questions will keep on coming, with the comment pieces piling up.

But, we can all calm down. Because, like the British economy, George Osborne ain’t budging. The ramifications for David Cameron would be enormous. The most important member of the Cabinet after the PM failing to last a full parliament. It just won’t happen. Ironically, on this occasion, Cameron’s judgement – were he to sideline his Chancellor - would probably be hailed rather than derided.

Whilst the country has everything to gain, Cameron has too much to lose. Osborne is a vital ally, a friend, and founding member of the Notting Hill set. Dumping him would provide the right wingers with a martyr. He would quickly become the go-to man for any grievances.  Why? For starters I can’t see him accepting another role in the Cabinet, bar possibly Foreign Secretary. Anything else would be a humiliating step down. Once you’ve been Chancellor, the only way is up, or out.

William Hague is spoken of as a possible successor, but would he really want the job and the microscopic scrutiny that goes with it? For someone of his experience, Foreign Secretary is as good as it gets. He seems to relish his current role. Why trade diplomacy, where many of the big decisions follow an expected path, for the suffocating spotlight that accompanies the top person at the Treasury?

Vince Cable’s name keeps cropping up, but can you imagine the barrage of abuse unleashed by the already gobby Tory backbench? A Lib Dem Chancellor would be enough to see them apoplectic with rage and foaming at the mouth. Vince would be a popular choice amongst the centre-left, his chance to redeem himself, re-unveil his progressive feathers, but he may also pose a threat to his own leader’s position. Cameron seems too close to Clegg to so publically challenge his authority.

All this reminds me of the endless speculation over whether Tony Blair would sack Gordon Brown – something his wife Cherie had urged, if Andrew Rawnsley’s political tome is to be believed - although for very different reasons.

Osborne is Cameron’s economic mouthpiece. They have jointly mapped out our decade of austerity. Ideological certainly binds them together. A permanent dwarfing of the state is their co-authored project.

The Independent’s Steve Richards believes that:

“Osborne [has become] trapped by a narrative that had been adopted for electorally partisan reasons.”

This was a strategy that pinpointed blame on Labour for the state of the economy. Clearing up its mess is going to take a lot longer than two and a half years. We’re in it for the long haul, so the cry goes.

As Richards correctly points out, Osborne is also protected by the coalition agreement. Neither party is prepared to back down now:

“From the beginning, the Liberal Democrats have described the main purpose of the Coalition as "rescuing the economy". As a result it is almost as hard for them to accept that the economic basis of their original partnership is causing more harm than good.

"We have reached the strangest point yet in the Coalition's bizarre life. Its political survival depends on a very big leap away from Plan A – yet its origins make it almost impossible for such a leap to be made.”

And this is why we’re lumbered with him. To give Cameron some credit, he’s been extremely loyal to his team. Enough to make LabourList editor, Mark Ferguson, speak of his ‘begrudging admiration,’ for him. A settled group of ministers is usually preferable to:

“The hyperactive reshuffle fever that used to come over Labour periodically during our time in government.”

“Whether it’s loyalty or weakness, on balance it’s a positive thing. Stable, knowledgeable government is always preferable to that of a government that is desperate to show that it is doing “something” (anything).”

The first government reshuffle, expected in the autumn, may be the most anticipated in years, but to turn the conservative maxim on its head, it’ll probably be a case of: ‘if it’s broke, don’t fix it.’


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 31st July 2012