PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers
- Sign up to see last 24 hours
Dont have an account?Sign up here
As the world recoils in horror from the murderous sectarianism of ISIS and the videos showing the brutal killing of innocent hostages, Britain is faced with a decision on how to respond and in particular whether military intervention should be part of that response.
In this debate, past decisions on military intervention, especially the 2003 war in Iraq, cast a long shadow. The long shadow is not just about the merits of that decision. It is also because of a longer term view held by some that believes it is our actions that are the driving force behind violent Islamist extremism.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the rights and wrongs of past actions but it is a dangerous misconception to see Islamic extremism as always being a consequence of what we in the West do or don’t do.
No doubt there are actions we have taken which have angered jihadists, perhaps even encouraged others to join them, but we must not forget that the attack on the World Trade Centre took place two years before the war in Iraq.
Or that the tragedy in Syria which has been unfolding for three years with terrible human costs has become a byword for non-intervention militarily (except by non-Western forces). Yet it is Syria, where there has been no Western military intervention, which is the heart of ISIS and the new global headquarters for violent jihadists.
Foreign policy is not simply a case of action by the powerful and reaction by the powerless. It does not take place in a world where some countries are adults and other countries and movements are children. It takes place in a world of adults and adults, where people are responsible for their own actions and where extremist movements have a logic and momentum of their own.
Put bluntly, it’s not always about us.
Understanding this is important because the tendency to see everything through the lens of our own past actions also implies that we can somehow opt out of this struggle, that if we lie low and don’t offend the jihadists, maybe they will leave us alone. But we can’t, and they won’t.
It is time to stop looking over our shoulders. “Out damned spot” is no basis for taking crucial foreign policy decisions or responding to the situation we face now. Of course we should learn from the past, but we must not be imprisoned by it.
The Prime Minister is right to define this as a generational struggle. But definition only takes us half way. We also have to will the means to respond. If that means reassessing our approach to de-radicalisation and preventing people becoming involved in extremism in the first place then let’s do it. If that means reversing irresponsible policy decisions like watering down control orders, then we should do it. And if it means matching our humanitarian and diplomatic efforts overseas with a willingness to use military force if necessary, then that is also what we should do.
At the heart of this must be a strong defence of what we stand for: a democratic country where power changes hands peacefully on the basis of election results; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; the rule of law. These may seem obvious freedoms because we are used to them, but they are the very antithesis of the jihadist mantra, “convert or die”, and it is crucial that we defend these freedoms against those who hate everything this country stands for.
Islam is not the problem. Millions of Muslims in the UK practice their religion freely and in peace causing no harm to anyone. The problem is the strand of fundamentalist religious thinking which rejects co-existence with others, which says there is only one truth and all must accept it. We live in a country where people are free to attend the mosque on a Friday, others the synagogue on Saturday, others church on Sunday, and many none of the above. Britain’s values and freedoms are precious, fundamental to our way of life and well worth defending. It’s time for politics to exercise leadership as well as analysis in that fight.
Pat McFadden is Labour MP for Wolverhampton South East
Although measuring success in opposition has long confounded political observers, a fair judge might be favourably disposed to Labour’s Lordly performance over the past four years. Nearly a hundred division lobby wins, approximately 500 amendments accepted through powerful advocacy and an unerring knack of managing to set the news agenda. But just how has this worked after a long period of Labour government, with expectations fairly low and in a period when David Cameron has busily stuffed the House with new coalition peers?
Losing the 2010 general election left Labour in politically uncharted territory in the Lords. Never in recent history had we been the sole opposition party; never previously had we had such a large opposition group (notionally 235 in May 2010), and never before had we been the largest party when in opposition. Given the Tory and Lib Dem peers’ joint numerical strength, our group recognised those parties were a coalition with a clear political majority – something, incidentally, that we never aspired to have while in government. There was an external expectation, however, that given the Upper House’s reputation for overturning bills, Labour would somehow magically be able to do the same.
This presented something of a dilemma: how best to oppose and slow up a determinedly rightwing agenda while being realistic about what could be achieved. We also had to have due regard for the political conventions within Parliament that enable a government to secure its programme but rely on the Lords to revise legislation. In this we were aided by Cameron’s lack of a mandate for his legislative programme and a coalition agreement loosely drawn from Tory and Lib Dem manifestos.
In retrospect, our approach, led by my inspirational colleague Janet Royall alongside a sharp-minded team of advisers, has proved more effective than we imagined. Rightly, we thought our strategy and tactics had to be flexible, including being a constructive opposition where legislation was in the national interest or proportionate to the problem to be tackled. But equally, we would be firmly against measures that upset the balance between the Commons and Lords, where the government parties were being partisan or harming the public interest.
So we opposed aspects of the academies and free schools programme, highlighting how it could actually lower educational standards. We also predicted that free schools could fall foul of religious fundamentalism, and compromise standards with unqualified teachers. We warned of the pitfalls of a fragmented system and poor governance. Time has proved our fears were well founded.
Some commentators assumed Lib Dem Lords would prove unreliable allies for the Tories. We never saw it that way. Our experience was of a party bloc prepared from the outset to swallow political beliefs and commitments for the prize of power. I don't criticise Lib Dems for this dose of Stalinism. Governments rely on political discipline to secure legislation and a reputation for competence, and this approach has delivered the agreed programme with few measures lost or diluted.
Still, between 2010 and 2012, bill after bill came to the Lords begging to be amended, but even when clearly miles away from Lib Dem policies, they still voted them through. Tuition fees, free schools, the ‘bedroom tax’, the evisceration of legal aid, the marketisation of the NHS, pension cuts, police and crime commissioners, a reduction in employment protection and the sneaky hobbling of campaigning charities were all pushed through with barely a dissenting Lib Dem voice.
Arguably Labour Lords’ most profound impact will become clear next May. At the outset of the current parliament, the Coalition – particularly the Tory part of it – sought to load the political dice in its favour. Cameron secured a ridiculous agreement from Nick Clegg to offer a referendum on the electoral system as a trade-off for bigger constituencies drawn on boundaries favouring only the Conservatives. Labour fought this determinedly in both Houses, pointing out to the Lib Dems the devastating impact it could have for them electorally. Our peers went further, forcing the Government into all-night sittings and ultimately securing some concessions before the bill was forced through to enable the AV referendum.
After the loss of the referendum and the failure to secure meaningful Lords reform, the Lib Dems decided we were right all along. So when a means of reopening the issue arose in legislation on voter registration, an amendment backed formally by both our parties and crossbenchers successfully delayed implementation until after the 2015 election. Political analysts suggest this rebalancing of the seats is worth 2% in the polls, and up to 30 seats. It also helps compensate for the disproportionate impact that under-registration has on Labour’s vote.
Should Labour be using the Lords to obstruct government legislation? Well, while occasionally testing the unelected chamber to its limits, we are more than justified in using the checks and balances that the Upper House offers. Additionally, nobody should forget that during our 13 years in government, Labour lost over 500 divisions – nearly a third of all votes. Some would say that went beyond opposition and close to the obstruction of parts of a programme for which a mandate existed.
Because Labour has just 28% of the Lords’ voting strength, we have had to be both strategic and forensic in our approach, deploying tactical flexibility and using our imagination in turn to get our messages across. The art of good politics is linking issues from campaigning into the decision-making and legislative forum. Traditionally, this has been the task of Commons colleagues. What is different about this period of Lords opposition is that we have been able to do so across a larger canvas, widening both the public and media’s understanding of how the House works, including through our popular @LabourLordsUK Twitter feed.
Whether at daily question time or during debates on legislation or motions, life has been made less comfortable for the Coalition at our end of the Palace. We may, of course, have made a rod for our own backs once Labour is in office again. I like to think, however, that the increased professionalism of our opposition operation in the Lords has merely prepared the ground for us to do the business of government much better.
Lord Bassam is Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Lords
Words: Paul Waugh
Photos: Paul Heartfield
Yvette Cooper is late. But she has a pretty good excuse: the wacky races that are London school runs. Like many parents with children on their second day of the new term, she’s just fought through the usual early morning panic of uniforms, breakfasts and which teacher is which. Unlike many parents, she’s also the Shadow Home Secretary.
“I went to the TUC last night [in Liverpool],” she explains. “So I was having to catch up this morning on all of the discussions about yesterday at school and all of that. You finish the school run, and then you think ‘right, let’s start the day again’.”
With a general election just months away, Cooper certainly has a lot on her plate these days. In the Commons’ own back-to-school September sitting, she’s used an Urgent Question to grill Theresa May on Rotherham’s child abuse scandal and scored a victory on the restoration of relocation powers of terror suspects. After months of gestation, Labour’s policies on immigration, crime and police reform are nearly complete. And as party conference opens, she’s itching to take the fight to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.
Having overseen Labour’s mea culpa for the failure to restrict migration from Eastern Europe, Cooper has spent months on the road talking to voters about their worries about workers from overseas.
She says the party will “go further” on the impact on the labour market of migrants, with “stronger” measures to be announced. “In my constituency in particular, we have got a lot of low skilled distribution jobs in factories and so on. When we have discussions about what people are worried about, the jobs issue comes up a lot.”
Most people want the system to be firm but fair, she says. “That does mean dealing with issues around benefits, people who commit crimes being deported, speaking English and so on.
“We also recognise the benefits that centuries of migration bring; you need the talent and ideas from abroad. You need a smarter system so you can have more international students coming to our best universities who are able to contribute to our economy, but lower low-skilled migration.”
A key theme of her message is that UKIP and the SNP have both been focused on “the politics of division”, of looking inwards “to a smaller country, rather than having the confidence to look outwards”.
“We know that people have had not just the financial crisis, but years of falling living standards and they have a real anxiety about the future. There’s a strong rejection of the Tories but they are looking for some answers and for optimism and change.
“UKIP playing on people’s fears, turning their backs on European jobs, is not the answer. I think we’ve got to expose UKIP for being a very right wing party, a party that wants to charge people to use the NHS, a party that wants to cut taxes by more than David Cameron does, and be prepared to take that on as well.”
The recent problems in Calais also highlight the flaws in Nigel Farage’s policy of pulling out the EU, she says. “We need other European countries to do their bit to deal with illegal migration across Europe, with refugees and asylum seekers being responded to in the country in which they arrive and apply. If we simply turn our backs and ignore that, we have far less ability to be able to persuade and argue and insist that other countries do their bit in a way that helps us.”
The centenary of the First World War provides a reminder of the importance of European partnership, she adds. “That actually should be about showing we’ve come a long way from when European nations fought each other – and hated each other. And being prepared to work together – and argue together – is immensely important.”
As well as trying to frame UKIP as ‘right wing’, Cooper says the party is “disingenuous about supposedly wanting to help working people”. “It’s not racist to be worried about migration the impact it has on people’s jobs and wages. It is racist to say Lenny Henry should have to leave the country, which is what some of the UKIP councillors were saying. And we have to challenge people on that,” she says.
“The vast majority of people want to talk about how you control and manage migration. And in the end that is a Labour thing to do. We don’t sign up to the free market right which is laissez faire and it’s all about what’s best for business, or the Conservative reactionary right which is just ‘close your backs on the rest of the world’.”
Cooper also accuses Theresa May of a ‘laissez faire’ approach to crime, claiming that cutbacks to police forces have left serious gaps in the system. “The clock is starting to tick backwards on justice, because if you look at what’s happened over the last four years, the consequence of the scale of police cuts and the lack of proper strategic reform, the laissez fair approach to crime and justice, is that you’ve seen a big drop in prosecutions.”
Prosecutions for rape, domestic violence and even sex abuse have all fallen, just as such ‘hidden crime’ has risen. “There’s a growing awareness of some of the really terrible crimes where victims aren’t heard. That might be crimes within the family, domestic abuse, sexual abuse and rape, but also abuse of children. It’s not just that awful crimes have taken place but the criminal justice system is letting them down or not hearing victims.”
Rather than trying to do everything at once in office, Labour is preparing to focus on “three pieces of flagship legislation”: on immigration and exploitation, on policing reform and on abuse of women and children. Rotherham, like Oxfordshire and other places, has laid bare the need for action, she says.
On the overarching inquiry into child sex abuse, Cooper sounds underwhelmed at the Home Office’s appointment of Fiona Woolf. “They’ve been very slow. We still don’t have the full panel and we still don’t have the terms of reference. We are concerned it has not got the momentum and support from the Home Office that it needs.”
During the recent Commons exchanges on Rotherham, Diane Abbott said that class and misogyny, and not just political correctness about race, lay behind the treatment of young victims. Did she have a point? “If you look at the Jay report and the descriptions of the attitudes of police officers and social services, there was this idea that if somehow girls were involved in sexual activity that they must have consented, that it must be their fault.
“We need a massive culture change on this. The reason we want mandatory reporting is also to have the law changed to kick start that culture change. But it’s much wider, that’s why it has to be about attitudes and sex and relationship education going right the way up through school.”
Building compulsory relationship lessons into the curriculum will be crucial to changing attitudes to “prevent violence in the next generation”, she says. “The work in schools around boys’ attitudes is incredibly important. It’s shocking the Government has refused to do this. It’s got to be about boys and men, not just seeing this as a problem for girls or a problem for women. It’s about respect in relationships.”
As well as funding for women’s refuges, there needs to be more work on intervention projects aimed at changing men’s behaviour. “Far more. And there’s too little known about what really works in terms of the perpetrator programmes. Much more needs to be done.”
Cooper’s office recently had a constituent reporting that she had to pay to get protection from an abusive partner. “One woman described how her ex is getting legal aid and she’s not. She’s trying to get the non-molestation order in place to keep her and her children safe.”
Female genital mutilation is another form of abuse that Cooper wants to tackle. She reveals that at this year’s women’s conference she will announce a Labour government would introduce ‘FGM protection orders’.
A similar kind of protection order has been put in place to prevent forced marriages, but no tools exist to help the 65,000 girls aged 13 and under at immediate risk of being ‘cut’. Some 170,000 young women and girls in the UK already live with the legacy of mutilation. “FGM is a horrific abuse of children. We need to send a clear message that it will not be tolerated in the UK – and that we will act to stop children being taken out of the country to be violently mutilated,” she says.
Another area where the Coalition has fallen behind, she claims, is in prioritising the rise in online crime. The National Crime Agency admitted this year that it had details on more than 10,000 people who had downloaded abusive images, and yet they had only arrested and investigated 650 people. “They are reported as saying that [if they investigated all the crimes] the criminal justice system couldn’t cope. And yet the criminal justice system arrests 120,000 people for theft every year. So why can’t we investigate 10,000 more cases where people have been downloading images?
“The next scandal and web of crimes is brewing now and the combination of the system and the Home Office and the police not taking it seriously enough a new crime that’s growing, the combination means that you are building up future problems.”
As for the police, Cooper is determined to look at both funding and reform. Ever the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, she says that there is scope for savings through joint procurement by police forces, adding that “we will say more about that between now and the election”.
On reform, she’s clear that a new, more “proactive” Police Standards Authority ought to replace the current HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Independent Police Complaints Commission. “Rotherham is a good example. The IPCC says unless people refer this to us, we can’t do anything, which is ridiculous.” Unless action is taken then “the good work of police officers across the country has got a long shadow over it”, thanks to the misconduct of a minority.
Many Tories have admired Theresa May’s shake up of police standards and pay, not least off the back of the Plebgate affair. But although she disagrees with her opposite number on that and other key issues, does Cooper have a sneaking respect for the Home Secretary’s rise to become the most senior woman in Government?
“Yes. To come up through the Tory party with all of the hostility, the kind of dismissive attitude not just of David Cameron but a lot of senior Tories towards women, I think is a big achievement,” she says.
But there’s a caveat: “It is a shame that she has done so little on issues that affect women. In the same way my criticism of Margaret Thatcher was that yes it was astonishing to become leader of the Tory Party at that time, she actually made it harder for other women to do the same.
“It would’ve been nice to see Theresa May do more to deal with things like violence against women or some of the areas where the clock has gone backwards, where you’ve seen refuges closing. You really need leadership from the Home Office and we’ve just not seen it.”
Does she admire Angela Merkel as a rare woman in a man’s world of European leaders? Again, Cooper qualifies her answer. “What’s admirable about her is her determination to do things her way and not simply to fit into traditional male patterns of operating,” she says. “She’s certainly a strong and impressive figure. My political criticism of her is I think she hasn’t been a do-er. If you think about serious structural problems in Europe, and the eurozone and the anxiety about jobs and austerity for southern Europe, I think Angela Merkel has been reluctant to face up to doing the things that need to be done.”
Which brings us to the topic of women in UK politics. Does she think there will be a female leader of the Labour party in her lifetime? “Of course there will,” she replies swiftly. “We’ve already had Harriet and Margaret Beckett who have been acting leaders.”
Cooper has a stock answer whenever she’s asked about her own chances as future Labour leader, stating she wants to be Home Secretary. But did she see the Survation poll earlier this year suggesting that she and Chuka Umunna were rated as future successors to Ed Miliband, with voters praising her intelligence, connection with ordinary life and toughness? “How kind!” she laughs, without giving anything away about future ambitions.
Shadow cabinet colleague Rachel Reeves is another touted as a possible leader, despite criticism from Newsnight’s Ian Katz over her appearance on the programme a year ago. Katz recently returned to the issue, writing an article arguing that political interviews on TV were increasingly sterile and pointless stand-offs. Does Cooper think it’s time for change from both media and politicians? She replies that the rise in online media has put a premium on politicians answering questions more honestly. “In a modern media age, it’s not just the telly any more, you have all the vlogs and Youtube and Facebook. People are on screen so much of their lives that if someone is not authentic everybody knows it. If someone is not being honest or dodging a question, everybody knows it.
“On the other hand a lot of questions interviewers ask were of the type ‘have you stopped lying to me?’ Therefore it needs not just politicians to be able to change and adapt, but also wider media to be able to change and adapt. And I don’t know how far we are on that track.”
She says that the rise of social media has allowed the public to see for themselves the bigger picture behind selective quotations. “They can see more of it and see the whole story rather just a bit of it. There’s probably a process of adjustment going on as everybody works out how the social media-led, new world of communication works.”
Ought there to be more politicians prepared to just give straight answers to straight questions? “Yes. And sometimes also to be honest about the fact that there isn’t an answer to the question. That it’s complicated, that we just don’t know the answer to that, but we are listening. Or we got some things wrong. Unless you can admit that, it’s a problem too.”
As for social media, Cooper points out that her own three children are more savvy than their parents about much of life online. “You can have parental controls, but most of us have to ask them how to use the parental controls!”
Does she control what they view on screen? “In the end there’s so much that they are exposed to and will be exposed to that you cannot possibly police. Of course, especially when kids are younger, you try and do everything you can to prevent them from being exposed to awful things. But [with older children] you have to be realistic about the pace of technology, the nature of their lives, they are out with friends the whole time. It’s about building their confidence to make a judgement and recognising that kids grow up and make mistakes.”
Cooper has famously referred to her mother as her ‘fourth emergency service’ when it comes to family childcare. But this morning’s tricky school run notwithstanding (the Balls-Coopers have a boy and a girl at secondary and their youngest daughter at primary), is her work-life balance getting easier the older the children become?
“The morning is less stressful. Trying to get a four year-old, a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old out to school is much more stressful. [Now] the teenagers manage themselves, they get out of the house and you vaguely hope they’ve had breakfast. So some of those things are easier,” she says. “But you become a taxi service, with that having to coordinate where it is they have to be. I’m managing their diaries when I struggle to manage my own, but theirs are far more complex!”
Something that appears to unite the family is Dr Who. And Cooper reveals that she’s more than a bit of a fan of the BBC show. So, what does she make of the new Doctor? “I can’t work it out yet. I really like Peter Capaldi but I’m worried that he’s really unhappy. It’s not just that he’s darker, it’s like there’s no joy at the moment,” she replies. “You always thought that David Tennant had this deep unhappiness underneath but was trying to be joyful to distract from it. With Matt Smith there was the sadness but always a sort of wistful playfulness. With Peter Capaldi you just feel he’s deeply unhappy. I am really worried that Dr Who is too unhappy. I like the cantankerous bit. It’s not the grumpiness. It’s the bleakness.”
And as for the Doctor’s female assistants, the former Shadow Women and Equalities Minister has her doubts about recent characters. “They seem strong, but the danger is they go strong within a stereotype. Donna [played by Catherine Tate] was not within a stereotype. She’s still my favourite.”
Another family favourite within the household in recent years has been the theatre musical Wicked, with Balls admitting he’d seen it more than five times.
But Cooper confesses that The Sound of Music has become the latest musical obsession, revealing that the whole clan visited Salzburg this summer as part of rail trip around Europe. “We went inter-railing: us and a bunch of 18-19 year-olds on trains across Europe. One of the places we went was Salzburg and we went on a Sound of Music tour,” she reveals.
“It was absolutely brilliant. You go along on a bike with this beat box in the front, we were singing the songs as we cycled through Salzburg. We even had headscarves that we’d made out of curtain material. It was utterly ludicrous and very funny,” she says, crumpling into laughter at the memory.
As she now focuses on a hectic run-in to May 2015, light relief may be in short supply in the Home Office brief. But while Labour may not be able to climb every mountain electorally, Yvette Cooper sounds ready to try.
COOPER ON…UKIP AND MIGRATION
“Ukip’s approach is to cut market regulation and to cut employment rights, which in fact we should be strengthening. Labour’s the only party arguing for that.”
COOPER ON…JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
“The Labour party has always been a party fighting for justice, fighting for social justice, standing up for those who don’t get heard, those who get left behind.”
COOPER ON…THE ‘WOOLF’ CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY
“Theresa May agreed to do this inquiry two months ago, this is just glacial progress on something where we know there are failings still.”
COOPER ON…10% TURNOUT FOR WEST MIDS PCC BYELECTION
“Somebody said to me ‘God, it really must have been a low-profile by-election because even Michael Crick didn’t go’.”
COOPER ON….MAY’S CONTROL ORDERS U-TURN
“They’ve come full circle, although curiously we don’t know when it’s going to happen…The Government’s anti-terror plans are completely unclear”.
COOPER ON… PIANO PLAYING
“It never came naturally to me. He [husband Ed Balls] just really likes it. He’s really enthusiastic. Over the summer, he’s been learning jazz piano.”
Words: Paul Waugh and Daniel Bond
Photos: Paul Heartfield
Rachel Reeves had a bit of a busman’s holiday this summer. While away from Westminster, her Big Read was Nick Timmins’ A Biography of the Welfare State, a huge tome tailor-made for any would-be Work and Pensions Secretary. In August she made a Big Speech contrasting Labour and Tory plans for welfare. And, amid family and constituency duties, she also found time to work on her own Big Write: a biography of Alice Bacon, former Labour minister and the first woman to represent Leeds West.
With the general election just months away, the 35-year-old Reeves is firmly focused on the big prize of a Labour government and unafraid of doing the extra homework to get there.
One of the vanguard of the 2010 intake promoted rapidly by Ed Miliband, it’s clear that learning from the past has been at the heart of her own plans for welfare reform. And reconnecting the system to its 1945 roots is central to her mission. “The welfare state was built as a giant insurance model,” she tells The House. “You pay into the system and you draw down on your contributions when you need to, whether it’s because you have had a family, you lose a job or become ill or disabled or when you retire.
“That was Beveridge’s and Attlee’s welfare state and I want to protect the integrity of that system. That means that you need to contribute to the system. The contributory principle has been eroded over decades.”
Although Labour “will have more to say on those things as we get closer to the general election,” she makes clear that a Reeves-led DWP would restore that principle to the Job Seeker’s Allowance, giving an extra £20 a week to someone who has worked for three or four years.
She’s also keen to stress that a Labour government would take seriously voters’ concerns about migrants claiming welfare. “The vast majority of people who come to this country, they contribute and they pay more in taxes than they withdraw on benefits,” she says. “But I don’t think it’s right that someone should be able to come to this country and be able to start claiming benefits on day one. Or that they should be able to claim child benefit for children who are living overseas. The welfare state wasn’t built for them to able to do that, and it’s not affordable to do that.
“But also it just jars with people’s basic principle of fairness. I wouldn’t expect to go to Spain or Poland to work and to be able to claim benefits for my family back in the UK. And I don’t think it’s right that other people should be able to come to this country and claim benefits for overseas. I think a number of months before you have any entitlement to the system, you should have to have paid into the system before you draw down on benefits.”
Reeves points out that Germany recently hinted it wanted to be tougher too. “All countries in the European Union have their own welfare states and welfare is supposed to be an issue of national sovereignty, so we should be able to make decisions about how our welfare state works. As the European Union is expanded, you need to make sure we keep pace with other parts of European legislation as well.”
Toughening up the message on welfare is a key challenge in the next few months, not least because the Conservatives are sure to hammer home their claim that Labour is now ‘the Welfare Party’. Unsurprisingly, it’s a charge Reeves rejects.
“I just don’t think it’s an accurate portrayal of who we are in the Labour party. We are the party of work, the party formed to give a voice for working people. I want to control the costs of the social security, I want to do it in a way that is sustainable, but also in a way that’s progressive and consistent with my values.”
But what does she make of the claim that Ed Miliband’s single biggest tactical mistake this Parliament was the decision to vote against the household benefit cap? “We had very real concerns, we didn’t think that proper due diligence had been taken over it. So we did know that in some parts of the country that has created problems of homelessness, of families having to be moved and disrupted, breaking up family networks. We wouldn’t have done it in the way that they did it. But right from the beginning when there was that vote we said that we supported a cap and we are not going to reverse that if we are elected next year.”
Labour is also looking at a regional cap to reflect different rents in different parts of the country. “I think it is right that you shouldn’t be able to get more in benefits than you get in work so I have always been a supporter of a cap on benefits for individual households. But we’ve got to get it right.”
Polls show that Labour is still trailing badly behind the Tories as a party most prepared to ‘take tough decisions’. Is Ed Miliband’s team running out of time to change those perceptions? “A lot of the polls on welfare show that we have narrowed that gap and on some polls that we’ve closed that gap with the Tories. I think partly because everybody thinks that you need to control the costs of social security, but people are really concerned about who pays the price, you see so many horror stories, particularly with what’s happening to people with disabilities who are being hit with delays.”
As a former Shadow Chief Secretary, Reeves is also unafraid of being seen to keep a tight rein on spending, and warns there “will be further cuts to be made after the next election”.
Her successor in the post, Chris Leslie, admitted last month that his enforcement of the party’s tough ‘zero-based’ spending review could make him the ‘most hated man in the country’ after 2015. Is she prepared for a similar backlash in the DWP? “When I was Shadow Chief Secretary I started the zero-based review and I was very sorry to hand that over to Chris,” she says, laughing. “We are under no illusions of what settlement we are going to face next year.”
But Reeves is very serious about cutting welfare costs by taking action on low pay. “What I want to do as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is to tackle some of those drivers of the rising welfare bill. And that means increasing the minimum wage, trying to ensure more people are paid the Living Wage, building housing to try and control the rises in rent. Those tangible concrete polices first of all give people more dignity that they can afford to live, without having to rely on tax credits and housing benefits to be able to make ends meet, but also they would relieve pressure on the social security system.”
This summer former KPMG deputy chairman Alan Buckle published his independent report on low pay, setting out plans to give the Low Pay Commission and the HMRC new powers. But the most eye-catching proposal was Buckle’s call for central government to lead the way on the Living Wage by ensuring that firms bidding for public contracts pay all their staff the higher rate.
The plan is something Labour is “looking at” for their manifesto, Reeves says, and points to examples of public and private sector firms who’ve benefited from moving to the Living Wage. “If you talk to firms like Barclays, they say that the turnover of staff means there are fewer costs in recruitment, and the boosts in productivity mean that the Living Wage pays for itself. There are loads of really positive examples about how in difficult economic circumstances you can afford to pay a living wage,” she says. “I want to use those examples of best practice in the public and private sectors to determine how a future Labour government would act, and that would mean, over time, having public sector procurement requiring a Living Wage. That’s something we’re looking at for the manifesto, it’s something I think is possible and something I really would want to see a Labour government achieve.”
Reeves is also a big fan of the Living Wage Foundation’s efforts to accredit firms who pay the wage with their ‘kitemark’, borrowing David Cameron’s phrase and pointing out that in business – just as in politics – ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’. “When you go to the supermarket and you buy tea or coffee or sugar or chocolate, you can decide whether you want to buy Fair Trade or not. And the Living Wage Foundation accredits employers like you do with Fair Trade. So you can make a decision as a consumer: do I want to spend my money in a supermarket that pays their workers a wage they can afford to live on, or do I want to shop somewhere that’s paying just the minimum wage? I think giving consumers that information on wages would be a really powerful driver of change.”
Concrete policies on low pay will be unveiled in the coming months, but Labour’s flagship employment policy, the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, is already taking shape. The party is preparing to announce a working group, made up of key figures from across the public and private sectors, to look at how to best implement the scheme, which will offer a taxpayer-funded job to all 18-24 year-olds out of work for more than a year – with those refusing losing benefits.
The implementation of the programme will form the centrepiece of Reeves’s ‘access talks’ with DWP Permanent Secretary Robert Devereux in the autumn, and in the coming months Reeves and her Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms will step up meetings with business groups, including the CBI, the BCC and the BRC, to ensure the programme is workable in practice and ready to be rolled out “very early on in the next Parliament”.
Reeves is confident that Labour’s message and policies on tackling low pay and job insecurity will attract back the party’s traditional voters, including those tempted by the UKIP insurgency that threatens its heartlands. And although she insists they are not targeted at one particular group of voters, her policies on migrant and contributory benefits may also help stem the tide.
“People are voting UKIP for all sorts of reasons and we have to take that seriously and we have to listen,” she says. “People have very real concerns about a whole number of issues, about how the economy is working for them and their families, about changes they’ve seen in their communities, about what’s happening to their wages – that they haven’t had a pay rise for, in some cases, seven or eight years, that they don’t feel confident asking for a pay rise because they know there are more people who would step into their job, or that they’re not confident about asking for extra hours and they’re are on zero-hour contracts.
“A lot of people are feeling like the economy isn’t working for them. They feel let down. And they see Nigel Farage saying that he has all the answers, and I do understand why people want to put their trust in someone else who says they’ve got all the answers. But I don’t think they do have the answers. And it’s up to Labour to set out an alternative.”
Reeves has more experience than most in taking the fight to Farage; in 2006, the then 27 year-old Bank of England economist stood against the UKIP leader in the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
In the event, the Conservatives retained the Bromley seat comfortably, with Farage pushing Labour into fourth place – the lowest by-election placing for a governing party since Liverpool Walton in 1991. “It was a time when Labour were not doing so well in the polls,” Reeves remembers with wry smile. “But it was a great experience, sort of an apprenticeship. I enjoyed being the candidate and I thought ‘this is something I feel I could really contribute to and make a difference.’”
Farage and Reeves both hail from near Bromley, though with distinctly different backgrounds. “He’s from that neck of the woods, north Kent, and went to Dulwich College, which is not that far from where I grew up – although I went to a very different type of school!” Reeves says. “This man of the people, who’s a stockbroker who went to public school? It defies belief in my view…”
Her own school, Cator Park Comprehensive (now a Harris Academy) was a former secondary modern. “When I was doing my GCSEs,” she remembers, “our headteacher said we should all keep our fingers crossed that day for the first ever girl from our school who was applying to Oxbridge. And that was when I thought. ‘Oh, somebody from our school is going to Oxford, maybe I could go to Oxford?’ I didn’t grow up knowing people who had been to those sorts of universities and it wasn’t something that was expected I guess at my school. The majority of my friends didn’t go on to university.”
Reeves did indeed go to Oxford, followed by postgraduate study at the LSE and then a job at the Bank of England (where she met a young Matthew Hancock on her first day). But she’s determined more can be done to widen access. “We say people should aspire but you can only aspire if you know what is out there in the world. Role models are really, really important. Which is why I passionately believe in comprehensive education. Because if you separate out kids based on parental income or a test at age 10 or 11 then you are going to close down aspiration and opportunities.”
Reeves is also proud that the sea-change from the 11-plus to the comprehensive system was driven in part by a former Leeds MP, Alice Bacon. Her biography of Bacon, one of her own role models, is clearly a labour of love. The daughter of a coal miner, she was elected to the NEC at just 30 and served as an MP from 1945 to 1970. “Before I got elected, she was the only woman ever to have been an MP in Leeds out of the eight constituencies,” Reeves says. “I’m the second woman and there was a 40 year gap between 1970 and 2010.”
Bacon rose to be Minister of State at the Home Office under Roy Jenkins at a time when the death penalty was abolished, homosexuality decriminalised and abortion legalised. She then became Minister of State at the Department for Education, where she began to introduce comprehensive education, “her driving passion”. “She spoke about comprehensive education in Parliament before anybody else, she raised it more times between 1945 and 1970 than any other MP,” Reeves says. “Obviously [Tony] Crosland is associated with that, but it was ministers like Alice who made it possible, who raised it and then did the hard graft of implementing it. To have risen from a working class background in West Yorkshire in the 1930s and 1940s to become an MP was an incredible achievement. I hope it won’t be another 40 years before there’s another woman MP in Leeds.”
As one of the young women in Labour’s frontbench team to have had a child this Parliament, Reeves believes Parliament can do much more to look like the people it represents. “When I came back from maternity leave exactly this time last year, people thought I’d had six months ‘off politics’. But actually the politics of talking to other mums and learning first hand as a parent about the numbers of midwives, using GP surgeries, going to children’s centres, it certainly brings home some of the things I’ve always spoken about. You definitely see things in a different way.”
It was this time last year too that she hit the headlines after Newsnight editor Ian Katz referred to her as ‘boring snoring’. Looking back, what does she think lay behind his remarks? Katz was “just a bit rude”, she says. “It’s up to him to decide what he wants on his programme; I was asked to go on to talk about zero hours, insecurity and low pay. That’s what I talked about. Maybe it’s not particularly exciting, but actually that matters to people more than any other issue. That’s what I went into politics to do, and that’s what I’m going to continue to talk about.”
REEVES ON...THE NEED FOR LABOUR 'CUTS'
“There’s nothing progressive about running a deficit. Keynes was all in favour of running deficits when the private sector weren’t spending but as the economy begins to recover you need to start repaying the debt.”
REEVES ON..RISING WELFARE BILLS
"The rise in welfare spending under this Government has been for people in work, not for people out of work because we have a record number of people who are now on a wage they can’t afford to live on."
REEVES ON...BECOMING A MOTHER
“I’m sure it’s changed me as a person. And maybe as a politician as well."
REEVES ON...WOMEN MPS
"We need to do better if we want the best people in politics. That means getting more women in politics."
“I’m confident people who voted for UKIP, but who have traditionally voted Labour, will come back to Labour. Not because they’ve just had a protest vote, but because as we get closer to the election people see what’s at stake, and that you’ve only got two choices about who’s going to be Prime Minister: David Cameron or Ed Miliband”
Words: Daniel Bond
Photos: Paul Heartfield
"Every single male trade unionist is now a born-again feminist,” Frances O’Grady announces. “I have ordered it should be!”
The first female general secretary of the TUC is sitting in her Congress House office in Bloomsbury, discussing sexism in the trade union movement past and present. “Clearly, trade unions are made up of ordinary people, in all our glory as human beings,” she continues. “So of course there was and is still sexism in the movement, in the same way there is sexism in public life. But we’re getting there, slowly. There’s more work to do, it’s not fast enough, but we are getting there.”
Her feminist diktat is, of course, tongue in cheek. And in any case, the holders of this office no longer command that level of obedience; gone are the days when the head of the TUC sat at the top table as one of the most powerful figures in the country, striking fear into the hearts of prime ministers and chancellors.
But there’s certainly more than a grain of truth in her joke, too. Gone, also, is the idea of the male-dominated, ‘beer and sandwiches’ labour movement of the last century. A trade unionist in 2014 is just as likely to be a young, degree-educated woman working in a profession as the blue-collar man of stereotype. The proportion of female workers who are members of a union overtook that of men a decade ago, and the gap has grown ever wider since. The latest figures show 55% of union members are female. And while progress towards equality in the top positions has been slow, the TUC’s latest Equality Audit showed 41% of its general council are women, as are three in ten union general secretaries.
“It’s not good enough,” O’Grady adds firmly after listing the figures. “But it’s a lot better than the board room, and especially better than Cabinet. What’s different is we’re taking action to promote equality, not just in our own ranks, but in the world of work. Of course the trade union movement was not and is not perfect. But it is trade unions who campaigned for and won equal pay, and an end to sex discrimination, and things like childcare, like help if you’re looking after elderly parents. You know, this is the real stuff that makes a difference to people’s lives, and in particular gives women more of a fighting chance to get through.”
And Frances O’Grady knows a thing or two about fighting her way through. Born in Oxford in late 1959 and educated at a comprehensive, as a teenager she worked in a kitchen washing dishes at an Oxford University college; an experience which motivated her to challenge what she saw as a system based on privilege and inequality. She read politics at Manchester, then joined the TGWU in the 1980s, at a time when the battles against sexism in the workplace were, she says, “much more wild west” than they are now. “At that time, as trade unionists, we were still campaigning against, for example, pornographic pinups in the workplace. We started a campaign against sexual harassment at a time when it didn’t even have a name, you know.”
After co-authoring a book entitled Women, Work and Maternity: the inside story, and earning a reputation as a successful campaigning trade unionist, she joined the TUC in the mid-1990s and led their New Unionism initiative. In 2003 she made history as the body’s first deputy general secretary, before being elected unopposed to replace her former boss Brendan Barber in January 2013. Articulate, down to earth and rident, O’Grady is at heart a consensus leader and believer in the soft power of persuasion. She has shunned the more confrontational language of some other union leaders and played down talk of general strikes and winters of discontent throughout this parliament, instead arguing that unions need to come up with more imaginative, bolder strategies to advance their aims.
But, as the Government found out last week, she’s certainly not afraid to back mass strike action if she feels it necessary. Up to a million public sector workers across half a dozen unions are estimated to have taken part in the biggest one-day strike this side of the Second World War, angered over changes to pensions and years of real-terms pay cuts; the average public sector worker, O’Grady says, has lost more than £40 a week since 2010.
“So this has a huge impact, and I’m astonished, frankly – maybe I shouldn’t be – by how out of touch this government is in not listening to those workers. There are parts of the press who like to portray trade unions as ‘horny-handed sons of toil’, and mindless militants and so on. Well, these are home-helps, librarians, refuse collectors, school meals workers who don’t fit that stereotype but who simply cannot manage their budgets anymore, and now, as we’ve heard, they’re being told they’re going to have another four years of it, with real pay cuts continuing to 2018.
“Given the Government has refused to engage in real consultation and negotiation and is just imposing these changes, it’s not surprising that they’ve run out of patience and they’re angry and upset – and the only way of protest left to them is to go on strike.”
With the Conservatives committed to £12bn more in public spending cuts in the next parliament, and Labour pledging to match their plans – at least in the first year – are we likely to see more widespread industrial action continuing after 2015? “If the Government is to push ahead with its plans to cut a further £12bn from public spending, then I think it needs to answer the question: where is that money going to come from?” she replies. “We’ve already lost half a million jobs. People are sweating to cover the jobs that have been left vacant or have gone. Ordinary people in communities are asking how much more is going to be taken away in the form of libraries, nurseries, services to old people and the disabled. People on benefits – and of course the majority of people on benefits are in work – are asking how much more of that is going to disappear?
“So I think the Government has got some hard questions to answer. And if they can’t answer them in a way that satisfies, then without doubt there will be trouble ahead.”
The public sector action last week attracted much of the media attention, but there was another strike that day which could have equally far-reaching implications for industrial relations. Staff at the Ritzy cinema in Brixton went on strike for the seventh time in their four-month long campaign to win the London living wage, currently set at £8.80 an hour. This new generation of young workers, struggling on low pay in casualised industries, are “precisely” the people unions need to start “showing we’re relevant to”, O’Grady says. “And we’re beginning to do that.”
Union membership is considerably lower among younger workers, particularly those employed in the private sector. “But that’s not because young people are more individualist, or less friendly towards unions – they support our values,” O’Grady says, pointing to polling from recent years showing almost four in five 18-24-year-olds backed public sector strikes against changes to pensions, compared with a little under half of over-65s. “It’s because of where they work and how they work. They are much more likely to be ghettoised into industries like hotel and catering, where the turnover is very high, where it’s very hard to build sustainable union organisation, and where, frankly, they’re often very afraid that if they were to stick their head above the parapet they would lose their job, or they wouldn’t get promoted, or they’d find the next short-term temporary contract they’re looking for – because of course young people are much more likely to be in insecure contracts – just doesn’t arrive.”
The challenge for unions, then, is to take a much wider approach, building broad alliances and coalitions rooted not just in individual workplaces but across local communities, and backing grassroots campaigns against things like unpaid internships and zero-hours contracts, or encouraging employers to voluntarily sign up to the living wage. There is a “new mood in the country”, she says, with more and more people recognising that “the only way they stand a chance of winning fair pay and decent conditions is by joining together in a union”. “We’re working more with self-organised groups; people are beginning to organise themselves and then seek the support of unions, which I find very exciting. It is a profound challenge, but it’s also an incredibly exciting one, because I’ve seen more inspiration coming up through the grassroots – there’s that sense that trade unions are returning to the communities that gave birth to us, that sense that yes, we are people’s voice at work, but increasingly people in communities are looking for us to be their voice, too."
Membership figures for unions over the course of this parliament are encouraging for O’Grady: the number of members picked up for the first time in a decade in 2012, driven primarily by an increase of tens of thousands of workers in the private sector. But, of course, this follows decades of steep decline since the 1980s, an era which O’Grady says “saw inequality let rip” and the trade union values of solidarity and collective action demolished. “Effectively, it was ‘you’re on your own, pull your socks up, look after yourself and forget about your neighbour’,” she says.
But the unions, too, have to accept their share of the responsibility for struggling to keep pace with the changing environment. “We’ve got to adapt and change to the new pretty brutal world of work for many people, and also to find ways to make our values – of working people looking after each other, of solidarity, decency, dignity at work, fair pay and conditions – we need to make those as important as they’ve ever been.”
“In 21st-century Britain,” she continues, “it seems that young people who work so hard to get their qualifications are, on average, on very low pay, and often in insecure work. And we have to tackle that. There is a real problem with the labour market; it’s becoming a permanent feature. That’s not how a fair Britain should be in the 21st century. So there’s a lot that’s happening, but ultimately we need to tackle the source of the problem.” And above all, she says, the source of the problem is political.
The TUC is not officially affiliated to Labour, but O’Grady concedes she is impressed with the direction of the party under Ed Miliband; a man who, from pledging to take action on low pay to taking on the energy companies over rising fuel bills, has proven that he not only “has a big brain” and “cares passionately about ordinary people”, but that he “has a little bit of steel in the soul as well”.
But, she adds, there is a “real sense of grievance” across the country that politicians in all the main parties have not done enough to understand. In October, the TUC will hold a march and rally in Hyde Park entitled ‘Britain Needs a Pay Rise’, aimed at highlighting the squeeze in living standards and real wage cuts experienced by working people in both the private and public sectors. “It’s a simple message, but quite a powerful one that politicians from across the spectrum need to hear. This is a deeper problem than one party or another. I think it’s a problem of politics; there is a failure to understand just how tough it is for ordinary people, and that there is a limit to how much people can take.”
As for the Conservatives’ recent pledge to introduce a minimum 50% turnout threshold for strike ballots, O’Grady is clear: such an “out-of-touch” policy would be a big mistake, and “go down very badly” with mainstream voters. “I think most people in this country have a sense of fair play; they understand that unions are an essential feature of any democracy, and that if you’re in a trade union you have democratic rights too,” she says. “And I think they find it very hard to understand why there should be one test of a democratic ballot for trade unions, and an entirely different, easier test for politicians. One rule for politicians, and another rule for everybody else? No, those times have gone.”
If the Government was genuinely interested in encouraging democracy in unions and improving turnout in strike ballots, she continues, ministers would be open to working with the TUC to develop modern voting methods, including secure electronic balloting. “The problem is we’re stuck with these 20th-century forms of balloting imposed on us. Frankly, if you could only vote by post for your local council or in a general election, I suspect that participation would drop significantly too. Any democrat, in whatever party, their first priority should be how can we make it easier and more likely that people will exercise their right to vote? And we know what works; we know how we can improve participation. It’s perfectly possible to do. So let’s find what works and what will boost participation. That should be our first and overriding principle.”
But the threshold policy is just one part of a wider, more worrying shift underway at the top of the Conservative party away from cooperation and towards confrontation, she fears, with some ministers also mooting time limits on strike mandates, reform of the ‘check-off’ system and a crackdown on time off for union reps in the civil service.
“I think they need to rethink their strategy, really. I think it would be a profound mistake for the Conservatives to position themselves as anti-trade union. There are many ordinary, decent people – including, of course, some Conservative members – who are members of trade unions, and who find the language and the politics being proposed for the future very hard to take and out of touch with mainstream opinion in the country.
“I know there are decent people across the parties who are worried about this, and I suspect it’s not the Prime Minister’s natural inclination either. There’s a sense that there is, if you like, a group of Conservative politicians who want to replay the Thatcher era. But I don’t think there’s an appetite in the country for that.”
A consensus leader to the core, the last thing Frances O’Grady wants is a replay of the destructive confrontations of the 1970s and 80s. But she didn’t become the first woman to lead the TUC without being up for a fight.