Who do Labour MPs represent? The party, the voters or the unions?

By Mark Wallace
Follow Mark on Twitter. 

Oh dear. It seems that having bailed out the Morning Star, a paper which has coincidentally been very flattering about him of late, Unite's Len McCluskey now expects other left wing news outlets to dance to his tune.

Guido has revealed a letter sent by Len to the Editor of the New Statesman raging against "confected" reports that he wanted Ed Miliband to sack the Blairites in the Shadow Cabinet.

In fairness to the Unite leader, the quotes in the article don't show him calling for sackings. They say if Ed is "seduced" by Blairites "then the truth is that he’ll be defeated and he’ll be cast into the dustbin of history." All very measured, I'm sure you agree...

Did you know that 44 Labour MPs rebelled against Ed Miliband last week?

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

The Labour leader is constantly promising to stand up to vested interests and - as Stephan Shakespeare has pointed out - it's a powerful message at a time when voters are seeing their costs rise and their incomes fall. People have a sense that big banks, big energy companies and big government is not accountable. ConHome has ran a whole series on how the Tory leadership might stand up for the little guy. We've applauded the way that Tory MP Charlotte Leslie has championed the patient against the bureaucrat inside the NHS.

But back to Mr Miliband. Rachel Sylvester uses her Times column (£) to describe the "Digital Bennism"* that last week encouraged 44 Labour MPs to rebel against the frontbench. The issue concerned the ability of the Government to impose certain sanctions on jobseekers. The Labour frontbench wanted to abstain on the Government's proposals because it is *sometimes* sensitive to the suggestion that it is too soft on welfare claimants. A Left-wing online campaign, however - ran by "Digital Bennites" - encouraged 44 of Ed Miliband's parliamentary comrades to defy the whip and vote against the Coalition's measures.

For Rachel Sylvester this Old Labour rebellion might be the shape of things to come. At some point the Labour leadership is going to have to decide whether it will go into the next election promising to oppose George Osborne's spending plans (in which case it'll be hit by a 1992-tax-bombshell-style campaign) or if it will match his spending plans and risk the fury of Labour's Left. Last week's rebellion of the 44 - encouraged by the increasingly important Left-wing voices on Twitter (eg @OwenJones84) and the paymaster trade unions (eg the militant Len McCluskey) - was a warning to Mr Miliband that the biggest vested interest of them all can be found in his party and movement. Go to a Labour Party Conference and you can hardly find an entrepreneur or a private sector job creator. Labour is a party dominated by the public sector workforce and the welfare state. It defends the perks and privileges of the public sector and it advances the interests of the bureaucracy that administers the welfare state as well as the welfare state's unfocused sprawl. There may be trouble ahead for Mr Miliband.

* The online American Left are called the "nutroots".

New Tory leaflet warns that a mansions tax would result in "government snoopers" revaluing your home

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Labour is today proposing a motion in favour of a mansions tax. It reads as follows:

"That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2m, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity."

Ed Miliband had hoped that the Lib Dems might back the motion - a mansions tax was, after all, Vince Cable's policy before it was Ed Balls'. After Cable had appeared to flirt with supporting the Labour motion the Coalition partners have agreed an alternative motion that captures the differing Tory and Lib Dem views on the taxation of high value properties:

"Line 1, leave out from ‘House’ to end and add ‘notes that this coalition government has cut income tax for 25 million people, taking over 2.2 million low income individuals out of income tax altogether, while at the same time increasing taxes on the wealthy, including raising stamp duty on expensive properties and restricting tax reliefs; further notes that both parts of the coalition continue to support tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes; notes that the part of the coalition led by the deputy prime minister also advocates a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m, as set out in his party’s manifesto, and the part of the coalition led by the prime minister does not advocate a mansion tax; and further notes that the top rate of income tax will be higher under this government than under any year of the previous administration and that the rich are now paying a higher percentage of income tax than at any time under the previous administration, demonstrating that it presided over an unfair tax system where the rich paid less and the poor paid more in tax than now, meaning nobody will trust the opposition’s promises on tax fairness.’."

Conservative HQ meanwhile senses a political opportunity and has unveiled leaflets, warning homeowners that Labour wants to "snoop" around their houses, looking to revalue them and increase the tax burden on them. Coalition etiquette means that the leaflets don't also talk about a Lib Dem homes tax but the posters could easily be adapted to do just that.

Be careful what you wish for, Conservative MPs who want statutory press regulation

by Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

There are three broad interest groups who want statutory regulation of newspapers - and, I think, the blogosphere too.

• First, ordinary victims of hacking or intrusion.  These include Kate and Gerry McCann and Christopher Jeffries and, at one remove though a very close one, relatives of the Hillsborough victims and the 7/7 dead.

• Second, celebrities.

• Third, the Left.  I'm not thinking only of Ed Miliband and Labour - or even of large parts of the Liberal Democrats - but of such campaigns as Hacked Off and the Media Standards Trust which, it's fair to say, lean to the left of the political spectrum.

All this is a reminder that fewer people than you might think join the debate about the media in Britain with clean hands - or, at least, with an open mind.

Much of the right would like to see the BBC closed or broken up or privatised, for example.  But it isn't the BBC which is under the magnifying glass this week.  It's Fleet Street.

Much of the left hate the way in which the right-of-centre papers - that's pretty much everyone, in its view, bar the Guardian, Independent and Mirror - treat immigration, America, crime, the Monarchy, the environment, Israel, religion, and pretty much anything that falls within the catch-all category of political correctness.

In short, the left view the Mail and the Sun and the Telegraph in much the same way that those Rotherham social workers saw those UKIP-voting foster parents.

The vulnerable British public should, in their view, be snatched away "for their own good" from these dubious people with unacceptable views.

Essentially, they want to create a climate of opinion in which, for example, doubt can't be expressed about whether global warming is driven by human activity.  (Hence the phrase "Climate Change denial", which seeks to make questioning a scientific theory as illegitimate as questioning a historical fact, the Holocaust.)

A lot has been written about MPs seeking revenge for the expenses revelations by supporting statutory regulation.  I think it's exaggerated: MPs tend always to want more control of the press.

This being so, the 70 or so - there will, I'm sure, be more - Conservative MPs who have come out in support of press statutory regulation ought to be very careful what they wish for.

There is a real danger of them playing into the left's hands, as Benedict Brogan warns in today's Telegraph.  What's needed post-Leveson is a settlement that helps that first group, the ordinary victims, without aiding the aims of the third.  That's a new, non press-run complaints body with the power to fine and punish papers - which is, none the less, independent of the state.

Our sharp-eyed readers will have spotted that I've missed out that second group.  I wouldn't quite say, with Rhett Butler, that "frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn".  But almost.

Labour MPs attack Jubilee celebrations as irrational and "a show of opulence by state elites"

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

This morning, Tory MP Greg Hands tweeted: "Still lots of Labour MPs on Twitter carping and trying to find fault - any fault - they can with the Jubilee. Sad, but not surprising."

Hands was referring to the lack of positive tweets about the Jubilee celebrations coming from Labour MPs. A number of them were tweeting about the bad treatment of unemployed people used as stewards for the celebrations. Other thoughts from Labour MPs included:

Contagious infantalism silenced rational argument.

— Paul Flynn(@Paulflynnmp) June 6, 2012

Denis MacShane tried to put this angle on the coverage:

Professor friend abroad calls to say he was struck at all faces in Jubilee events seemed to be white. That right?

— Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane) June 6, 2012

The union that bankrolls Labour wants to disrupt the London Olympics

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey has caused outrage tonightby encouraging disruption of the Olympics through "civil disobedience". This is the full quote from The Guardian:

“The unions, and the general community, have got every right to be out protesting. If the Olympics provide us with an opportunity, then that's exactly one that we should be looking at. The idea the world should arrive in London and have these wonderful Olympic Games as though everything is nice and rosy in the garden is unthinkable. If we need to break the law in order to defend what are our basic human rights – right of association – then we will do that. You raise the Olympics because it's a focal point. And if there is a protest, then the purpose of protest is to bring your grievances to the attention of as many people as possible. When you say what can we do, and the likes of the Olympics, I'm calling upon the general public to engage in civil disobedience.”

Sayeeda Warsi, Tory Chairman, has wasted no time in condemning "Labour's biggest financial backer":

“This is an appalling display of naked self-interest by Labour’s biggest financial backer. The London Olympics will be a great occasion for this country. Is it disgraceful for a trade union boss to be calling for mass disruption when the eyes of the world will be on Britain. I am shocked that Unite would sink so low as to spoil this great national event for everyone else. Ed Miliband must urgently order his union cronies to rule out disrupting the Olympics.”

It is also important that Ken Livingstone condemns Unite. I know Boris Johnson will be on that case.

Ken Livingstone's route to victory: hanging George Osborne and prosecuting Tony Blair

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Ken Livingstone seems to get his Mayoral campaign into a new controversy every other week with some new remark about evil Tories. The remarks are usually made at a "Tell Ken" event - public meetings he is holding around London as he campaigns to re-enter City Hall at next year's election. 

A fortnight ago, Harry Phibbs reported Livingstone's words to a Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Councillor:

"All of you [should be sent to prison], all of you. I think it’s what Shirley Porter did, and you’re destroying lives, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And if there’s any justice you will burn in hell and your flesh will be flayed for demons for all eternity."

These sentiments may well appeal to fringe left-wing activists, but the questionable language is unlikely to win over floating and moderate Labour voters - you would think. 

Labour Shadow Education Minister argues for the abolition of private schools

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Stephen Twigg, a Blairite reformer, was appointed to the Shadow Education brief in Ed Miliband's last reshuffle. As a former Education Minister who helped the drive for academy schools in the New Labour years, it was hoped his appointment might signal Ed Miliband's support for the Coalition's Free Schools programme. 

Indeed, Twigg said earlier this month:

"On free schools, I am saying that we need to apply a set of tests, that we are not going to take an absolute policy of opposing them. The tests should be: will the school raise standards for pupils and parents, will it contribute to a narrowing of the achievement gap between rich and poor and what is the wider impact of that school?"

Unfortunately, any credibility that Twigg may have in his brief will be undermined by the class war, anti-rich sentiments of his deputy, Kevin Brennan (pictured above), who last night spoke in favour of abolishing private schools - a proposal last seen in Labour's 1983 manifesto, aka the "longest suicide note in history".

Brennan was speaking at the Oxford Union, where he proposed the motion "This House Would Abolish Private Schools". Brennan had previously spoken in favour of the same motion in his debut speech to the Oxford Union - as a student.

Media reaction to Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet reshuffle

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Following Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet reshuffle this afternoon, we can take a look at some of the reaction in the press:

• The Spectator's James Forsyth: "The Labour reshuffle is an attempt to bring more energy and aggression into Ed Miliband's top team. It is also a recognition that the party has failed to cut through on public service reform, hence new shadows at both health and education. Chuka Umunna's rapid promotion to shadow Business Secretary will, I suspect, dominate coverage of the reshuffle."
• The Daily Telegraph's James Kirkup: "Lord (Stewart) Wood is an old Brown hand who was already in the shadow cabinet. He’s joined there by his former office mate Michael Dugher ... stepping up from Ed’s PPS. Jon Trickett, the new shadow for the Cabinet Office, was also Mr Brown’s PPS. ... And the most interesting move of all is the arrival of the new Labour Party Deputy Chair and Campaign Coordinator: ladies and gents, I give you Mr Tom Watson." 
• Former education advisor to Blair, Conor Ryan: "It is good news that Stephen Twigg, an unashamed fan of academies, has been appointed by Ed Miliband as his new shadow education secretary. Andy Burnham never really regained the initiative having started badly"
• Iain Dale: "On balance, I would say that this reshuffle does indeed make Ed Miliband’s team stronger, especially from the point of view of getting on the media. That may seem a false priority, but if a politician can’t get on the media in opposition, they’re not much cop."
• The Daily Mail's Tim Shipman: "Tom [Watson] and Michael [Dugher] will both deny that they were part of the 'forces of hell', the group of Brown briefers who spent as much time denouncing their colleagues as their political opponents. But it is a fact that they were both close to Damian McBride before he disgraced himself. It is also worth remembering that McBride was also a brilliant Westminster operator before he got carried away. These guys understand the dark arts and they are good at them."

Ed Miliband to open up Labour leadership elections to the public?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter

Will Ed Miliband open up Labour's leadership elections to the public? Not quite. Mr Miliband has tabled proposals at a meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee to create "tens of thousands" of "registered supporters" who will be eligible to vote in future leadership elections. However, the "registered supporters" would be included in the part of Labour's electoral college which includes the unions and affiliated socialist societies (the Fabian Society, Christian Socialist Movement, Labour Students, etc), which means - on the face of it - the unions’ share of the leadership votes will be cut.

Contrary to how this news might be reported, the proposal is modest and does not mean ordinary folk will really be able to influence elections. The reality is that non-party members have always been able to vote - the affiliated societies section can include non-members, and the trade unions section already includes plenty of non-Labour members. For example, members and supporters of the Conservatives, who were also union members, were allowed a vote in last year's Labour leadership election.