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."

Sadiq Khan helps to rescue Engage. Does Ed Miliband back him?

by Paul Goodman

MPs met on Monday to discuss the future of an All Party Group on Islamophobia.  What took place sounds complex (according to reports) but was essentially simple.  One body of Parliamentarians - all Conservative - voted for Engage to be removed as the secretariat to the group.  Another body (mostly Labour) voted against the proposal.

The three acting co-Chairmen of the Group - Peter Bottomley, Simon Hughes and Jack Straw - are to consider Engage's record, and report back to its members in due course: all three of them voted not to dismiss the organisation.  Martin Bright sums up what happened by writing that Engage has been retained, and that, indeed, is the effect of what took place.

Three points stand out - 

• Any enquiry organised by Engage is now discredited in advance.  To date, the former Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the group - the Conservative MP Kris Hopkins and the Labour peer Lord Janner - have resigned from their positions in protest at the involvement of Engage.  The matter has spilled on to the floor of the Commons twice - see here and here.  Now MPs have divided almost down the middle about the organisation.  All Party Groups are by nature the most consensual of Parliamentary creatures, relying on collegiality and co-operation.  If Engage wanted to see one on Islamophobia work properly, they'd have withdrawn from the project when Hopkins and Janner quit.  The effectiveness of the new group is clearly less important to them than their own presence.

• Downing Street should take a special interest in what happens next.  Backbench MPs should be free to do whatever they like in relation to all party groups.  So if Peter Bottomley wants to be an officer of this one, that's a matter for him.  However, that's not to say that the Government is obliged to take no view of what an all party group says and does - and the same goes for the Party.  I understand that Number 10 is seriously concerned about Engage, partly for reasons which have been set out on this site.  It should therefore have a serious word with Lord Sheik, the Chairman of the Conservative Ethnic Diversity Council, who didn't vote to dismiss Engage: the Council, after all, is a body set up by the Party.

• Ed Miliband should be taking a special interest in Sadiq Khan's position.  Three very senior Labour MPs voted not to dismiss Engage - Jack Straw, Khan and Stephen Timms.  Timms is a member of Miliband's front bench team, and no reference to him is complete without noting that he survived a terrible murder attempt by an Islamist fanatic.  So's Khan, but he's much more senior - a member of the Shadow Cabinet, a former Communities and Local Government Minister and - very recently - an intemperate critic of the Prime Minister's Munich speech.  Miliband didn't back Khan's stance then.  So what's his view now?  Does he think that his Shadow Justice Secretary should back so controversial a venture?  What's the Labour Party's view of Engage?