Yvette Cooper has been interviewed by Decca Aitkenhead. It was so awful that I paused for 24 hours and re-read the interview, in case I was in an overly negative frame of mind. I wanted to write about it because I fear that the problems highlighted in the interview are part of a much wider problem in the Labour leadership:
- The ‘do something’ versus ‘do nothing’ soundbite is deeply uninspiring – particularly when ‘doing something’ appears to be expensive and ineffective
- Labour lacks empathy and emotional connection and senior ministers appear to be technocrats rather than politicians
- The lack of ability to motivate and build a coalition limits our ability to tackle the big challenges of our times
First, a few caveats. Decca Aitkenhead was recently named interviewer of the year by her peers. This means that other journalists like her work – which suggests that it may not be very effective at putting politicians in a great light. I remember two recent interviews she conducted, with Alastair Campbell and William Hague. I like both of them but didn’t warm to either of the people she met when she conducted the interview. So on one level, I will gladly give Ms Cooper the benefit of the doubt. But that wasn’t reason enough to consent to the interview. Also, she may have had a ‘bad day at the office’ (think Manchester United of late) and so given a poor interview. That’s unfortunate but should be dismissed quickly.
However, even taking this into account, I think the interview gave a really bad account of a senior junior minister and highlighted deep flaws in Labour’s focus.
The article begins with the Aitkenhead reflecting on the last time she met Ms Cooper:
“She was earnestly engaged in formulating a policy phrase that would distinguish government borrowing (for a fiscal stimulus to get us out of the financial crisis) from personal borrowing (of the sort which got us into it).”
That’s interesting – and doubtless a useful endeavour. But that was last September and on the public evidence available, it appears still to be work in progress.
She is then taken to task over the effectiveness of the VAT cut. Yvette Cooper argues:
“It might not make a difference to you on a Thursday afternoon, if you’re going shopping for something, but that’s not the test. The question is, what difference does it make to you at the end of the month? And on average, at the end of the month, every household is £20 better off. If you do that across the board, in the end that’s more money in the economy, making a difference.”
That seems like a pretty good argument to me and I’ve not heard it expressed in terms of being £20 a month better off. That may not be the Yvette Cooper’s fault (it may indeed be mine) but I’ve read every email that a minister has sent me over the last year as a Labour member and don’t remember the figure – so the communications is failing somewhere.
Aitkenhead continues:
“For a flagship policy, I suggest, its emotional impact has nonetheless been weak.”
Cooper says:
“If you’re looking for headline impact, that’s a different thing. But the economic impact was that it was the fastest way to get cash into the economy. We were trying to get money out there very, very quickly. It happened in a matter of days, and at a time when the economy needs support, being able to do that rapidly was hugely important.”
That’s a problem. Surely solving the economic crisis needs an emotional connection. We will spend more money when we are confident about the economy. We will borrow – and be leant – more money when we are confident about the economy. If the VAT cut was to work, it needed to inspire confidence. It didn’t. And politically, a big (expensive) policy such as this really needed an emotional connection.
She’s then challenged on Mervyn King’s evidence to the Treasury select committee that Britain couldn’t afford another stimulus. Her response is at first unintelligible:
“I mean, look, he’s got to think about the interaction; he’s got to think about what monetary policy does; take account of the position on fiscal policy when he makes his monetary policy decisions, when the monetary policy committee makes its monetary policy decision and vice versa.”
Answers on a postcard, please.
She then goes on to say:
“Look, you know, Mervyn King is a hugely respected economist and he’s answering questions at the Treasury select committee. In fact, he had to do the House of Commons select committee and the House of Lords select committee, and answer a huge range of questions.
Which to me, suggests that she’s saying that he was economists are correctly concerned about the affordability of a new stimulus package.
She then gets in an attack line:
“I think the Conservatives are desperate to demonstrate they’re not isolated, so it’s politic for them to claim Mervyn King is backing their position, which is complete nonsense.”
But of course, no one thinks the Conservatives are isolated, given that they have the support of the largest number of people who will vote at the next election. And the case remains unmade for why the Tory claim is nonsense.
There’s then a much better attack:
I think the philosophical difference between our approach and the Conservatives’ approach is whether or not you’re prepared to use the power of government to support the economy.
And it’s great to hear a minister talking in those terms.
But then there’s three paragraphs which are “technically detailed, but not terribly illuminating”.
On Fred Goodwin she says:
“It’s interesting, I mean, I think the bonus stuff was just outrageous”.
I don’t remember 5live getting many texts saying “Fred Goodwin’s bonus is interesting”.
On the City the chief secretary had this to offer:
“I do remember having a series of meet-and-greets with some senior City bankers early last year . . . several of them only wanted to talk about non-doms’ taxation. It was the only thing they wanted to talk about . . . And you think, actually, they turned out not to be quite as visionary as they thought they were. It was quite – interesting – at the time. It was really interesting.”
At this point I all but gave up. Interesting? It is certainly interesting that you met senior people in the City a year ago. Can you imagine an education secretary saying: “I met some teachers last year. It was interesting”?
On the idea that a husband and wife could be prime minister and senior minister she says:
“I think it would be a very weird thing for us to be spending our time thinking about. We should be worrying about the fact that neither of us are picking the kids up on Friday.”
I can understand her reticence to talk about her children. But should she really be so keen to describe her “normal” life rather than engage in politics?
And in the closing part of the interview, my entire problem is summed up when she says:
“If you’re saying . . . should I be coming up with a soundbite that will get me on the front pages, it’s certainly true that instead I prefer to think about what we actually do about it.”
For me, this interview highlights three serious problems that Labour has. I’m not going to knock on doors night in, night out in support of the “do something” party against the “do nothing” party. It has to be better than that; more aspirational, more visionary, more tangible. Political technocrats like Yvette Cooper aren’t going to inspire confidence or build coalitions of support. And politicians that can’t empathise with how people are feeling and can’t express the big political challenges we face not only undermine their own cause but restrict their ability to tackle the challenges of our times.
As Tony Blair said: “If we can’t beat this lot, we don’t deserve to be in politics”. It seems he was right.