I assume you are all by now aware of the ongoing furore about that Labour Tweet. ‘Do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison?’ it asks – a question few outside the old Paedophile Information Exchange would struggle to answer in the negative. But the whizkids in Blackfriars Road think they have found a man who wouldn’t.
‘Rishi Sunak doesn’t’, with the addition of his signature providing his mocking imprimatur. ‘Under the Tories, 4,500 adults convicted of sexually assaulting children under 16 served no prison time. Labour will lock up dangerous child abusers.’ The 4,500 figure is attributed to Ministry of Justice data. The suggestion: Sunak is soft on child abusers. Labour, by contrast, will be tough on paedos, and tough on the causes of paedos.
Cue uproar. Lee Anderson – CCHQ’s rapid rebuttal/bare-knuckle boxing unit – called it “gutter politics” and “vile and desperate”. Sayeeda Warsi called it a “dog whistle” – but didn’t miss a chance to blame Suella Braverman too. The Mirror‘s Kevin Maguire came off his high horse to call for it to come down, and George Eaton of The New Statesman urged Labour not to engage in pandering to prejudice (forgive him, oh Lord). Lucy Powell was embarrassed by it on the BBC. Even John McDonnell found it a bit extreme.
Some also accused Labour of hypocrisy. Michael Fabricant pointed out that when Boris Johnson brought up Keir Starmer’s failure to prosecute Jimmy Saville whilst serving as Director of Public Prosecutions last year, Labour accused him of a “deliberate slur”. John Rentoul suggested Labour’s claim against Sunak was just as bad – and “an admission of weakness”.
The Tweet is fundamentally flawed. It uses cumulative figures from the last 13 years of Conservative government. Sunak wasn’t even an MP for five of those. Before becoming Prime Minister, he never held a ministerial role overseeing the criminal justice system. If the ludicrous claim that he wants to go easy on abusers is true, he has never been in a position to do so.
It (obviously) does not provide detail of individual cases – or that non-custodial sentences are predominantly handed out to online or grooming offences. Not to excuse those crimes, of course. But rape, gross indecency, exploitation, assault, and other forms of sexual activity with a child see at least six in ten, and upwards of three-quarters, of those convicted go to prison.
So: upsets Labour’s own supporters, makes the party look like hypocrites, and is fundamentally misleading. Another fine mess from the geniuses who brought you ‘the longest suicide note in history’ and the Ed Stone? Or is there some method to Labour’s madness? There must be a reason why the party has not yet taken the Tweet down, after all – other than a respectable refusal by staffers not to work on Good Friday.
The Huffington Post is reporting that “defiant Labour officials are unrepentant” and “are willing to repeat the stunt” at “next year’s general election”. “Sunak never condemned Johnson when he accused Keir of letting Jimmy Saville off,” one points out, “so fuck him”. Kinder, gentler politics. They continue: “Their entire 13-year record is up for grabs next year”. Crime is an obvious target, in Happy Valley Britain.
Labour has been holding talks with strategists from the Australian Labor(sic) Party, which was victorious last year, and the Democrats across the Atlantic. Their advice, apparently, is “to ignore the wailings of the people who expect you to be kind losers and fight as viciously as the Conservatives do”. If you can’t beat ‘em…
There is a logic to this. Conservatives are angry at the Tweet because it suggests the Prime Minister is soft on paedophiles. Labour types are angry at it because, in their eyes, it makes them just as nasty as the awful, evil, migrant-drowning, climate-killing, NHS-privatising, Clarkson-defending, puppy-massacring, Satan-worshipping Tories who are the root of all of Britain’s ills.
Starmer is sensible enough – or desperate enough for power – to know that listening to that wing of left-wing ‘thought’ over a public that wants crime dealt with is a golden ticket to electoral irrelevance. So from Labour’s perspective, the one thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
It’s like Vote Leave’s slapping of £350 million on the side of the bus during the referendum: the angrier it gets people, the more they are talking about it, the more people hear it, and the more it gets remembered. They may apologise for poor phrasing, but that 4,500 won’t go anywhere. They’re getting all up in CCHQ’s OODA loop.
Unfortunately, there are two problems I can spot with Labour’s cunning plan. As Tony Blair showed, cutting a dash means not only convincing voters your opponent is ineffective, but that you are more competent. Starmer is struggling with that. Focus groups label him an “irritating brother who just nit-picks”, as Sunak edges ahead in the ‘Best PM’ stakes. Even The Guardian aren’t convinced.
The other problem that Starmer has with pronouncing on issues of law and order is his own past as the Director of Public Prosecutions. After all, the sentencing guidelines his party condemns today were set by the Sentencing Council – on which he sat. Unlike Sunak, he directly oversaw the setting of the current rules for the sexual assault of children in 2013. That’s before one gets to the record of Labour-led councils in regard to grooming gangs. Yvette – are we the baddies?
I’ve long been surprised that CCHQ hasn’t made more of Starmer’s time as DPP. Yes, Johnson tried to – but that was the unedifying inkjet of a surprised squid under fire. So far, Sunak has been focused first on firefighting, and then on establishing his own reputation for competence. The keen cricketer that he is, I’m sure he will soon be looking to get on the front foot.