Friday 13 January 2017

Goodbye to Tristram

It was nice for Stoke-on-Trent to make the news for something other than footy and the BNP. Less nice that it was my constituency party and my MP at the centre of it. Yes, as the world and its uncle now knows, Tristram Hunt is resigning the Stoke-on-Trent Central seat to take up the leadership of the Victoria & Albert in London. He can now spend more time with his young family, and it's a role he's temperamentally and culturally suited to. This then is going to be the first of three posts - the second will look at Stoke-on-Trent Central, the state of the local party, potential candidates and Labour's chances of holding on to the seat. This one is all about Tristram.

First things first, Tristram's announcement was greeted with the crows of his opponents, and the commiseration of his friends. For those identifying with the Corbynist left, this proves he was a careerist with no interest beyond self-advancement. For those arrayed against the leadership, Tristram's resignation is a loss of talent that reflects badly on Corbyn's prospects. There is no attempt to analyse or understand. Pigeonholing is the order of the day. The truth lies between these two poles, and I know. Because not only do I know him and have shared the local party with him for almost seven years. I used to work for him too. If you came here hoping for a denunciation, you will be disappointed.

Readers with long memories might recall the circumstances in which Tristram became the Labour MP for Stoke Central. The fag end of Gordon Brown's short tenure saw a scramble for seats as the 2010 general election loomed. Coincidentally, a long-running factional battle in this constituency centered around the local directly-elected mayor reached its climax. Early that year, the NEC intervened and put the CLP into special measures - in effect, the Labour Party's version of direct rule. Letters were issued to members ruling the upcoming AGM out of order and attendees were threatened with suspension and sanction. Said meeting went ahead and the whole constituency party was placed on the naughty step. The ruling on this came very quickly on the heels of the incumbent MP - Mark Fisher - unexpectedly announcing his retirement. Two months from the election and Labour was without a candidate.

Because of the special measures and because of the proximity to D-Day, longlisting and shortlisting was the province of a NEC panel. It was at this point that Tristram's name first surfaced, with the FT getting the scoop. Being foolish I didn't believe he stood much of a chance - little did I appreciate the dark arts of Peter Mandelson and how brazen the party can be when sorting sinecure for the favoured. I then thought selections were a meritorious affair. Pah. The longlist was a varied field of local folks and people from outside Stoke. And then came the shortlist: it was basically Tristram and two also-rans cynically tacked on so the local party had no choice but to rubber stamp the NEC's favoured choice. Seriously, I've interviewed dozens of candidates for the local government panel and I struggle to remember anyone worse than this pair. But as stitching goes, this isn't the most egregious. I digress. Tristram was duly selected and the Potteries moved into the light of a new dawn.

Locally, Tristram made a bit of a splash. The sort of plaudits getting heaped on him now echo those greeting his arrival in Stoke. Tristram had glamour, had connections, had ambition. He was going places and that made him a good catch for Stoke-on-Trent. He was lauded by local notables as a future Prime Minister, or at the very least someone who could open doors for the city in The City. As I was unemployed and despairing of ever finding work, Tristram was kind enough to offer me a job as a caseworker in the constituency office. Given the political distance between us it did give me pause, but in the end making a living came first. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. In addition to the casework, each of us in the office had a number of projects that aimed to define the shiny new MP in some way. For example, I was charged with putting together the 'Stoke Stories' conference in conjunction with the RSA to strengthen relationships between local third sector organisations, and lend any assistance and support the office could give them. Others over the last seven years included the backstamping campaign, the annual get together of local business leaders, the Maths Excellence Partnership, a campaign to save nursery provision, and securing an exemption for beleagured potteries from the renewables obligation. There were more! In addition to this, Tristram and his office got through a heavy caseload and secured some notable victories at the local council, with the DWP and sometimes (sometimes!) the government. Small shifts in policy or getting back monies owed isn't Bastille storming stuff, but it is important and makes a difference to those affected by them.

Meanwhile, Tristram was something of an object of fascination for the left. As one of the best known Blairites in the PLP, and being one of the few unafraid to (occasionally) avow himself a disciple, I always found it strange why he had a weird fan club. Was it the glamour? The proximity to Mandelson? His book on Engels? Far from getting a hostile reception, trade unionists in Stoke couldn't wait to meet him. I had self-identified Trots from elsewhere always asking after him. And even after that picket line crossing episode to deliver a lecture on Victorian civic culture and not, as per received myth, to speak on Marxism, he remained the left's favourite Blairite. Even if to hate and troll.

The mystery didn't end there. In person, Tristram is pleasant and funny, isn't overly posh and doesn't come across as a snob. But he remained an enigma both to his staff and the local party. Hand on my heart, despite working closely with him I cannot say why he decided to become a Member of Parliament. Nor, unlike Liz Kendall and her liberalism can I honestly say what his politics are. There would be many times he got up in front of the CLP to defend the Blairite commonsense about winning elections, of securing the southern marginals so we can help best Stoke-on-Trent, but there was never a sense of vision. For someone heralded as an ideas man, there were no ideas. For someone who was and remains passionate about education, I never understood where that sprang from. There was no patrician concern for the poor, which some might have expected. Nor a desire to get into power and reform our way to the New Jerusalem. Absent too was the obsession with power for its own sake - he never struck me as someone who had a personal hunger for government. On a number of occasions when asked about Tristram, I often likened him to the gentlemanly Victorian who was passing through Parliament on his way to other things.

The absence of politics was also the root of his mistakes as a politician. In the days following the 2015 defeat, he was shocked to find his opponents had laid the groundwork for their leadership challenges among PLP colleagues well before election day. As a result, the MPs not already signed up for others and happy to back him were quite modest. This absence of nous touched on other areas of work. As I wrote previously, one of the benefits of having Tristram as a boss was that he'd leave you to use your own initiative. He was not the kind of Member who took the correspondence home to check the spellings and tone. This also meant he didn't take as much of an interest in local politics as an MP should. Meetings with councillors were ad hoc and infrequent, local party strategy was something he fought shy of, and keeping the CLP happy wasn't a high priority. The latter undoubtedly helped contribute to it near-unanimously voting to endorse Jeremy Corbyn last summer. Unfortunately, like many Labour MPs, Tristram doesn't and didn't understand much the party or movement of which he is part, and didn't show interest in advice from staff and other local Labour people about how to navigate these choppy waters. He might have avoided the embarrassment of picket-linegate if he had, for instance.

Lastly, I was not surprised to learn of Tristram's departure this morning. Even before the election, local comrades knew my belief that if we didn't win in 2015, he wouldn't contest 2020. That became increasingly obvious after the Boundary Commission slated Stoke-on-Trent Central for deletion in the great Tory gerrymander. And there was the summer's grumblings that saw a local branch take a vote of no confidence against him. If Tristram wanted to hang on he would have had a torrid time, and not in a good way. The V&A position with its reported £300k salary has saved him from all that. Other Labour MPs in similar pickles are no doubt looking for gilded exits and hoping something like this will fall from the sky.

I don't bear Tristram any ill will. I shall always be grateful for the two-and-a-half years I carried bags. It was a fantastic job and, bleeding heart that I am, I helped a lot of people out in shit situations. We all did. But like him or not, the politics of his departure leaves the party in a weakened position and a by-election that is going to be difficult. Legacies should be celebrated. It just saddens me that Tristram's is something Stoke Labour is going to have to overcome.


jim mclean said...

Well, probably the best piece you have written structurally, like an A+ Eng Lit, Merit at a higher level. Great insight to the running of the Constituency Office. The demise of Stoke Central should not be much of a worry as it seems to blend in with the New Stoke South. UKIP supporters are going all out for Nuttal to throw in his cap, they do not realise they were a one trick pony, also many are under the impression a UKIP collapse would benefit the Tories, should benefit Labour and Liberals in this case. NHS should carry it for labour. A couple of us boring anoraks are trying to work out how Mark Breeze got a couple of thousand, what was the story on that. Oh more people want to canvas in Stoke than Copeland, something to do with Real Ale.

Karl Greenal said...

How did a great political party find itself so imbued with what can only be called dilletante careerism? Its only when one reflects upon parliamentary careers like this, that one realises that Labour has to change.

asquith said...

Speedy said...

" I often likened him to the gentlemanly Victorian who was passing through Parliament on his way to other things". Sadly I suspect you nail it. How about you stand, Phil?

Jim Denham said...

Have reblogged at Shiraz Socialist: second time this month, Phil: you're in danger of becoming a regular (I presume it's OK with you, given your previous kind permission).

Dialectician said...

I know it doesn't amplify the irony that Hunt was not teaching a module on Marxism when he crossed the lecturers' picket line but it certainly clarified his position on labour struggle.

Buxton Fringe said...

The V&A job will suit him well I hope. He spoke to a meeting in High Peak in 2015 as shadow education spokesperson and really had nothing of value to say. Not a great loss to the PLP and I hope he does a good job.

MikeB said...

I had to chuckle at the NewsThump headline, "MP Tristram Hunt steps down after accidentally visiting Stoke-on-Trent"

Blissex said...

«the Blairite commonsense about winning elections, of securing the southern marginals so we can help best Stoke-on-Trent»

That's indeed the common-sense: Labour can win elections as a coalition of (northern) lower-income and (southern) middle-income voters.

The New Labour "mistake" is that then they run the government for the benefit of the middle-income (and upper-income) voters, throwing only the crumbs to their lower-income base.

Contrast with the Conservatives: they win election as a coalition of (southern) middle-income and (southern) upper-income voters, but then they run the government for the benefit of their upper-income base, throwing some crumbs to the middle-income voters.

Blissex said...

«a great political party find itself so imbued with what can only be called dilletante careerism»

The Conservatives? The Liberals? :-) It is not just New Labour: the whiggish upper-middle and upper classes dominate the cadres of most parties nowadays.

«The V&A position with its reported £300k salary has saved him from all that. Other Labour MPs in similar pickles are no doubt looking for gilded exits and hoping something like this will fall from the sky.»

It can be a coincidence that T Hunt used to be Lord Sainsbury's personal PR agent, and the V&A has a "Sainsbury Gallery".

It may be also a coincidence that T Hunt is a historian, while his predecessor was a professional museum curator (who amusingly resigned because of Brexit!).

It can also be a coincidence that his main proposal for the future of the V&A was to charge a large entrance fee, as a commenter elsewhere called it, a "meritocratic" one :-). He seems to have withdrawn it.

I guess that T Hunt's main role, rather than actually be the director of the museum, will be mostly that of its chief fundraiser with the billionaires with which he is probably quite popular.

Blissex said...

«looking for gilded exits and hoping something like this will fall from the sky»

It is not just Labour MPs who are looking for this: it by now a fairly high probability that there will have to be a parliamentary vote on EU Article 50, and most Conservative and Labour MPs want to vote against, but most of their constituencies voted heavily for "Leave", and many of those constituencies are marginals, so any sitting MP who votes against Article 50 is likely to lose his seat at the next general election.

Probably to have a parliamentary majority against Article 50 there must be enough MPs "motivated" to "vote their conscience" and do "what's best for the country" even at the cost of probably losing their seats at the following election, and that might require around 200 *guaranteed* «gilded exits» packages; maybe even just around 100 might swing it, but I doubt it.

Jason Hill said...

It doesn't matter what he delivered his lecture on: he still crossed the effing picket line. To make it worse, he didn't seem to understand what he'd done wrong. He has no understanding of the basics of trade union solidarity.

Blissex said...

«work out how Mark Breeze got a couple of thousand,»

Not sure that needs a lot of analysis: about his 2010 attempt in Stoke South:
«Mark Breeze is the son of former Deputy Elected Mayor, Paul Breeze, who is also standing as an independent Parliamentary candidate in the neighbouring constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central.»
«'Our Labour MPs have failed spectacularly to fulfil the most basic requirement of coming together to put constant pressure on government to give Stoke-on-Trent the real investment and real chance of success it deserves. Stoke-on-Trent is in desperate need of independent MPs with unprecedented strategic power in Parliament, prepared to fight for our city without compromise or apology. The era of apathy and inaction must end at this election. The time for radical change is now.’»

With a message like that, being part of a local political dynasty, and the Labour alternative being Tristram Hunt «championed aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose», I guess some Stokies would rather vote for the devil, and indeed in 2015 7 thousand of them voted UKIP.

Boffy said...

I thought it would be good to get Paul Mason drafted to stand, but on his Medium page he's declined my offer, so I suppose we have to respect that wish.

But, its important to get a well known left candidate to stand, and for a big campaign to be mobilised behind them. Paul has offered to come to campaign in the by-election.

Labour needs a clear left-wing message in that campaign. The challenge from UKIP is being over-hyped. Yes, the majority was only 5,000, but Labour's share of the vote was nearly twice that of either UKIP or the Tories.

Suggestions the Tories might stand aside to give UKIP a free run are daft. That would be political suicide for the Tories, as the governing party to stand aside to support a party that has just one MP, and declining support in opinion polls.

As the experience of myself and Jason Hill showed in the City Council elections of 1983, when Labour nationally got trounced, a clear left-wing campaign with candidates who actually believe in what they are saying can enthuse activists and get out the working-class vote.

Gary Elsby said...

I suppose most of the 'factional battle' is more or less accurate but only Stoke Central was stopped dead and not the other two CLPs. The crime?, holding a AGM a few days early.
A AGM that wouldn't have altered anything for anybody anywhere, other than to replace a Treasurer that offered his resignation, but it was enough to stitch up the entire membership of Stoke Central.
It is suggested that a right wing Elected Mayor inventor would not have been the first choice of a left wing anti Mayoral Constituency. Because I would not have been allowed a vote in that selection process, I shouldn't now offer an opinion but what the hell? Tristram would not have won a fair selection contest and therefore would not have been the candidate, simply because he wouldn't have made the shortlist.
You forget to mention that the Labour Group candidates list also went into so called 'special measures', designed once again, to nobble a few notable members.

Devoid of meaningful internal scrutiny, the Labour Group had a free hand as the membership cowed in fear.
This has resulted in no Labour run Council to date.
Compare this with many years of the Labour Group and Labour party never being off the front page or radio at open war with each other.
The local Labour party 'shadowing' sitting councillors and holding them to account on all decision-making
We never lost an election and often resulted in landslides in our favour, apart from a few occasions.
In those days, cuts were outlawed, capital spending was natural and we invoiced Thatcher to fund our ambitions.
Not Derek Hatton style Liverpool demands and strikes, just natural Labour Party members doing what came natural.

Blissex said...

«elections of 1983, when Labour nationally got trounced,»

As in other places, the numbers for Stoke show in large part it was the consequence of the SDP split:

1983, 65.9% turnout:
* 21,194 (48.1%) Labour
* 12,944 (29.4%) Conservative
* 9,458 (21.5%) SDP

I guess all of you know the 2015 numbers:

2015, 49.9% turnout:
* 12,220 (39.3%) New Labour
* 7,041 (22.7%) UKIP
* 7,008 (22.5%) Conservative
* 2,120 (6.8%) Independent
* 1,123 (3.6%) Green

That extra 15% of non-voters are most likely Labour, but clearly not bothering with New Labour.