Does Labour need an anti-Cummings?

This is the first post in a new blog, in which I plan to air some political thoughts. Naive ones, no doubt, but there you go. You've got to start somewhere, even at my advanced age.

I've been thinking lately about the long road back to power for Labour. And watching PMQs and reading, I admit, mostly the Guardian. One thing I take from all that is the thought (not original with me) that Dominic Cummings has completely centralised government power in No 10, and this is now run in permanent campaign mode. Constant focus groups and data analysis, tight control of minister's statements, micro-targetting of media messages and a relentless focus on short slogans: world-beating, sadly die, schools open, Churchill statues, and so on. Meanwhile the work of Brexit and dismantling our democracy goes in in the shadows.

Here's my thought about one way Labour might respond to that. I think there is a need for one senior person in the Party, probably an adviser rather than a politician, to take on the role of an anti-Cummings. I don't mean this in a physics sense, someone who if they ever met Cummings would cause the pair to mutually self-destruct with a flood of explosive energy. Appealing though that idea might be. No, my idea is more like a football attacker marking one of the opposing team, so that whatever he tries to do our man (or woman) is there to stop him. I think this should be a full-time job, and this anti-Cummings would need a trustworthy support team.

It would be a tricky job, for several reasons. Firstly, the old adage that you should never wrestle with a pig, because you both get covered in shit, but the pig likes it. In other words, descend to Cummings-like tricks and propaganda, and we're no better than him. So the anti-Cummings should be bound by principles that their opponent doesn't share. Secondly, most of us believe that Cummings is the ventriloquist and Al Johnson just the dummy. No way do we want that model for Keir Starmer. We want him to have the best advice, but Starmer is a leader with a brain and moral convictions, and we want him to keep full control of both. Thirdly, this whole operation would need to stay in the shadows as far as possible. Something like wartime counter-intelligence: the more Cummings knows about Labour strategy and plans, the better he can dream up ways to sabotage them. Secrecy is obviously fraught with moral dilemmas and practical risks in a democratic party seeking public approval for its political aims. But this would somehow have to be kept separate.

What would an anti-Cummings' job description look like? Well, probably something quite like it already exists and we just haven't been told (which would be good, wouldn't it?). But my thinking is that the job should include constant scanning of Ministers' and government spokespersons' statements in every form - briefings, interviews, twitter, press articles, facebook, the works. Ditto public opinion, through polls and focus groups (don't want policy led by polls, but we need to know, right?). Detailed analysis to spot movements, themes, contradictions and opportunities. Ideally, also sources within No 10 - this is intelligence and counter-intelligence, yes? - so could any government advisers be tapped for information? Or Tory backbenchers? Or journalists with privileged access? 

This would need a range of particular skills: PR, social media, data analysis, copy-writers, marketing and probably many more. I'm quite sure a lot of what I've imagined is really just politics-as-usual. I'm just an outsider with no political experience, so maybe it's lucky if I've hit some of the marks. It's probably also very reminiscent of some aspects of Alistair Campbell's role in Blair's government, and of course since then people have learned from him. Control-of-the-message is now very much a Cummings technique, and you can also see rapid-rebuttal moves by Starmer's advisers after a Johnson lie at PMQs. 

But times have changed, the pace of news is even faster than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and the role of social media is much more significant. Campbell could rely partly on fast reaction to negative stories. Now, I think we need to be much more proactive. When the government are blundering behind the events, but don't care because they're ahead with their message, Labour needs to be ahead of events and also countering the government message before it can get traction. Ideally, before it is even spread. I imagine Starmer's team are already trying to do that, and we see some of the results at PMQs and in the media.
 

What may make my proposal different is that I'm suggesting that a single person should be appointed with an exclusive focus on following, anticipating, maybe even pre-empting Cummings' campaign moves. It's one thing to develop a clear Labour policy message and to get that out to people. We know the Party are already doing that. It's another thing altogether to deal with Cummings' ruthless and fast-acting propaganda campaign. One that is constantly seeking to open up divisions within the electorate, and to separate Labour from its support. We can assume the Party leadership are also trying to deal with that. But I wonder if this suggestion might offer an additional tool in the kit, one that has not already been considered.

We need a really effective fight-back. As I said earlier, maybe it is already happening. I'd like to think it is. If not, then it needs to start soon. It is a long road till the next election, and Cummings will have a lot of opportunities to lie, twist, cheat, cajole and deceive the British public before we get there. Starmer at PMQs and Guardian articles calling out Johnson's lies and distractions are simply not going to reach the vast majority of the electorate.