McDonald’s ban looks like an opportunistic potshot

What do Chris Grayling and Jeremy Corbyn have in common? From their politics to their popularity, right down to their facial hair choices, you’d think very little. So it’s as disorientating as it is disappointing that the Labour Party’s decision to ban McDonald’s from having a stand at September’s Annual Conference makes a comparison seem apt.

One of the few reforms from Grayling’s highly controversial, ideologically-driven tenure as Justice Secretary that has not been either reversed or put under review by his successor, Michael Gove, is the outsourcing of probation services to major private companies. Despite strong resistance from Labour, probation unions and penal reform charities, the Government is nevertheless locked into multi-million-pound contracts, which tie public safety and support for vulnerable offenders inextricably to the profit motive, until at least 2025.

This is an important cautionary tale for a Labour Party with a renewed commitment to questioning the role and influence of large corporations. Why did opposition to the probation changes fail so comprehensively? The only significant concession that was made, during the whole two-year process of legislation and competition, is telling. After months in which a major focus of the case against the whole agenda had been the mooted involvement of rival security firms and twin left-wing bêtes noires Serco and G4S, they were finally caught out by a scandal too far. In December 2013, two months after the competition for contracts formally began, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that both had withdrawn their bids.

There can be no doubt that this was a bigger gift to Grayling than his opponents. A central argument against his plans was nullified at a stroke, allowing them to sail smoothly over the line while the other side struggled to regroup and refocus. In the end, all that was achieved by building a strategy around a couple of convenient baddies, instead of the issues at stake,  was that the majority of the contracts went to a different pair of dominant bidders, Interserve and Sodexo- with predictable next steps.

All of which brings us back to Labour, McDonald’s and the difference between acting on principle and playing to the gallery.  As far as we know, there is no proposal to introduce new rules making ethical conduct a factor in who is and is not eligible to buy a stand or sponsor an event at Conference- only an ad hoc decision to say no to one particularly symbolic name. When lesser-known or more likeable exhibitors are not subject to the same stringency – charities can be guilty of very poor employment practices, albeit for different reasons – then the approach looks less about taking a stand than opportunistic pot-shots. Do we believe in applying our values consistently, across the board, or cherry-picking a few villains we know will raise the biggest cheers from activists?

Conference is important, both for Labour members and the various organisations who use it as a legitimate opportunity to meet people and market their business. It can’t be right for the party to accept paying customers at any cost, but selective bans are hardly in line with our commitment to fairness either. Instead, perhaps it’s time for a new, more thoughtful and innovative approach.

A transparent, consistently applied new set of rules on who our party will do business with could be a way for our party both to stick to its principles, and to have a genuine impact on real-world practices, despite not being in government. For example, it’s surely reasonable to consider excluding employers who refuse to recognise a trade union. Equally, asking all potential commercial partners to give undertakings about their tax affairs before signing a deal could be a proportionate way to act on something important- without forcing Labour HQ to become surrogate HMRC inspectors. More creatively, we could offer pricing bands for stands and room hire which reward those who have the highest proportion of unionised workers and, from 2018, the lowest gender pay gaps.

This row isn’t fundamentally about the virtues or vices of McDonald’s, or whether Labour has the right approach to business, or any of the other related and well-rehearsed concerns we’ve seen on social media. It is about whether we are prepared to get on the front foot, with new ways of approaching longstanding concerns, or whether we are determined to stay reactive and defensive – more interested in kicking a few people out than constructively encouraging change. And, while I  don’t suggest we borrow from Chris Grayling’s ideas, a little of the confidence and imagination that characterise this whole generation of Tory reformers might be no bad thing.