Failure to pass the snooper's charter would be a "resignation issue"

Alan Johnson throws his support behind Therasa May, in a potentially unwelcome way.

Theresa May is pressing forward with attempts to use the events of last Wednesday in Woolwich to revive the ill-fated "snooper's charter", if her appearance on this morning's Andrew Marr show is anything to go by.

The policy – officially called the Communications Data Bill – was left dead in the water last month after Nick Clegg withdrew his support for it, but the changed atmosphere could provide May with a chance to bring it back to life. She told guest presenter Nick Robinson that "Intelligence agencies need access to communications data. It is essential to do their job."

The bill would force internet providers to keep much more information about phone calls and online communications, and for greater periods of time, than is currently the case.

Later, on the show, former Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson supported May, although it was a double-edged sword. Johnson, who garnered the displeasure of many civil-liberties groups during his own time in cabinet, said that "We need to get this on the statute book before the next general election, and I think it’s absolutely crucial". But he added "Indeed, I think it’s a resignation issue for a Home Secretary if the Cabinet do not support her," a statement of "support" which May might wish had been left unsaid.

That's because even in the changed climate, the Cabinet is by no means united about the necessity of the Snooper's Charter as a response to the Woolwich attack. The Guardian's Alan Travis reports:

None of the measures in the "snooper's charter" bill would have prevented the savage murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has said.

The cabinet minister, who attended an emergency Cobra meeting on Thursday, defended the role of the security services, saying they had been "very successful at stopping a number of similar plots".

If May does stake her role on the bill, the fight could get nasty indeed.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.