Tessa Jowell publicly criticises Labour party for publicly criticising itself

An impression of "toxic disunity".

Tessa Jowell has warned that attacks on Ed Milliband from inside the Labour party are creating an impression of "toxic disunity".  In a piece for the Observer today she writes that Labour's "so-called summer crisis" had been helped a great deal by Labour's own members, too open in attacking their leader. These were people, she says, "who should know better", as "publicly offered criticism is only ever destructive". It remains to be seen whether Jowell's own publicly offered criticism will do the trick. She writes:

There are complementary rights and obligations when it comes to the leadership of the Labour party: anyone may stand for the leadership, but once the winner is chosen, he or she is entitled to the loyalty and support of the party at every level. "Loyalty is what keeps the boat afloat; disloyalty the rock against which it breaks. And disloyalty comes in many shapes, most of which artfully ape the gestures of friendship. There is, however, nothing constructive in publicly delivering "helpful advice" which could be much better delivered quietly in private. For the public it creates an unappealing sense of toxic disunity.

She draws a distinction between Westminster's media coverage and the business of politics, suggesting, in her piece for a national broadsheet, that the party stay away from the former:

We are not commentators on a Westminster game of who is up and who is down, of who has coined the best soundbite or delivered the sharpest put-down. We are, rather, participants in a political contest whose outcome will affect the lives of millions of people. It is not the political class but our constituents who will pay the price if we allow David Cameron and the Conservatives another term in office – to squeeze living standards as prices rise faster than wages, to abandon families with elderly relatives and children waiting on trolleys in hospitals, or to take no responsibility towards our those of our young people who are without jobs or hope of a home of their own.

This comes as Meg Hillier, a senior Labour party backbencher, criticises the Labour party for its lack of an "Alistair Campbell-style figure", in senior advisory circles.

Tessa Jowell. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

David Cameron seeks a "clear majority" for air strikes in Syria as Jeremy Corbyn signals his opposition

The Labour leader warns military action will increase the threat to the UK. The PM argues it will reduce it. 

There is a Commons majority for air strikes against Isis in Syria - but Jeremy Corbyn will not be part of it. That was clear from David Cameron's statement on the need for military action and Corbyn's response. Cameron's most significant argument for intervention was that the threat to the UK from terrorism would only increase if it failed to act. The intelligence services, he said, had warned that Britain was already in the "top tier" of countries targeted by Isis. It was inaction, rather than action, that was the greatest risk.

Corbyn's response, consisting of seven questions, signalled that he does not share this view. Citing Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, he quoted Barack Obama on the danger of "unintended consequences". His question on the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK and of civilian deaths in Syria showed that he believes both will be increased by UK air strikes. Yet a significant number of Labour MPs and shadow cabinet members share Cameron's view. Corbyn must now resolve by Monday whether to offer his party a free vote on the issue or whether to whip it against intervention (at the likely cost of frontbench resignations). The third option: Corbyn voting for air strikes seems unthinkable. 

Cameron, who was responding to the recent foreign affairs select commitee report opposing action, had made a multipronged case for intervention. He argued that the UK could make a unique military contribution through its Brimstone precision missiles (more accurate than those of any country), that there was a moral and strategic imperative for Britain to support its allies, the US and France; that a political process was underway (but action was needed before it concluded); that the threat from Isis would grow in the absence of intervention; that the UN resolution passed last week provided legal authorisation (along with the right to self-defence); that 70,000 Syrian opposition forces and Kurdish troops could fight Isis on the ground; that the government would contribute at least £1bn to post-conflict resolution; and that the west would not dismantle the Syrian state or its institutions (learning from the error of de-Ba'athification).

In response to Corbyn, Cameron later ruled out the use of UK ground troops. He maintained that "Assad must go" but argued for what he called an "Isil first" strategy. "We have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands now," he concluded.

The political test set by Cameron was to achieve a "clear majority" for military action. He warned that anything less would be a "publicity coup" for Isis. There are increasing signs that Cameron is close to meeting his aim. In response to his statement, Conservative MPs, including Crispin Blunt, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee (who previously opposed air strikes), Ken Clarke and Sarah Wollaston, announced that they would be voting for intervention. But, as Cameron all but conceded, Corbyn will not be. The question facing the Labour leader is how he handles those in his party who intend to do so. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.