Miliband warns the Mail that it can't rely on "rogue reporter" defence

An echo of the phone-hacking scandal as the Labour leader calls for the Mail papers to hold an inquiry into their "culture and practices".

Ed Miliband has given a series of interviews this morning (and last night to LabourList), reflecting on an extraordinary week for him. In all of his appearances, he emphasised that when he responded to the Daily Mail's attack on his father, he was "speaking as a son, not as a politican". 

 

"My dad's not alive anymore, he can't speak, but I can and that's why I did what I did," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

While some have suggested that this is a battle he relishes, he stated again that it was not one he chose, but that after speaking to his mum (for whom this must have been a wrenching experience) and to his brother, he felt compelled to defend his father's "good name". 

The second point Miliband stressed was that he wanted the next election "to be about how we raise living standards, not press standards". He added, however, that in order for the 2015 contest to be "about the issues, not about smears", it was necessary to address the question of press ethics now. 

It is this that has led him to call for Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere to hold an investigation into the "culture and practices" of his newspapers on the grounds that what happened to him and his family (with his father smeared and his uncle's memorial service gatecrashed) was not an "isolated incident".

In a choice of words that recalled the phone-hacking scandal, he argued that the Mail could not blame "one rogue reporter, or one rogue features editor". As he told LabourList, "what is it about the culture and practice of the organisation that makes these kind of things acceptable? Because the decisions made by an individual in an organisation are shaped by the culture and practice of an organisation."

Many have rightly criticised the Mail on Sunday's decision to suspend two journalists over the intrusion of the memorial service, rather than forcing Geordie Greig and Paul Dacre (who serves as editor-in-chief of the Mail on Sunday) to take responsibility. 

Miliband has insisted throughout that this affair is "not about regulation, but about right and wrong", but the two are not easily separated. Few doubt that the Mail on Sunday's behaviour would breach the code of ethics included in the proposed system of press regulation.

Next week, ministers will decide whether to accept the press's preferred model of self-regulation, or that supported by MPs. That debate aside, could the Mail have done more to damage its cause this week?

Ed Miliband delivers his speech at the Labour conference in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.