Harriet Harman speaks at last year's Labour conference in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Harman is right to go to war with the Daily Mail

Rather than merely rebutting the paper's smears, Labour's deputy leader is right to question its fitness to deliver moral lectures at all.

In an age of declining press influence, the Daily Mail's success in forcing its story on the "links" between Labour figures and a paedophile rights group (which is not a new one) onto the national news is a reminder of how Fleet Street can still set the agenda. Labour's initial response to the Mail's splash last Thursday, which branded Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt "apologists for paedophilia" over their alleged support for the now-defunct Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in the 1970s, was to ignore it (in common with the rest of the media). But after the Mail led twice more on the story, and columnists in other papers, including the Observer and the Sunday Mirror argued that there were questions to answer, the party broke its silence yesterday. 

In response to a question from Sky News, Ed Miliband said of Harman, who, as the party's deputy leader, is the most senior figure targeted: "I have known her for 20 years. I do not set any store by these allegations. I know she has a long and proud record of being on the right side of all of these issues." This was followed by a lengthy statement by Harman herself and one from Dromey, her husband and the shadow policing minister (Hewitt has remained silent). Then, last night, in the most public intervention from any Labour figure yet, Harman gave an interview to Newsnight (which you can watch in full above) devoted to the story.

While rebutting the central charge that she was a supporter of PIE during her time as legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (the predecessor group to Liberty), and the claim that she sought to water down a ban on child pornography, Harman also moved from defence to attack. She declared of the Mail:

It is ironic that they're accusing me of supporting indecency in relation to children when they themselves are not above producing photographs of very young girls, titivating [sic] photographs in bikinis, so, you know, I stand by what I was doing at NCCL and I stand by what I was doing all the way through.

And added: "If there's anybody, over the years, who has supported indecency, it is much more the Daily Mail than it is me - and that's the frank truth of it."

After the Mail's disastrous attempt to smear Ralph Miliband as "the man who hated Britain" (which Labour believes explains the paper's current vitriol), the party's figures are more confident than ever in questioning its moral legitimacy and Harman (invariably referred to as "Harperson" in its pages) has more reason than most to challenge its authority. In his recent profile of Paul Dacre for the NS, Peter Wilby published this memorable charge sheet: 

This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

But Harman's fightback was marred by her failure to express explicit regret for the rules which allowed PIE to affiliate itself to the National Council for Civil Liberties (which is not, of course, the same thing as the NCCL endorsing the group). Rather than simply conceding that the NCCL was wrong to allow itself to be infilitrated in this manner (as Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti has previously done), Harman embarked on a convoluted explanation of the relationship. She said: "They paid their money to NCCL and, at the time...well, NCCL takes money from any organisation which was a lawful organisation and any individual."

She went on to reassure viewers that the group held no sway in the NCCL but failed to simply declare that it was wrong for the potential to exist at all. This morning, Harman corrected that omission, with an aide stating: "She regrets the existence of PIE and of course she regrets any organisations' involvement with them including the NCCL. But she does not regret joining the NCCL. By the time she arrived, (PIE) were very much under the radar."

Harman's reluctance to issue anything resembling an "apology" was understandable. It risked being seen as an admission of guilt and as a validation of the Mail's smears. After banking her "apology", the Mail would next demand her resignation. But while now expressing appropriate regret for the NCCL's past laxity, Harman is, crucially, not retreating from the battlefield. She stands by her accusation that the Mail publishes "indecent photos" and "will not take lectures from them". On this point, she is entirely right. Rather than merely challenging the message, it is essential to challenge the messenger too. The Mail's deeds, both past and present (from "Hurrah to the Blackshirts" to "The man who hated Britain"), mean it is standing on the thinnest moral ground. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.