Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. David Miliband may be off, but his values still matter (Guardian)

Losing the heir to Blair needn't mean a lurch to the left. His brother Ed knows Labour can only govern from the centre, writes Martin Kettle

2. Food is now the ultimate class signifier (Guardian)

Poor people are being fobbed off with food stamps while the rest of us watch cookery shows and eat fancy ready-meals, writes Suzanne Moore
 

3. The 'reconfiguration' of London is akin to social cleansing (Guardian)

Deliberate housing policies as well as high rents are driving those on low incomes out of London, changing its social fabric, writes Anna Minton
 

4.Cyprus crisis: why do we need banks at all? (Guardian)

The eurozone will do all it can to protect the financial system, at the cost of tremendous social misery. Is there another way? asks Richard Seymour
 
 
A Florence Nightingale image is not enough – the party must accept the need for real reform of the National Health Service, writes Mary Riddell
 
 
Sandie Shaw claims that today, she’d need a private education to make it as a star. Is she right? asks Harry Wallop
 
 
The iPast shall consider effectiveness, fairness and objectivity, and dismiss them, writes John Gapper
 
The interests of the eurozone’s large nations come first, says Christopher Pissarides
 
 
Managers as well as bank customers are feeling the pressure, writes Robert Shrimsley
 

10. New York’s wonder shows planners’ limits (Financial Times)

Unplanned social interactions are the key to vibrant cities and companies, writes John Kay

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.