A leadership candidate with a convincing anti-war record will do best

By Daniel Blaney

When Harriet Harman was elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in 2007 she addressed the party with an acceptance speech which included the following: “You want us to acknowledge the anger and division caused by Iraq. And we do.” In the applause that followed those remarks, you could almost feel the relief – that perhaps the party could recover from one of the most damaging episodes in its history.

Harman, a Labour loyalist of the New Labour variety, won the deputy leadership after transfers from Jon Cruddas who also spoke of his regret at voting for the Iraq war, and she offered a new basis for party unity with her acceptance remarks. Sadly her approach was not followed up by her colleagues in government for the period Labour remained in office.

The Foreign Secretary in that period was David Miliband, who penned an article for the Guardian published on July 29th, 2008, about the Labour government being “more humble about our shortcomings” asserting that “we needed better planning for how to win the peace in Iraq, not just win the war.”

Minimising a catastrophic illegal invasion by vocalising a mere tone of regret that logistics for a foreign policy initiative were not properly in place was political ineptitude in the extreme. Yet David Miliband’s remarks so far in this leadership election indicate he has learnt little.

Instinctive party loyalism may explain why some candidates’ approach to Iraq is simply that we must ‘move on’. But realpolitik requires something more substantial and demonstrative.

The Iraq War was a moral outrage that devastated Labour activists and risked destroying local parties. Any future Labour Leader must demonstrate that they know why people – both those who left and those of us who stayed – were so angry, and why so many others could not bring themselves to vote Labour again.

Neither Andy Burnham nor David Miliband have indicated any understanding of this. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have distanced themselves from the Iraq War, but it was an event so seismic that opponents of the war with any moderate level of political activism had no excuse but to actively oppose it. I haven’t yet seen any evidence that either did. Careerism or a job in the Treasury doesn’t justify acquiescence to the biggest foreign policy disgrace in Labour’s history and any political actor who did so needs to acknowledge that they were wrong to sit on their hands.

Labour needs a Leader who will advocate a new foreign policy – one which proactively pursues peace and disarmament. The party should throw its weight behind widespread global calls for a nuclear weapons convention leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide. Obviously Labour should oppose any replacement for Trident, but Labour also needs to question the UK’s military commitments abroad, most notably in Afghanistan.

Which candidates for the leadership can reclaim this political positioning for the Labour Party – a vital electoral space as well as an ideological one?

In the deputy leadership election in 2007 Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman signposted the contrition necessary and the following three years were a lost opportunity. Labour’s Foreign Secretary for that period must accept responsibility and his remarks so far suggest he still doesn’t get it. Ed and Ed may appear credible, but they risk appearing opportunist, though it is not inevitable and Harman has displayed a political nous they could learn from.

But a leadership candidate with a convincing anti-war record will do best. Diane Abbott and John McDonnell have put their names forward but there are question marks over whether either will get on the ballot paper. Abbott is more popular in the polls. A strong vote for a candidate who marched against Iraq and voted against Iraq would be good for the party. As for the other candidates, they need to work a bit harder to convince me they will be high up in my order of preference.